Subject: FZ Bible SHSBC TAPES PART 1 02/12 repost [x2]
Date: 4 Dec 1999 01:14:27 -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 02/12 repost

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

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-2  renum 2  12 May 61  Assessment

ASSESSMENT

A lecture given on 12 May 1961

[Based on clearsound only.]

Thank you.

Looks like an ACC. This is May the 12th, 1961.

Somebody hand me an E-Meter, would you? That's all right.

Now, I don't want you to get the idea that this course
consists basically of formal lectures. Of course, in most
ACCs, I back up the Instructors and I give them all the
information I can, but I actually seldom go over individual
cases. In this particular course I'm going over individual
cases with a finetoothed Ron. I see your auditor's reports
every day and try to keep it on the wheels.

But what can happen here is that you go around in a fog of
some kind or another and you got some kind of a burning
question or a big withhold or a dissatisfaction or
something like that, and I don't hear about it. All right,
if that takes place, why, the obvious thing to do is to
write me a despatch or grab ahold of me when you see me -
I try to get down here every afternoon. A despatch will get
to me very easily. It has hardly any distance to go at all
because you're in the middle of HCO's worldwide
communications, and we really keep them whirring around
here. We don't know how well they do in London, but here we
do fine. All right. Matter of fact they're doing all right
in London now.

Now, I've got to talk to you about assessment, and that's
what this is all about: assessment. Boy, I tell you, there
seems to be an awful lot to know about assessment that I
considered was a lead-pipe cinch.

Don't get the idea that what you're doing is experimental.
It is not experimental. But I'll tell you that trying to
find out what you do wrong with it and how to communicate
how to do it right is a complex drill all of itself.

And if there's anything that's being worked with, it is
that. But that is always worked with. That always has to be
worked with. How do you communicate this information so
that people can do it without additives or alter-is?

I'll give you some simple rundown: I say, "Well, you look
at the pc fixedly and sneeze and that fixes it all up, you
see?" That's all dandy. And then what do I hear? "Well, do
you sneeze in E-flat minor?" "What is the violence and
duration of the sneeze?" "Is this done in an auditing
session? Do you use Model Session form to put this sneeze
in? Or is it a special form?" "Now, this, of course, isn't
bounded by the Auditor's Code is it?" And particularly,
"This changes, of course, everything we have been doing
before." Those things are pretty inevitable. Now, I don't
mean to be sarcastic. I'm just showing you what happens -
I'm not being sarcastic because this is too true; it is too
painfully true.

And it works like this: You, in trying to equate a
relatively simple fundamental in Scientology at this time,
are, of course, picking up a fundamental which sits right
in the middle of anybody's case. And you tend to blow off a
little bit of a confusion, you know, in trying to grab hold
of it. And it isn't as if I were teaching you how to run a
diesel engine. What little oddball ideas you had about
diesel engines would blow off in a hurry. I could teach you
how to run a diesel engine - very complicated - to even
you girls, you see? Just bang. It'd be hardly anything to
it. I'd show you: Well, there's this and there's that and
there's the other thing. I'd have to read a book and find
out how myself first. But that would be very easy. But that
isn't what we're teaching.

And the data that we're teaching goes straight into the
middle of a reactive computation.

SOP Goals, right here at this minute, is doing this exact
thing and nothing else: It is exactly reversing how the
mind got aberrated and it reverses that exact process. Now,
I'm not trying to hand out any stink cabbages to myself
about this having been a hot piece of mental
prestidigitation to get this job done.

The best evidence of that is the fact that it had not been
done before.

All I'm trying to do here is show you that the most hidden
factors of the mind were, of course, the things that
aberrated the mind, because nobody has ever freed a mind
before. So therefore, they must have been the most
concealed or they would have gotten as-ised. Just as simple
as that, see? Almost anybody could have come along and
as-ised them if they hadn't been very hidden.

So although SOP Goals, at first glance, looks very simple,
it is actually undoing all of the factors which made a mind
plow in, made a person's ability run downhill, and it
consists of all the solutions that a person adopted to fix
up oddball circumstances that haven't anything to do with
anything anymore ever, and probably had nothing to do with
it then.

Here is this little fellow, he's playing out here on the
hill, and he's just having a marvelous time. And he goes
around and listens to panpipes and dances with the goats.
And he's free as the breeze, and everything is wonderful.
And the next thing that we hear of him, he's a general of
armies, and he's miserable, and he's upset, and he's
eventually assassinated. What happened?

Who wouldn't want to have the kind of mind that could be
happy doing something simple? Who wouldn't want to have
this kind of a mind? Well, I don't know anybody who
wouldn't want to have it, in the long run, because
basically what you're afraid of is getting bored. Well, how
come you get bored? It must be what you're doing is somehow
or another insufficient or inadequate to the demands of the
environment.

Well, this little boy dancing on the hill amongst the goats
- boy, he must have been invalidated within an inch of his
life. It must have been proven to him conclusively that the
game of playing with goats was no game to be played, and
he's lost a very simple game in the favor of a very
complicated game which he never did enjoy. What happened to
him?

Well, something had to happen to him. First, he himself had
to get somebody involved in that kind of a situation on the
backtrack. He himself had to take a little boy playing and
dancing with the goats and push him into a position where
he assumed enormous responsibility for him to have the
Achilles' heel, eventually, of falling for the same trap.
Well, you'd certainly never look for that because we're
totally educated to believe that everybody became a victim.

Now, I'll show you how far we've gone: Dick was commenting
the other day on the old tapes of the Philadelphia
lectures. And he says, "You're talking about - there's
comments in there about being trapped in the MEST universe,
and so forth. Well, we all kind of thought that at that
time, and it was sort of obvious," and so forth. Well, you
couldn't have been trapped in the physical universe unless
you trapped somebody in it. Well, who would have looked for
this oddball factor?

The psychologist knew the stimulus-response. He knew that
if you kicked Bill, Bill was kicked. That was a stimuli of
some kind or another. But if the kick was a stimuli, then
Bill was restimulated into doing something.

But he didn't say what.

He totally didn't look at the other end of the line at all.
What was the consequences of kicking Bill? It isn't a
stimulus-response factor at all; it's an overt - motivator
sequence. To get kicked in the butt it is necessary to kick
somebody in the butt. You get the idea? I mean, it's this
idiot simplicity. You had to open yourself up on this
postulate: "Being kicked in the butt is bad. And people
don't want to be kicked. I am a people, therefore I don't
want to be kicked in the butt, therefore I must resist
being kicked in the butt, therefore I am certainly going
to be kicked in the butt." And there's your overt-motivator
sequence at work in the most inelegant, stupid form.

Who would have looked for these factors? Well, over a
course of about eleven years, we've got them rounded up.
The proof of the pudding, now, is the fact that we can go
ahead and do things with cases that have never been done
before, with an accuracy - or if it is done with an
accuracy. We can do it with an accuracy if it is done with
an accuracy. In other words, we can advance a case
accurately - almost as if we set it up and say "It'll be
here. It'll be there. It'll be there. And this'll happen,
and this'll happen, and this'll happen" as a total predict
- as long as everything done with the case is done with
complete accuracy.

Now, we know all the things that have to be done with a
case. Now, there are only two reasons why people don't
clear. I'll expand that, because you are studying these
other things - there's three reasons why people don't clear.

