6308C08 SHSpec-293 R2H Assessment

     The original meaning of the symbol "8" has to do with money.  It
represents two money bags, one on top of the other.

     How can you evolve a List 1 for R2H? This has really taken some doing.
R2H is a process with a new rationale.  It is the case Level 2 process [See p.
414, above, for a description of Level 2].  It is not just headed at OT, but
it would give you free needles as a clear waystop, in many cases.  You would
get key-out phenomena that would give you the straightened-out track that
would look very like case Level 2.  It is really only a key-out, but it would
have the attributes of clear.  If you combined it with R3N, when necessary, to
get GPM's out of the way, it would take you to case Level 1.

     A recent policy letter [30Jul63 "Current Planning"] gave a series of
scientology levels [See also p. 479, re Scn-1 and Scn 2]:

     Scn 1:  P.E. level scientology.

     Scn 2:  Healing; care of the body.  Contains HPA/HCA.

     Scn 3:  Advanced auditing and academy courses, leading up to the
             phenomenon of clear.

     Scn 4:  Research towards OT.  This contains the present material: R2H,
             R3R, R3N.

     Scn 5:  Social, political, and organizational scientology, or what an OT
             does about it.

     The various levels compare with the classifications of auditors, which is
convenient.  It puts more order into the subject and its materials:

     Class 1:  He can listen.

     Class 2:  He can do CCH's, run repetitive processes, or cure something.

     Class 3:  He can make a better human being.

     Class 4:  He can make an OT.

     Class 5:  He can make a sane universe.

     R2H can be used at scientology Levels 2, 3, and 4.  It is phenomenal to
have a process that can be used at so many levels.  It would be putting a lot
of stress on the theory of ARC, to ask of R2H that it reach into Level 4, and
some holes in what we knew of ARC showed up.  R2H turns out to be inadequate
for certain kinds of work.

     The only frailty of R2H, given an auditor who listens, and a meter that
reacts, is in the list used.  If one specific type of charge was missing from
a list and you used that list on all ARC breaks, that specific type of charge
would tend to charge up on the case.  It would be restimulated and encysted.
Eventually, it would gum up the track and overwhelm the PC.  So the weak point
of R2H is the embraciveness of the list used.  LRH cooked up all sorts of
fancy systems and finally hit on the formula that would give an embracive
list.  It is very simple, like the itsa line.  [See Fig. 17] The full
derivation formula is as follows:  The CDEI scale has an upper and a lower
band which were previously missing.  "Known" and "unknown" go above CDEI.  You
never get curious about something you know about, so knowingness must have
disintegrated down to unknownesses.  Therefore, things must be unknown before
you enter CDEI at all.  In the Logics, we have had the datum, "An unknown can
cause a confusion," so that is how it fits in.  [Actually, this is not in the
Logics.  Dianetic Axioms 105: "An unknown datum can produce data of plus or
minus randomity." and 107: "Data of plus or minus randomity depends for its
confusion on former plus or minus randomity or absent data." may be relevant,
here.] The "know" at the top of this expanded CDEI scale is below "not-know", the First Postulate.[See p. 14, above.  The "know" on this expanded CDEI scale is evidently equivalent to "know about", the Second postulate.  "Unknow" on this
scale, then, is evidently equivalent to "forget", the Third Postulate.]
"Unknow" is not the same as "not-know".  You never get curious about something
you know about, so "unknow" would have to intervene between "know" and
"curious about", on this scale.  Below CDEI, there is a lower band: nothing,
an absence, nothing to inhibit.  That is the "black panther" mechanism of
"ignore it".  Man routinely does nothing about things.

FIGURE 17: THE EXPANDED CDEI ASSESSMENT SCALE

                              [GRAPHICS INSERTED]

Below that, there is one more level: falsify.  Falsifying puts something else
there, so that now you can get the whole scale again on an inversion.  The
"false" at the bottom of one scale becomes the "known" at the top of the lower
inversion scale.  So there is a known falseness, then unknown falseness, then
curious about the falseness, etc.. all the way down.  So you get perversions
of perversions, falsifications of falsifications, as you descend into lower
and lower inversions of the scale.  So, in this universe, one probably never
sees "know", but always a form of "false".  Finally, you get modern science,
based on the false premise that Man is mud.

     The pure CDEI scale wouldn't handle engrams because it was incomplete and
didn't invert the way the full scale does.  The pure CDEI scale still shows
only one band, say 2.0-1.0, of the tone scale, whereas every time you go
through one cycle of this expanded CDEI scale, you drop 7.0 on the tone
scale.

