6201C10 SHSpec-98  Sec Checks -- Withholds

     The process, 20-10, is used to handle psychosomatic difficulties, using
Class II skills and sec checking.  [20-10 is a process where ten minutes of
havingness is run for every twenty minutes of sec checking.  This is run for
75 to 200 hours before attacking Routine 3DXX.  See HCOB 11Jan62 "Security
Checking.  Twenty-ten Theory".]

     There is danger in sec checking by ritual.  You should do it by
fundamentals.  Here's what happens: because you don't quite grasp the
fundamental, someone stiffens up the ritual.  Then it stiffens again, and you
become a ritualist and can depart from effective auditing.  The thing to do is
to get the job done.  Auditing is what you can get away with with the PC.
Because you can't get away with everything, a ritual gets set down,
circumscribing what you should try to get away with.

     Model session is a good thing to use, except with a few pcs, who would
never get past the third question [See HCOB 21Dec61 "Model Session Script,
Revised"7].  You can imagine a case that is so critically poised that you have
to find out what the mind is doing in order to parallel it.  If you tried to
do a Model Session to find out, you would be in a cul-de-sac, because the case
doesn't have that much attention concentrated.  For instance, take a madman,
who could still be handled with basic sec checking.  He is insane because he
keyed in an insane valence by withholding.  It's not this lifetime that
aberrated anyone.  People say that you can't understand the mind because this
lifetime doesn't explain why people are aberrated.  Someone who is insane got
that way by keying in implants that he gave, to drive enemy troops insane, to
prevent them from coming back, plus some similar overts which developed an
insane valence.  Insane people can go in and out of valences very easily.  It
is the not-know they have run on other people that results in the withhold on
themselves.  So what basic question could you ask this fellow, which he could
answer to start keying out the insanity?  You could ask, "What don't people
know about you?" He would answer it.  It is so fundamental that he couldn't
help answering it.

     A case could be so attentive to its difficulties that it is already in
session.  To try to fly ruds would be to distract the PC's attention from his
case.

     With a deranged person, the "don't know" question works well.  It
cross-cuts the O/W questions.  When a case does not consider something an
overt, he will still answer up to not-know and will come up to recognizing his
withholds.  You can use such questions as, What don't I know about you?  What
don't you know about your condition?  What don't others know about you / your
condition / what you are doing?"

     Auditing by fundamental would be to restore the PC's communication with
society or the group with which he is connected.  You would expect a person
who is having a hard time with the social structure he is in to have withholds
from that social structure.  You see this in vignette all the time.  You
missed a withhold and the PC got upset with you.  It's a reversed comm line.
He has PTP's because he has withholds from people.  A withhold is a withhold
whether the PC considers them withholds or not.  For instance, if the PC
withholds losing his temper with people, it's laudable, but it is still a
withhold.  If, in finding withholds, you don't look for such withholds, or for
simple withheld communications, you will have a devil of a time keeping ruds
in.  The PC is a busy little beaver, sitting there thinking and withholding
critical thoughts, etc.

     Withholds are not confined to crimes.  The magnitude of the crime does
not establish the magnitude of the withhold.  It is the force with which he is
withholding.  So anything the PC is withholding is a withhold.  Anything he is
not communicating is a withhold.  When you realize this, you will get ruds in
with a clank and be able to assess just fine, and sec checking will go fine.

     Sec checking will fail if you expect the magnitude of the withhold to
give you the magnitude of the recovery.  It is the magnitude of the restraint,
of the withholding, that does it.  The way to find what the case is
withholding is to get what any part of the eight dynamics doesn't know about
him.  The way you have gravity is by withholding self from space.  Most of
your sec checking will be on the third dynamic, since it is the most
complicated, and there have been so many groups on the track.  But you might
do well to look at the others, too.  The second dynamic is, of course, loaded
with mores to violate.

     A withhold is restraining self from communicating.  The corresponding
overt is restraining another from communicating.  When someone is withholding
some action, he gets into the valence of someone who would do the action.
Moral Codes are patterns of behavior on all eight dynamics.  That means you
are triggering those moments when the PC was not communicating, perforce.  He
should have been talking and he wasn't.  That's what it amounts to.

     The ability of a thetan, in this universe, is expressed along the lines
of reach and withdraw, in various directions.  When a person should be
reaching and is withdrawing, that is a withhold.  Then there are overts of
omission.  He should be reaching and he is not.  For instance there may be
times when a soldier should have attacked and he ran.  These are overts of
omission if they are the reverse of a "now-I'm-supposed-to".  It all amounts
to failure to communicate with the environment, or restrained communication
with the environment, which ends up as not being here in the environment,
which ends up with the environment pulled in on oneself.  You could ask, "What
should you have communicated?" and get some marvellous results.  "Where should
you have been?" gets off effort withholds.  Withholding is worse than just not
reaching.

     A very withholdy PC will stack up withholds on a subject.  The tiniest
impulses to withhold will remain as withholds if the PC has a set of withholds
on a subject.  This PC will have loads of critical thoughts.  If you are not
sec checking, it's valid to ask a PC, "What are you withholding?" and if you
don't get a fall, don't press it.  But don't think he is not withholding,
because he is.  You don't have a missed withhold to contend with, but the PC has at least some laudable withholds.  That's OK; he can be in session.  But he still has a withhold.  You only have to do something about it if he gets upset and goes out of session.  Then you will have to find it. "Ruds in" merely means "in condition to be audited." You can always find the ruds out if it is your purpose to audit the case by rudiments.

     When you sec check, you try to restimulate the withholds so you can clean
them up.  This has an opposite purpose from ruds.  The auditor's mission in
sec checking is to stir up things the PC doesn't feel OK about communicating,
so that the withholds can be gotten off, because that is what aberration is
made of.  So be suggestive, knowing fundamentals.  Use, e.g., "What doesn't
_______ know about you?  What have you done that _______ wouldn't like?" And
don't miss withholds.

     The fourth dynamic is a whole species, not just "mankind".