Inadequate knowledge of technical application: That would
be your first largest heading. Person doesn't know the TRs,
doesn't know how to read an E-Meter, doesn't know Model
Session, and doesn't stay inside the Auditor's Code, you
see? Now, actually I'm not giving you "There are a whole
large number of these things to know. There are literally
thousands..." No, that's not so, see? I stated them all
when I just made that statement. Technical application just
includes those things.

Next is the accuracy of assessment: The assessment must be
done with total accuracy. There is not such a thing as a
slightly correct assessment. In spite of the Dianetic Axiom
that absolutes are unobtainable, there is such a thing as a
perfect assessment. It is an absolute - a perfect assessment.

Now, it is very strange and very peculiar that there could
be such a thing as a perfect assessment, because there
isn't any such thing as a perfect mind. Here's an
artificial perfection which you are trying to attain on a
case.

And it is highly artificial - extremely so. And it has to
be done exactly right.

And we're learning more and more how to do it exactly right
by finding out the things you're doing wrong. That's a good
way to learn though, isn't it?

Don't make blunders, though, to teach other people. We
don't need those; we got enough blunders at the present
time. I have no insufficiency of havingness of blunders.

All right. What do people have to know? Well, evidently you
have to invent certain things....

And just to conclude this three: The third one is an
incomplete Prehav Scale. You don't have the full Prehav
Scale at this moment, and there could be the possibility
that cases could hang up for a missing link in the Prehav
Scale.

But that is not very serious, because if you have a perfect
assessment and the case hung up in clearing when you did
get the big, full-dress Prehav Scale, all that would be
necessary to do is level those levels on the Prehav Scale
that have not been flattened, because they weren't there,
and the case will blow through to Clear. I mean, it's as
easy as that. All you've done is put a little bit of a wait
on the line. Well, man has been waiting, on this planet
alone, for several thousand years, so I think we can stand
a few days.

I got two stenographers typing themselves ragged right now
trying to get that scale for you, just as though man hasn't
been waiting for it for that long.

Well, how do you do a right assessment? If that is the most
single important thing to do, how do you do it? Well,
apparently there's at the present time as many ways to do
an assessment, almost, as there are people - apparently.
There are lots of ways to do assessments.

Well, the more I look at it, the more it narrows down to
the solemn fact that there's only one way to do an
assessment to achieve a perfect assessment. I haven't
really found any question about it. It isn't "Well, you
could do this or you could do that." That isn't the case.
Every time you look over two things you could do with an
assessment, one inevitably emerges as infinitely superior
to the other. It sorts itself out. We might not know, at
this instant, everything there is to know that we have to
tell you so that you will never make a mistake on an
assessment. See, you might still be able to invent one.
See, there might be something there that never quite gets
through. I'm not being sarcastic; there's a distinct
possibility this is the case.

Therefore, we have to take every precaution that this
doesn't happen.

Now, the first thing, then, you must know is that in SOP
Goals there is no such thing as a nearly correct
assessment. There is only one correct assessment. It is an
absolute. Now, we said absolutes were unobtainable, but
remember, we're only attaining an absolute upon an
aberration. And that's very easy to do.

There is one assessment for one case and that is it. Now,
what's odd is, in the first few days of running of a case
- I'd say in the first few hours of run; anything up to
thirty, forty hours of run - do you know that you can
reassess at any time and get the same assessment? You know
that you can always reassess. The auditing of an incorrect
assessment does not wipe out the correct assessment. That's
another lead-pipe fact. You can just wrap around that and
hug it to your bosom because it's a very fortunate fact for
you. It is extremely fortunate.

It means that you can make a mistake with a case and audit
it for some little time - 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 180 hours -
and still do a right assessment on the case afterwards.
Isn't that fascinating?

Of course, you're going to have trouble with the case the
whole distance.

He's going to be ARC breaky and blow-out-the-windowy, and
he's going to be this and he's going to be that. And he may
be upset or not progressing. The whole Prehav Scale may be
getting kind of live and hotted up, and we can't quite
figure out why the whole scale is getting hotter and
hotter. It's just incorrect assessment.

So there might be difficulties in trying to hold somebody
still and audit them on an improper assessment that only
technical skill could overcome.

And it isn't true that an absolutely perfect assessment
always audits with perfect ease. See, that has its bumps
too, because you may make a technical blunder, or something
of this sort, as you run, that you'll have to patch up like
mad, and the case is pretty trembly.

Now, let's take a good look at this. If you can always do a
right assessment, even if a wrong one has been done, then
the answer to vast difficulties which you're having with a
case (or auditing a case for 30, 40, 50 hours without
marked and distinct improvement) has as its answer -.
Those are the difficulties: auditing a case, and the case
is just having one awful, horrible time, and you just
practically can't hold the case in session, and the case is
all ARC broke, and all of this stuff is going on. Answer?
Reassess, perfectly.

All right. A wrong assessment: It was one of these
almost-right assessments. If you'd just asked one more
question or just two more goals it would have been right.
But you missed that. No criticism here of having missed it.

Only, if you get out of here and start missing assessments
and I start hearing about it back over the lines again,
I'll write the postmaster and have him turn in your thetan.

But if you did an almost-correct assessment and the case
apparently ran but just seemed to go on running -. That
would be the symptom: The case just seems to go on running
forever and seems about to put in the next 280 hours going
the same way. No marked change is occurring for every given
12 to 15, 20 hours of auditing, see'? No marked change on
SOP Goals. Answer: Reassess.

Difficulties with SOP Goals would come about through your
inability to apply things right technically. Let's say your
TRs are all out. And you sit there, and you look at your
E-Meter, and it's all sort of cross-eyed. And this thing
keeps falling madly. The E-Meter keeps falling, and it
keeps falling.

And you say, "Peanuts?" You see? It's - you say,
"Peanuts?" And there it goes.

You say "Peanuts?" There it goes. And you say, "Well,
peanuts are sure null." You can make a technical blunder of
this character, you see, and get all wound up in a ball if
your confront is bad. Your pc may ARC break consistently
and continually through just horribly bad technology, I
mean a terribly poor administration of the TRs, Model
Session and E-Metering. You're missing the living daylights
out of the rudiments. You know, the man drops off the pin
on a PT problem, and you say, "Well, that's flat." "Do you
have a PT problem?" bang! "Well, that's flat. I'm glad we
haven't got to handle a PT problem today." And then your pc
starts blowing out of session and getting snarly, and so
forth. Oh, you can make those blunders.

But the symptom of an imperfect assessment is you, with
nearly perfect handling of Model Session, TRs and E-Meter,
have one hell of a time keeping him in-session and he's
always ARC broke with you. That's the result of an
imperfect assessment. It's not a correct assessment, that's
all. The thing to do is reassess.

Now, let's answer this question: Do we care how much time
you spend doing an assessment? No. We do not care. There
are ways to do assessments more rapidly, but there is no
such thing as doing an assessment more accurately. You can
be very slippy doing an assessment. You can be quite rapid.