     Now you can look at ARC for an incident and ARC for an earlier incident.
To each level of the expanded CDEI scale we also add "missed withhold", and
all this dives you the List 1, [See Fig. 17, p. 463, above.] containing "the
totality of all possible combinations of charge on an ARC break," all possible
levels that will have all possible reactions for everybody.  So, combining
them, you've got attitude, reality, communication, and missed withhold on each
of the eight questions, plus all these on earlier incidents, giving you a
total List 1 with 64 questions.  That is how you would evolve List 1 if you
were off in the boondocks.

     You could use this schema by assessing the CDEI scale on the incident
first, then assessing the level with A, R, C, and missed withhold.  The
current List 1 is really the inhibit scale.  You wouldn't have to put in
KUCDEIOF on a missed withhold.  On lower level cases, some on the levels of
the expanded CDEI scale are null anyway.  You can eliminate K, U, C, D, E, and
0, leaving you with I and F as the most potent sources of ARC breaks, because
of the low case level with which you are dealing.  So for beginning cases,
this would leave a 16 question list.  As you go upscale, you find, after
awhile, that your list falls short, so that you have to add E (as "too
much").  Someone at case Level 2 [See p. 414, above] would need a still more
expanded list.  Don't have anything missing on List 1.  The Dale Carnegie
course is a course in the creation of and maintenance of false realities.
Psychiatry isn't even up to this.  Lower case levels probably need "emotion"
on the scale, as well as "attitude", representing affinity, in order for it to
communicate to the PC.  After all, the whole know-to-mystery scale can go
under "affinity".

     You might wonder why we don't expand this schema to include "overt".  The
answer is that O/W mushes engrams and ruins pictures.  Overts and prepcheck
buttons ruin the energy structure of an engram, because of GPM's, etc.  The
buttons are too powerful and fundamental.  It takes a certain amount of
aberration to hold the picture together ao that you can run it.  But the
buttons of ARC and CDEI only strip charge out of the engrams and make pictures
better.  Big mid-ruds are OK for use on the physical universe, as in ruds,
because the physical universe won't unmock easily, at lower case levels.
However, perhaps when the PC gets up the line into case Level 1, using big
mid-ruds on the physical universe would be dangerous too!  We don't want the
list to be too beefed up so that it mushes things up too much.  That would
defeat the purposes of R2H.

     The heaviest button on the list turns out to be "falsity".  That is what
the thetan objects to most, and it is also what he feels guiltiest about.
Falsity aberrates because it destroys trust.  It is part of every theta trap,
and it accounts for lots of ARC breaks with MEST.

     The way to get the most TA out of a list would be to go down the list,
preassessing it then take the biggest read and have the PC explain and itsa
about it [Method 5]. Sometimes when you use this method, some PCs will drag
the BPC that got restimulated on an earlier part of the assessment on through
the rest of the list with him.  Such PCs would do better being cleaned up
level by level, as you go along [Method 3].  But if you do it that way, the major charge that would give you a BD has been bled of charge to the point that this major charge won't read much on the list.  You should therefore take any change of characteristic as a read.  You get that difficulty in exchange for no dirty needle.  The best solution might be a preassessment that narrows the search. Too abbreviated a list leaves you with BPC and a high TA.

     Charge moves the time wrong in an incident.  The incident is charged,
say, because of something that happened in 1912, but the incident is in 1920.
You could miss this, leaving BPC and eventually getting a stuck high TA, from
the wrong date.

     A process that would be a TA pump would be: "Recall a worry.  What was it
about?"  From this you get a TA pump consisting of an alternating what's-it
and itsa.  This is not particularly therapeutic.  One other point:  What if
you had a PC who got TA but got no better?  His failure to get better would be
an apparency.  Eventually, he would go OT, but it could take thousands of
years.  However, you also have to run the right significances.  You also have
to complete cycles.  No case change may result from shifting processes on the
PC, that you were getting TA on.  With this happening, the case could still
get better, but uncomfortably.  Also, you can restimulate things on a case
that don't get handled for some time.  For instance, you could, early on, get
screen-restimulated engrams that could not be run out right away.  This would
be an unnecessary restimulation of charge.

     Getting better is not how the PC feels, but whether he is getting more
knowingness and more ability.  Also, current state is not a measure of getting
better.  For instance, a person may have had a good memory and awareness
level, and had it knocked out in the last between-lives.  This, then, would be
a temporary condition.  You have to review a case over at least thirty days to
know what the true state of affairs is.