You can be quite positive and very easy and very sure of
yourself and come out with the exact answer at the other
end. Or you can go at it slowly and ploddingly and chopping
it all up and chewing everything up and spitting it all out
and grinding, and so forth. If your Model Session's any
good, you can keep the pc in-session, no matter how grim he
thinks this is. But I don't care if you took 25 to 50 hours
doing an assessment; I would much rather you did a perfect
assessment than a fast, imperfect one.

For instance, I wouldn't care in an HGC if they took a
whole intensive of 25 hours just to do one assessment. I
wouldn't care. Or if this situation took place, I would
consider this perfectly all right: A fellow does an
assessment; it takes him 8 or 9 hours, or 10 or 12 hours,
or something like this. And he did an assessment on this
pc; he runs the pc for 5 or 6 hours and there's no change
and there's no gain on the pc. I wouldn't take it amiss at
all if he just scrapped that original assessment - and
neither should even a paying pc - scrapped that original
assessment and did another assessment from scratch.

Doing assessment saves time, because the accuracy of the
assessment, if perfect, prevents an infinity of auditing
hours without clearing. So you have - well look, you'd
have a thousand hours of an assessment would at least be a
finite number of hours of processing. And if an assessment
took a thousand hours to do a perfect assessment - that's
utterly ridiculous, but if it did, it would still be better
than doing a sloppy, fast one. A thousand-hour assessment
would probably clear the fellow in a hundred or two, you
see? So you'd have the totality of time in auditing: a
finite period of twelve hundred hours.

But an imperfect assessment would give you an infinity of
auditing hours, and that would be that. And this is the
arithmetic that has to do with an assessment. He just never
would get Clear. So there's no finite auditing period to an
imperfect assessment. It will go on forever. And that is
that! And it'll be very rough auditing too. And it'll just
go on forever. Now, there is the advantage, then, of a
perfect assessment.

How long should an assessment take? Well, when you're
learning how, it's going to take a lot longer than when you
don't have so many doubts and questions in your mind,
naturally. I wouldn't even criticize you for a moment if it
took you 15 hours to assess somebody. I wouldn't criticize
you. It wouldn't even occur to me to criticize you.

But if you took 25 hours to assess somebody and then got
the improper assessment, and it was way off the gun and off
the beam, and then you say, "Well, I want to get on with
auditing him so..." I would not be critical; I would again
write the postmaster, and I would say "Please deliver
one..." There's your situation. Do you see the order of
magnitude and how this thing sets up? Do you see how this
is? Hm? Well please, if you don't learn anything else,
learn that, because it's your foremost datum - the
foremost datum which you have, and which I know now is
absolutely true. This is one of those weird, big truths -.
It's only true as far as auditing is concerned; it's only
true as far as clearing is concerned; but, within that
framework, it is one gargantuan truth! A perfect assessment
is the only assessment that you can afford to do on the pc,
regardless of time, effort, difficulty, money or anything
else. It's the one that you can afford to do. It is the
only one he can afford. If you were charging five hundred
pounds for an intensive, and it took you 3 intensives to
assess the pc, and it cost him fifteen hundred pounds to
get a perfect assessment, do you realize that would be cheap?
Hm? But that - regardless of what you got for an intensive,
if he charged you a hundred pounds for 25 hours and did the
assessment in 3 hours and did a wrong one, he's a thief.
That is a complete waste of money. An imperfect assessment
would be a complete waste of money. That's all there is to
it.

Any auditing done now on SOP Goals - not preparing a case,
not getting a fellow over his mother-in-law trouble, or any
of the old-type of auditing that we have done; we're now
talking about clearing people directly and overtly - any
effort put onto clearing somebody, from the level of
first-assessment, SOP Goals on, that does not result in a
perfect assessment is wasted, and will continue to be
wasted from there on out. The answer is assess perfectly,
assess 100 percent.

Now, is there a way to assess? Is there an actual routine
which is so precise that somebody could sit and look at you
for 10 minutes and tell whether or not you were doing a
correct assessment or not? Yes, such a system exists. It's
not down on paper. There's a high probability that it can
be stated on paper, that it actually could be followed
stated on paper. But that gives you a high probability that
it'll probably never be followed. Because we're dealing
with the basic stuff of which the reactive mind is composed.

And that on this subject more than any other subject, you
are going to find more confusion, more silly questions -
well, don't get mad at them. You realize that you're trying
to lay into somebody a datum which restimulates the whole
confounded reactive bank, boom! Just like that. I mean, you
know, it's - you're right there in the middle of it.

Now, he went down the track this way. I will tell you now
how to do one.

The pc went down the track. So he was out there one day
walking down a road, and he saw a little boy playing with
the goats, and the little boy appeared to be very happy.
And he was very grumpy that day, or just for the hell of
it, he zapped the little boy. And he went on for a few
centuries, and one day he was out there playing on the hill
with the goats, and the king's men came along and wiped out
all the goats and beat him and threw him amongst the dead.
And he came to himself and decided that the thing to do was
to rule king's men. Or maybe he decided the thing to do was
to be a very rich merchant so that you could buy all the
goats and the soldiers could just slaughter the goats ad
nauseam and you still wouldn't run out of goats.

But you've altered his beingness because he has had to
solve a problem, and the basic solution to the problem was
a new beingness which gave him a new game. And a game
consisted of beingness, doingness and havingness.

Those are the components of the game. But he is now not
being himself; he is being a solution to the problem of
living.

And then one day (he became a merchant, let us say) pirates
jumped upon all his cargoes as they were on the high seas
and wiped him out, and pauperized him utterly and
completely so that he went around whining, starving;
children were sold into slavery, or anything else happened
to him.

And he decides then that he knows how to be a merchant: The
way you should be a merchant is to be a naval captain.

Now, what an oddball situation this is! You have a fellow
who wanted to be a merchant who actually is being a naval
captain. Well, actually, most military lines, or naval
lines, get into it in more or less this groove. And you'll
find them then getting very close to commercial lines, but
then they began to despise and have enormous contempt for
commercial lines, and they won't have anything at all to do
with commercial lines, don't you see?

So what do we see? We see a fellow who is now in a tertiary
condition with regard to his game, which was playing with
goats on a hill. There he is stomping up and down his
quarterdeck saying "Flog 'em!" And then one day, he is
overcome by storms, battles, winds, everything else after
long periods of time with this beingness and this game, and
he decides the thing to be is a weatherman so that you can
foretell storms. Now what game is he in? Now you're in the
fourth position.

Now, it just literally took thousands of years - don't
think this happens fast - it took thousands of years for
him to make these shifts.

What beingness is real to this pc? What does he now
consider a game?

What does he think he has to do to have a good, safe,
secure game? Well, as the result of all these beingnesses,
it's the game somebody will permit him to play.

Therefore, when you clear him without clearing up his
beingness-havingness-doingness games condition -
"be-do-have," "games condition": these things are synonyms
- all right, you clear him up but you don't clear up any
of these problems of the games condition. No, he's going to
maybe go Clear, and then he's going to realize he has no
game because he knows what he has to do in order to have a
game: he's got to be able to foretell weather. And although
you've got him very clear on the subject of foretelling
weather, he actually kind of moved out of foretelling
weather, and he knows you have to be pretty aberrated and
worried to really be interested in foretelling weather, and
he knows it's dangerous not to be able to foretell weather
and not to foretell it. So he starts putting the
thumbscrews on himself; which is to say, a naval captain
gets overwhelmed by storms, see, so he brings up this
engram and forces himself again to tell weather. And even
though you got him up to Clear read, he will now be bored or
upset. But he's really not bored, he's worried. He's got to
get back there and foretell weather, and the thing to do to
foretell weather is put the thumbscrews on himself of
realizing what would happen to a naval captain. See? It's
very simple.

And he goes un-Clear. He just dives overboard, just like
that, boom.

And again, he comes in, he's reading stickily on the meter.
Well, what has he done? To state it very simply - because
it can be stated mechanically, too - he knew that the only
game that you could play would be that game of foretelling
weather, and he knows you have to be aberrated to do it.

So it's less dangerous, he thinks - the jerk - to be
aberrated than to fail to play the game of foretelling
weather. That's what it amounts to. It's less dangerous to
be aberrated, to have no friends, to get every kind of a -
of a domestic or business scene messed up - anything that
you could think of, see - that is less dangerous than not
to be in the game of foretelling weather.

That's the way his thinkingness goes. So he goes un-Clear.

So therefore, you could use just plain processes on and on
and on and on, and you'd eventually get this fellow up so
he's reading on a free needle. And then he stays Clear for
a little while and then he walks out, and then he's all of
a sudden - clank - reading something else. And you say,
"This is the most mysterious thing I ever saw in my life."
And we explained it one time by saying you could postulate
himself - now he could postulate, and he can postulate
himself un-Clear. And that was perfectly true and is
exactly how he does it. But why? Why did he do it? Well,
that's the games condition.

Unless you have cleared up his games conditions clear
across the boards, he will continue to restore himself into
an aberrated condition.

Now, here's the funny thing: He really can't foretell
weather - that's always the hooker on this - because he's
too aberrated to foretell weather.

See, he's got to play the game, and so you have nearly
every human being on Earth today is in this condition of
he's got to be something, but he can't be it.

There's something wrong with being what he's being, and so
he can't be it and so he really dare not be it and yet he
must be it. And this emerges whenever you're auditing
somebody on SOP Goals.

Very shortly along the line someplace he will tell you,
"Oooohhh," he will say, "If I go on with just a few more
commands of this, the situation which I found myself in, in
life so far will become intolerable because now this goal I
have is about to be cleared away, and I won't be able to do
this anymore." And he comes to these fabulous conclusions
which all the whole -(quote) ha! "science" of psychology
came to in the States - psychoanalysis came to the
conclusion; psychiatry, in general, came to the conclusion
long ago - that artists only "art" because they're crazy,
that people only do the things they do because they're
crazy. Well, that is not at all true. That is not at all true.

People who are in a very good state of beingness, given the
educational data, are not going to not do it anymore. They
will actually be able to do it and have some fun, and do it
well.

I'll give you an idea. I had - used to have grave qualms
about docking ships. I can handle practically anything in
the way of ships, but I started getting them around docks
or around shallow ground -. It's quite visible what this
is: A ship isn't supposed to touch anything; it is not
supposed to run aground, you know? It's not supposed to ram
things, It's not supposed to go into cliffs, you see? So
most of the time you're skippering a ship, you're
preventing it from running into things. In other words,
you're preventing a ship from communicating. That's about
all it amounts to, you see?

And I thought, "Well, this is a very necessary thing,
obviously." And I was thinking about ships and monkeying
around with yachts, and so forth, and I was thinking about
ships. I got a little - a few cognitions on this thing.

It became very obvious to me, and I started to laugh at
myself, you see, because "Well, you have to be very worried
about ships in order to run ships." And I'd actually
stopped running ships because I was worried about them -
because I liked ships, because I wanted to run ships. You
get the idea?

And this little thought came to me as I was sort of
thinking this through and getting it straightened out -
this little thought occurred to me: "Well now, if I became
totally unworried about ships I would become totally
incapable about them." Puh! What balderdash! The very fact
you're worried about them will eventually cause you to ram
docks with them. So therefore, you've got to withhold
yourself from ships because you know you're going to damage
them. So therefore, you've got to run ships because you
can't run ships. See?

So here's a whole zone of now-I'm-supposed-to's which
wouldn't work out at all. Got the idea?

Well, I got this cleaned up and all of a sudden I realized
that, oh, I don't know, I can dock ships and handle ships
and do things with ships and run ships and navigate ships.
And all of a sudden it looked very weird to me: "Why have I
been worrying about ships?" And I'm getting one. Of course,
it's an old hooker, but it's all right, see? That doesn't
matter either. So the bottom falls out of it, so you take
to the lifeboats.

Now, here's the essence of all these beingnesses and
now-I'm-supposedto's (which is doingness) in order to have
something: They get into a can't have - must-have,
jammed-up situation, and a fellow has to abandon them
because they've been invalidated too many times, and he's
gotten invalidated in too many ways.

And there's this whole parade of these things: Here's a
game, the fellow is fairly happy with the game, and
something invalidated it. So he now goes into this new
valence and plays this new game in order to keep the old
game, which now he can't have. And now he's got this new
game and he's got all the beingness, doingness and
havingness of this new game, but something invalidates
that. So he takes over on the winning valence of a new
game, and he goes into this new game and the beingness,
doingness and havingness of this new game and then - so
forth. And he's becoming unhappy in life by this time, you
see? But that invalidates the old game. Now something comes
along and invalidates this new game and now he's - for
some reason or other, he isn't himself anymore. You see,
he's just departed from it. His communication with the
world has become very poor.

Now, in assessment, you're backtracking that exact "put on
the new valence with the new doingness and havingness," you
see - "put on the new valence with the doingness and
havingness." Only, people express these things as goals.

That's what - they express them. And you've got to have a
game that is real to the pc. And what falls or reacts on
the meter is what is real to the pc. So that is the first
game you audit. And there's only one of them that is
attainable or reachable.

Now, that's the oddity. If there's anything peculiar about
this, that's the oddity. How come there's only one? Because
obviously there are thousands of these things lying behind
him. Well, there's only one at a time - one at a time. And
as these valences go up, the pc goes down. And here he is
in the nowhere of the minus Tone Scale and the valence may
be clear up to serenity.

And therefore, he operates in a totally psychotic way,
while being totally serene. We know this case: The
theetie-weetie case. Totally serene, totally batty.

What's this all about? Well, the valence is all the way up
at Tone 40, and the pc is all the way down below minus 8.
Now, as you audit, the valence that you're auditing out
comes down and the pc starts taking over the control of
that environment and that game, and he'll find out that he
can play it, with this reservation: that he doesn't have to
if he doesn't want to. But before that he had to play this
game; he had no choice.

So you're restoring the power of choice of the pc over
games. And as the pc gets out of these fixed games, he can
now look around the environment and find out that he can
not only play that game but that he can play other games.
Now he's got more games. And if he's got more games, he'll
stay Clear.

And if he's got less games, that he really can play, he
will go aberrated on you again.

So the total stability of clearing works out to be "how
much horizon you lift for the pc in these given zones of
beingness, doingness and havingness." And if you lift them
all so that he's no longer aberrated along these lines, you
have a stable Mest Clear. And he'll stay that way.

The very act of finishing off clearing stabilizes the
Clear, because it's just more SOP Goals. More SOP Goals and
more SOP Goals and more SOP Goals and more SOP Goals. You
see? More goals, more beingness, doingnesses and
havingnesses that are plowed in. And they start running out
faster and faster and faster and faster and faster.

And the plight of this poor girl in the 3rd South African
who made the first Clear down there was terrible toward the
end. The auditor was in this terrible state. And she became
very, very worried and finally went and saw the
Instructors. For two days she had found a goal - she had
done a complete assessment on the case and had found a
goal, and it was the right goal, and she'd found the right
terminal, and she'd got it all set, and she'd ask the pc
and it had disappeared off the meter.

What was happening? They were blowing by inspection. And
they'd gotten to a state of blowing by inspection and that
was all there was to it.

What do you suppose starts happening to life about that
time? What do you suppose starts happening when somebody
comes in - your wife comes in or your husband comes in, or
somebody says to you, "And the house has just burned down,
and it's all bad, and the government's been overturned, and
they're shooting all your business partners," and so forth?
If that much bad luck would happen to you, which is
doubtful. It wouldn't become an engram. You would probably
do something effective about it and none of it would become
an engram. And that would be an interesting thing to have
happen, wouldn't it?

Supposing you got up even a little higher than a stable
MEST Clear and an automobile ran into you. If it did -
it'd almost have to be by your intention - but if it did
run into you, what do you suppose would happen?

You know, it's obvious that the only thing that keeps an
injury there is the engram you make of it. We've got a lot
of interesting things here to find out. When you throw a
body off of the wall or drop it off of a cliff, what does
it do, bounce? And then what do you do, pick it up and dust
it off? Or will dust stick to it? Can it retain an injury?
Ah, but all injuries are retained by mental image pictures;
this has been demonstrated time and time again in the last
eleven years. Interesting.

But do you have to have a game to be injured? Well, if you
don't have to have a game to be an injured invalid, the
high probability is you can pick up your body, throw it
against the wall, it bounces off - it just would have gone
splat! in a pale pink mist, you see, previously - pick it
up, dust it off and walk on down the street. Is this the
kind of thing that happens?

Well, these things we don't know. But we're right there
finding them out.

I was rather interested to get a letter from a Clear the
other day (I didn't receive it, but it was written to
somebody in the organization) and instead of saying how
wonderful it all was (beyond the thing that she's getting
along fine, which was a social statement), the whole thing
was devoted to getting the show on the road in that
particular area, and the various problems they were dealing
with and how they were settling them, and how we could help
out settling these various problems and straightening up
the particular area. Darnedest letter you ever wanted to
read, see? It's just all - "Well, we're being effective. We
want to be effective. Now, here we go. And we're doing this
and that, and you can do so-and-so and so-and-so." And
there wasn't a single mention of her case beyond this
social line, "How are you? I am fine," see? That was
interesting too, wasn't it?

How would it feel to go around getting things done and
never be worried about your case? How would that feel?
Would that feel odd? Never worried about your own reaction,
never worried about your consequences, never be even
vaguely upset by your - whether you were going to get
tired or confused or not.

Well, this is obviously from a person who if you'd said,
"Are you tired?" she would have probably laughed at you.

"Who me? Tired? No, no, not tired." "Well, you've been
working for forty-eight hours. I thought you might be
tired." "Oh, have I? Oh yes. Yeah well, there's a lot of
things to do. Now, I'll tell you...." So a Clear,
apparently, doesn't go up and sit on cloud nine. Having to
play the game is what prevents one from playing the game,
and evidently one can play the game as long as one doesn't
have to play the game. So that's the status which is
reached, which is a very interesting thing.

The perfect assessment is the first step in for a case. If
you've done a perfect assessment, the case all of a sudden
feels much better. If you've done an imperfect assessment,
the case feels not so good. There's that indicator too. It
starts in with a perfect assessment. That's the first foot
on the pathway. And the first thing you run into as a
possibility that the fellow is not going to make the grade
is an imperfect assessment, and then that will haunt it all
the way through. After that, you're in trouble from there
on out.

So it's a good thing to know how to do an assessment. Be
able to read an E-Meter; do an assessment; carry it on. I
don't care how long it takes you to learn one. That is
immaterial I couldn't care less. But what do you know? I
can show you how to do a rather rapid assessment. You've
been doing assessments which bid fair to be going on for
fifteen or twenty hours. Well, you can do them faster than
that and still have them that accurate.

But if I show you how to do such an assessment, I don't
want you to get the idea that I am trying to speed you up
in doing assessments, because I don't care how long it
takes you to do an assessment. But I can show you how to
make it a little easier on the pc and how to make it a
little faster for you, and so forth. And there are exact
ways to go about this in order to do this.

Now, I'll give you an example of that: In reading repeater
technique, which you use on goals and terminals assessing
but not on Prehav Scale assessing - you don't use repeater
technique to find out the level of a Prehav Scale. I think
I'd better put that on practically every tape we release
and all the information. Bulletins - maybe I should carry
it as a footnote on all bulletins, because it seems so
natural after you've done repeater technique, you see, on
goals, to do repeater technique on terminals, then - well,
Prehav Scale? "Obviously, you should do repeater technique
on the Prehav Scale. Everybody knows that!" That's just one
of these additives.

Now, obviously, as you go down the Prehav Scale you'd hit
all of these levels. If you repeated each level over and
over and over and over and over, you'd really grind the
fellow in, because you're auditing him on hot buttons.

But that's not true of the goals and it's not true of the
terminals.

So what's the best way to do a Terminals - I mean, a Goals
Assessment?

Well, it's to get all of the goals. That's the first one.
And then when you're sure you've got all of the goals and
you've been through the list one time, get all of the
goals. And after you've been through the list a second
time, well, you get all of the goals. What do you mean "all
of the goals"? Well, you always ask him if there aren't
some more goals. Every time you go through a list of
anything in the way of goals or terminals, you always add
at the end of the list, as the last kickup of the heels,
"What additional goals do you have?" And you run it against
the meter. And if the question produces the slightest
change of characteristic on your E-Meter, you say "What
goal is that?" until you get it. And you flatten the meter
every time you read a goals list. And you flatten the meter
for new terminals every time you read a terminals list.

You always add the new goals, because he's always got new
goals, until you get the right one. And after that your
meter is null on new goals, and it'll stay pretty null on
it. But after you've run him for a while on - you've got
the goals; you've got the terminal; you've got everything;
and you then - now get the Prehav, and you audit him for a
while - when you come back to do a new terminal, you'd
better do a new Terminal Assessment and get the new
terminals, because they - are now tremendous numbers of
terminals which add themselves to this goal you're trying
to flatten. And when you're finally finished up with
terminals for that goal, that goal is going to be flat.

Now, for your new goal, add goals, find all of the goals.
In other words, it is quantitative. Find all of the goals.
Every opportunity you get, find more goals. On terminals:
every opportunity you get, find more terminals. Quantity,
quantity, quantity. I don't care if you have a list of 1295
goals and 15,000 terminals. I just couldn't care less. You
won't achieve that. You'll probably cool off at the
absolute top of about 350. That's probably the extreme.

The most I've seen right now is about 280, or something
like that. But I did hear of a case just this morning that
had some vast number of goals. And it was all assessed out
and finally was assessed out wrong, and the question "Do
you have some more goals?" produced the goal of the pc.
Coo! So quantity hasn't a single thing to do with it -
that is to say, how many you get. It's quantitative. It -
you just go on. You get more. You see? It doesn't matter
how many. It doesn't matter how long it takes and it
doesn't matter how many you get. Just make sure that you
get it all And just make sure that when you do it, you do
it so that you come out with a perfect result.

And what is a perfect result? One goal falls and one
terminal falls; and you can't even get another goal, and
you can't get another terminal, and that is it.

Actually, the assessment has to be as perfect as it
mechanically works out to be. It's quite mysterious that it
works out so wonderfully and so mechanically to be just
that. It'll turn out to be "one goal that won't go flat
unless you audit it." And, of course, if you've got this
one goal and then you go over the list again and it
disappears, you didn't have all the goals. That's all that
means. And if you had your list of terminals, and you
finally had one terminal, and there it was, and that's that
one terminal, and you've really got it all done, and you
say, "Well" - just as an afterthought - "Well, how do you
feel about janitors?" and it goes null - what did that
mean? It means you didn't have all the terminals, that's
all. You've got to now make a new, additional terminals
list and find the terminal You have - all you - all
you've got are null. Well, then you haven't got the right
one, that's all.

Now, in addition to that, you have to find the terminal at
both ends of the goal. Now, what do I mean by that? The
terminal at both ends of the goal? The fellow has a goal
"to shoot sparrows," and this turns out to be the idiotic
goal that he comes up with. We don't care how sensible it
is or how insensible. That's what he comes up with. His
ambition and the thing to do is "to shoot sparrows." That
is it. Well, it defies your reality that anybody wants to
dedicate his entire existence to shooting sparrows, but as
a matter of fact you probably are not aware of the fact
that for centuries, for actually thousands of years, every
time he marries a beautiful wife, or something of that
sort, sparrows turn up in some peculiar way and ruin his
marriage, and we never can figure out how this is, see?
Well, that's his aberration. Don't you try to make it
reasonable; that's why he's crazy. Got the idea?

All right. So that's the way it is. So you got this goal
"to shoot sparrows." Now, when I say you get both ends of
the goal, I mean you have to get a terminals list for the
beginning and a terminals list for the end, because there's
two understood terminals here. "I want to shoot sparrows."
Well, the first question is "Who are you?" "Who would want
to shoot sparrows?" You understand? You get the terminals
list for the "I." "Who would want to shoot sparrows?" Now,
it's better if you can get that than to get the sparrows,
because this thing is the cause over the sparrows, don't
you see? But you might not get that. It might not be at the
"I" end of this goal, it might be at the receiving end of
the goal. The effect line here "to shoot sparrows" is of
course sparrows.

All right, "What's a sparrow? Give me another word for
sparrows." "Well," he says, "They're birds. They're
tweetie-weeties. They're our feathered friends." You got
the idea? And you take that whole list of synonyms for the
end. Now, but "Who would shoot sparrows?" "Gamekeepers
would shoot sparrows. And then there's cats." You get this
picture of Puss-in-Boots, you know, with a shotgun.

And you say, "Cats would shoot sparrows?" "Yes, cats would
shoot sparrows. Yes, yes, definitely." "All right." Well,
after all, this is - this is his terminals list, not yours.

So you put down "cats." Well now, that's the way it goes.
You get both ends of the terminal. See, both ends of the
goal is converted into a terminal. In other words, there's
really two terminal lists. But they all add up to just one
terminal list. So you can ask two questions about a
terminal. "Who does this?" and "What is it done to?" -
cause-distance-effect. And you get the terminals at cause
and all the terminals at effect, and you'll find out
they're both present in any goal.

A fellow says, "I want to have oysters." That is the goal
that finally came up: "I want to have oysters." You have to
get all the synonyms in the "Hinglish" language, and if he
was born a Hungarian, in the Hungarian language too, for
"hoysters." And you have to find out who would have to have
oysters. "Oh," he says, "Oystermen, fishmongers, uh -
princes, uhm - fishermen, uh - people who tend oyster
beds, uhm - little old ladies with green bonnets who sit
on pedestals, and uh..." Now look, it doesn't have to make
sense. If it made sense, he wouldn't be aberrated on the
subject. That's something for you to remember in all goals
listing.

All right. Now let's take another look at how to do a fast
goals list. The reading of the list is very important. If
in doubt, leave it in. That is a primary rule of Goals
Assessment: If in doubt, leave it in. The only mistake you
can make is eradicating a goal that is still alive.

Now, to save you time - to save you time - if it rock
slams on your first three repetitions of the goal or the
terminal, or if it rock slams on two of those repetitions,
or if it rock slams on one of those first three
repetitions, leave it in. If it rock slams, leave it in;
because rock slams turn on and turn off and turn on and
turn off, and there's no sense in you wasting time trying
to get it on again. If it slammed on it, it slammed on it,
and that is all there are to it. So it slammed on a rock
slam. Well, rock slams are very often sporadic. Leave it
in. Simple, huh?

Now, if you get anything like three falls, the same or
increasing, while reading the thing the first three times -
the goal or the terminal - if you get three falls, or if
it looks like it's going to go on falling, or if it looks
like it is going to increase its fall, leave it in and go
on to the next read. Do not try to flatten it. Got it?

But if in the first three reads of the goal or on a
terminals list - this does not apply to the Prehav Scale
- I want to get that note in there often - assessing on
the Prehav Scale is done at one announcement of the level
only. You don't announce a level twice; you just announce
it once and take what it said.

Now, if you read three times and it was off, it was on, and
it was slighter - you'll develop an instinct for this, (it
looks like it's going to fade, doesn't it?) - repeat it
more than three times to get it to null. But if by the time
you've repeated it five or six times, and it's now starting
to develop a good healthy fall, get off of it. Don't punch
them to death when they keep falling. Only knock out those
which appear to be in a declining, fragile state.

That clear? All right.

So the maximum test that you make is three reads of the
goals and the terminal with no Prehav. Three reads is your
maximum. Three reads of the goals list; three reads on the
terminals list, and you make your determination out of
those three reads. If it looks like it's going to fade, rub
it out. Keep on repeating it and get rid of it. And if it
looks like it's going to stay there, get off of it, and you
make your adjudication on your first three reads. Got it?

On the Prehav Scale, for heaven's sakes, just say it once
and mark what it fell in terms of divisions. Don't repeat a
Prehav level, because you're auditing the fellow if you do
- you're not assessing, you're auditing.

This is an old, old law, by the way. You think we've
changed. Man, have we swung back to the beginning. Do you
know one of the first auditing processes that ever existed
was repeater technique, you know that? And on the Prehav
Scale, do you know, that this - way back when, that you
could always say a phrase once or twice to find out if it
was hot without getting the pc plowed in. But if you said
it four, five, six, eight, ten times, he'd had it. You'd
thrown him right into the middle of the bank.

Your pc will actually continue to as-is his goals list more
rapidly if you follow the system which I have just given
you. What are you really doing?

You're going over the list more times, and going over the
questions less times.

It's better to go over the list more times and the
questions less times. Why?

By the time you get to the end of the list you will have
scummed off one entire chain. That chain will be gone. Now
when you go back over the list again, you're not reading
these goals now against the force of that chain.

That chain is gone. So these things that are going to
flatten will now flatten with greater rapidity. And you
keep doing it.

It doesn't matter how many times you go over the list, you
follow this same rule: Make your adjudication in the first
three reads. Are you going to rub it out or are you going
to leave it there? There's no great liability to making a
mistake. It's just you're going to fog up the pc, and he's
going to be a little less comfortable, and you're going to
slow down your doing your assessment.

We don't care if you slow down doing the assessment, and we
don't care if the pc gets restimulated while doing the
assessment. We're just asking you to be sure. But I'm just
giving you a system which will work faster. And it's real
slippy. There's hardly anything to this system.

You say, "I want to shoot sparrows." There is wording that
goes with this, and I'm going to give you a complete
wording of this and I'll turn it out in a bulletin. There's
no particular reason to give you the wording now. What you
have to do is tell the pc that you're going to read a new
goal (this is in essence what this is, whatever the wording
turns out to be) and that you want to know how he feels
about it, to - in order to put his attention on this goal.
And you'll shift his attention faster by having a little,
set patter there.

Now, I'll give you that patter in a Goals Assessment Model
Session. So there's a Model Session for assessments which
is slightly different - not enough to bother with because
it's the same difference in Model Sessions as you'd get in
running processes. You can change processes in Model
Sessions, so you can change processes in doing assessments.
You just put it in that slot.

That's the way you do the assessment. That's actually how
this works.

Now here's - here's the essence of this thing: You put his
attention on it, and you say, "I'm going to go over this
goal with you which is 'I want to shoot sparrows,' " see?
(Eyes right on that meter, see, because that's one
repetition of it.) "I want to shoot sparrows," and then you
say, "How do you feel about that?" And you don't take that
read. That read is null. There is no read because you
haven't repeated the goal, you've asked him how he felt.
But his attention is on this more strongly, so you'll get a
variation in these first three reads, so you actually only
have two more reads left.

You'll say, "I want to shoot sparrows. Thank you. I want to
shoot sparrows. Thank you." Well, the first time you said
it, it fell about three divisions on the needle, and the
second time you said it it fell about four divisions on the
needle, and the third time you said it it fell three
divisions on the needle.

Well, that's just it. You put a slant over there in the
margin. You just leave it there, and you say, "Now, I want
to go over this goal with you which is," and you read the
next one, "I want to shoot my mother-in-law." That's one read.

"How do you feel about that? 'I want to shoot my
mother-in-law.' 'I want to shoot my mother-in-law.' " See?
You can acknowledge it, and you better had.

It's "I want to shoot my mother-in-law. Thank you. I want
to shoot my mother-in-law. Thank you." And notice those
three reads.

And what happened this time? Well, when you said "I want to
shoot my mother-in-law," there was a nice, hard fall. And
then the second time you said it, there was a little theta
bop. And the third time you said it, there was a tinier
theta bop. So you say, "I want to shoot my mother-in-law.
Thank you.

I want to shoot my mother-in-law. Thank you. I want to
shoot my mother-inlaw. Thank you." It's null by this time;
cross it out. That goal you don't go over on the whole list
again. It's gone. Got the idea?

It's not just that it changed characteristic, it actually
looked like it was going to flatten. It looked like it was
going to change. It looked like it was going to shift off.
It looked like it didn't amount to anything.

Now you get into this characteristic. You say, "I'm going
to go over with - this goal with you: 'I want to shoot
sparrows.' How do you feel about that?" And he says, "It's
really eagles." And what do you do, scratch out "sparrows"
and put in "eagles"? No, no, no. That's wrong. He's given
you a brand-new goal. So you write that down underneath the
goal he just gave you.

So you say, "All right. Okay. We're going to cover this
sparrows goal first here. 'I want to shoot sparrows.' Thank
you. 'I want to shoot sparrows.' Thank you." This looks
like it's getting tough. You know, it looks like it's
strong; it's a heavy thing. So you say, "Well, we're going
to leave that. And now, 'I want to shoot eagles.' " And it
falls. And you say, "I want to shoot eagles." And it falls.
And "I want to shoot eagles." And it falls. So you say, "
'And I want to shoot eagles.' Thank you." And " 'I want to
shoot eagles.' Thank you." And " 'I want to shoot eagles.'
Thank you." All right, we'll take that one off! It's
scrubbed. This is quite ordinary that you'll get a sudden
alter-is in the middle of a goals run. Okay?

Now, reading the list over more times and spending a little
less time grinding on it will actually speed up your
assessment. That's in the interests of speeding up an
assessment, but these interests are not very great.

Now, what happens if you get down to the end on the
sixteenth read of the list, and there were only... See,
when you go over it the next time, you only read those
goals that have a slant in front of them which said they
still read. You use the same principles in going over this.
He had 120, they have now boiled down to 40, on maybe three
reads. He's got 40 left. Go over these 40, and they all go
null, null, null, null. "Oh, there's one. Okay, that one
stayed." Null, null, stayed, stayed, stayed, stayed. Oh,
they say, "That's fine.  That's dandy." And you get down to
the end of this thing, you ask him, "Do you have any more
goals," see, "that you haven't mentioned before?" Now he
says, "No, no. No, no." And the needle is quite flat on
this.

So you go over the remaining goals and there are now 12.
And you go over these things, and you say, "Well..." -
same formula - and, "Scrubbed, and that one scrubbed, and
that one scrubbed, and that one scrubbed. That one stayed.
Okay!" All right. And when you get over that list, you ask
him if there are any more goals, and he says, "No," and the
needle is nice and null. And so you go back over it again
and you now find out there are three. And you go over it,
and it's scrub, scrub, scrub.

Now, this is the kind of a problem you'll get into. That'll
happen less ordinarily than you will have one left. But
when you get into that, the proper thing to do is say,
"What other goals are you withholding that you haven't told
me about?" "Oh, that I haven't told you about? Oh, that's
different." For some reason or other, this is all different
now. Well, what you actually did was pull the goals chains
off the line, and you've simply been taking the overburden
off of his goals. And not until it was all gone did you
find you had some new goals sitting there staring you in
the face.

So you can add this rule to assessment: That when you've
got the goal, and you know exactly what it is, and you've
got it in a total box and that is it - you could set it up
in bright lights, neon signs, put huge seamen's floodlights
on it; you're absolutely certain now; you've got it
absolutely set; you have done everything you have been told
to do that you've learned to do and that you've dreamed up,
and you know that's it - ask for some more goals, ask for
some more terminals. And put them down and assess them -
first goals list, then terminals - assess them against the
one you had. Because I'll tell you this little rule: Any
goal which is to put up a mock-up (because of the Prehav
Scale) is liable to be a false one and is a dangerous one
to audit. And it is perishable because the result of
failure is to create a mock-up one's own self. That is the
result of failure.

So that you get into an arts goal, this is particularly
true. And just as a broad category, this most succinctly
and desperately, for some reason or other, applies to arts
goals. You'll learn a lot of this bric-a-brac about how to
judge these things, but this is a very important one
because you should always be suspicious of an arts goal.
The guy isn't even putting up a mass mock-up, don't you
see? He's putting up a figure-figure sort of a think-think.

He's going to write music. I wouldn't ever leave anybody
with a goal of writing music. He's going to sing - I
wouldn't leave a guy with a goal of singing. I would just
start beating that goals list to pieces! This is what
experience has taught me.

Why? Because there's always the thing you can do when all
else fails, and that's usually the arts. Now, isn't that a
hell of a thing? That's an awful commentary on the arts,
but I don't intend it to be a commentary on the arts.

The Renaissance in Italy takes place after it's beaten by
France. Nobody can now make machinery or masses or really
put up this or get a society on the road but they could
paint pictures. Got the idea? So they're going to start to
overwhelm with aesthetic masses. Actual masses didn't work
so they're going to go into aesthetic masses. And those are
closer to the thought band.

I don't say that a preclear will never in the history of
SOP Goals turn out to have an arts goal, because that's not
justified. I just say it's something to regard with grave
suspicion - not in life, but on an assessment.

If you go just a little further, you'll find you've
improved the case enough with an assessment that he gets
into a better goal channel. That's what it amounts to. Got
the idea? So that all arts goals - as one single, whole
category - should, if encountered, demand additional
assessment. Just beat it to pieces without invalidating
the pc. Ask him for some more goals.

There's all kinds of ways to ask for goals. I won't go into
those today, but "What did you want to do before you'd
started to sing?" "Oh. Well, that's not possible."
Claaaang! And you'll find out they usually have an answer
to it. What did they want to do before they went into the
arts? What did they really want to do?

Now, this also applies to these figure-figure professions
like law, philosophy, these other professions. Things that
are in a thought band exclusively and only, such as arts,
and that sort of thing - ah, it's a very featherweight
goal, man. It's pretty featherweight. It denotes a hell of
a failure just ahead of it. But that isn't any reason why
it won't turn out to be that on some pcs.

It won't - isn't any reason why it couldn't be the perfect
assessment in the long run. But it is something that very
easily blows while assessing, and you can find something
more solid to run, and your assessment has actually
accomplished some auditing. So it's something to just be
suspicious of, not something to eradicate.

All right, now let's go into this just one more tiny step,
and we will find out that a perfect Goals Assessment gets
the right goal and the right terminal so that the case can
be run. That's what it does. And there's only one set that
unlocks the case. And if you run the wrong one, you will
find out about it. So the thing to do is, if the case is
not running right, to do another assessment. There is no
harm in doing this because if the right assessment was done
the first time, oddly enough, no matter how violently you
assess on the second time (if you do it in Model Session,
picking up the ARC breaks, present time problems, and the
other things which you're supposed to do), you're going to
get the same goal on the second assessment. And if it was
the wrong one, it probably is gone by this time.

What mistakes, then, can you make in modern processing? You
can make the mistakes of attempting auditing without your
TRs, E-Meter and Model Session in perfect condition. That
leads and breeds many other mistakes.

Your next mistake is you can fail to achieve a perfect
assessment. It doesn't mean that you have to do it
perfectly with your little pinky in the air and just
exactly this and that. It doesn't matter how adroitly you
do this. The perfection totally consists of achieving the
result of the right goal and the right terminal for that
pc. Now, if you've got that, you've got it made.

That's what I mean by "perfect assessment" - not doing a
perfect job of assessing, because you could probably
achieve the right assessment by doing an imperfect job of
assessing as long as you were bulldoggish enough to carry
it through to its conclusion and to be absolutely sure. If
you have any doubt in your own mind about the rightness of
the assessment for any reason under the sun - except, of
course, that you yourself would hate to be that terminal.

We've already found that. Person finally got it.

And when you're absolutely sure that this is the only thing
that's going to shake out of that case, and that's the last
thing that's going to shake out of that case, and that's
the only thing that's going to shake out of that case, and
the only thing that can disturb this now is auditing on the
Prehav Scale - when you're absolutely sure - then start
auditing. Until that time, continue to assess; no matter
how boring or how upset the pc gets, or anything else,
continue to assess. Keep the ARC breaks picked up; keep the
present time problems picked up; get the withholds off the
case; get it whizzing, and keep on assessing till you are
sure. You and the meter know; the pc does not.

Now, the pc may speak during an assessment. But that's
practically the limit of how it enters into an auditor's
judgment. Now, I've had a lot of experience with this, and
amongst the experience is pcs becoming wildly enthusiastic
about some goal, and wildly enthusiastic about some
terminal. "Oh, a balloon jumper! Boy, that's the thing, you
know?" They're right in the middle of the wheeee, you see?
"A person who jumps from a balloon and comes down in
parachutes. Oh-ho boy, that's it. I know that's it. All my
life... It explains everything. It's just it." The next
read it drops out. You say, "How do you feel about balloon
jumpers?" "What balloon jumpers?" It's discouraging from
that point of view.

Now, I want you to do assessing. I don't care whom you grab
by the ear and start to assess. I don't care who gets
assessed. I don't care how badly they get assessed or how
well they get assessed in terms of technology - the waving
of the pinky, how you hold the E-Meter, the expression in
your left eye, to say nothing of the expression in you
right eye. We don't care anything about those things. What
we care about is that perfect assessment at the other end.
And carry it on down. If you do one of these, you'll find
out you'll give a case an enormous advance. If it's a
perfect assessment, the case gets an enormous advance. They
say "Coo!" you see, it's some terrific cognition, you know?
"This is what I am doing! Well! Well! What do you know!"
Sometimes it's the first "What do you know!" you had off
the case.

Maybe he's been audited five hundred hours before and he
never said, "What do you know!" He just said, "Yes. No."
And he gets up to a state where he really has - he really
has some idea of where he's going and what he's doing.

You don't have to tell him that's his goal. The E-Meter and
he will find that out. Now, he isn't going to find it out
until after you've found it out, because you're plowing
right into the middle of this fellow's beingness. Crash.

So I want you to do, at the drop of a hat, an assessment. I
don't care if you start assessments on people and never
finish them on that particular person. We'll get him
someday. You haven't loused him up. You haven't loused him
up. We can now do a complete assessment. You can take an
assessment that another auditor has done, just scrap it and
do another assessment of your own: If his assessment's
right, you'll get the same answer if your assessment's
right. It doesn't matter how many times you assess.

Now, the only time an assessment goes wrong was when it was
absolutely right and it was audited for a few hours and
that was the end of that terminal, and now you can't assess
for the same terminal. You may get some other terminal for
the same goal, but it already is showing up on the case.

The case is advancing if this occurs. The case feels much
better; the case looks much different.

SOP Goals running is very rapid, and you can tell the
difference in the people, and you can tell the advances.
Okay?

All right. Now, if over this weekend you have a person
sitting, innocently, and there's an E-Meter anywhere to be
found, you might ask him this searching question, rather
speculatively, "What do you suppose your main goal in life
might be? Oh, you don't know. Well, let's find out, shall
we?" That's enough excuse for doing a Goals Assessment.

And you'll find out that where people before maybe didn't
volunteer at once to be guinea pigs, or something, for
auditing - you might have had some resistance - you
almost never have resistance on that question about goals.

Okay?

Audience: Yes. Hmm.

I think Khruschev himself could be put into session with
this one.

Okay?

Audience: Yeah.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


