6308C22 SHSpec-298 Project 80

     "80" is a mathematical trick to say "oo and 0".  It embraces "all".
Project 80 has to do with organizational targets, dissemination, and technical
planning.  1964 will be the Year of Scientology for Everyone.  Organizations
suffer from loss of personnel.  One would be rich if one just lived and
persisted long enough.  If you are persistent, you yourself become a sort of
institution.  To "solve" a problem is a MEST universe way of looking at
things.  The right way is to find out, "How did it become a problem?"  LRH
operates on the basis that if he conceives of a problem, he is about
forty-eight hours away from seeing what made it a problem.  An organization's
problem of losing all its people is one that we have licked.  With all the
shifts and changes, we, the people, are the stability in the development of
the tech.  We have the material for Scientology 4 [Research towards OT.  See
p. 462, above.], making OT's, wrapped up, as far as research is concerned.  In
view is a wrapping up of the between-lives area, so as to strip out the
report-back mechanism.  It is a bit tougher than LRH thought it would be.
There are, in addition to GPM's, screen-type incidents and postulation-type
incidents.  The GPM's are all negative on the beginning end of the screen and positive on the leaving end, so the dichotomy makes them tend to collapse.  Some rules for cleaning up charge faster have developed, but it is all just auditing -- keeping the PC's attention directed to those areas of the track where he gets TA action.  That is the highest level of professional skill.  Drills for a thetan exterior is all wrapped up.

     Not everyone will reach the technical level of those who are at St. Hill,
who have been through all the developments and changes.  That is too much to
expect.  Auditors elsewhere are operating at different levels of reality,
which establish different levels of ARC for them.  The gap between our R and
theirs has been getting wider and wider.  So we are in an informed ivory
tower, with no bridge behind us.  That is rather important.  This planet is in
slightly different circumstances then others.  It has a chance not to get
tilted.  Things put here tend to stay.  Other nearby planets are more tightly
governed and are harder to enter, to salvage them.  They are invasionary
planets.  This area used to be controlled by the Espinol Confederacy, but
their return platforms are closed off.  That spells defeat [for them].  Is
there some other implantive system that is deeper into the heart of this
galaxy -- a system that is going to backfire against this one?  Probably so.
It is probably coming up soon.  But conquerers almost always spare the jails.
We can't bet on the preservation of earth, but we can bet on this planet
having a better chance of becoming a rehabilitation center than other
planets.  But what if we have left no bridge in the rehabilitation center, so
that everybody flounders around with no way to improve?  If you don't leave a
bridge, you will wind up with a group of people who are very angry at those
who might assist them.  That would be very undesirable.  We've got to leave a
bridge.  However, at present, our feeder lines into the public are weak, not
organizationally, but technically.

     Project 80 is the bridge.  It requires that we find what the public
agrees with and use that to improve their ARC up to another level, and that we
keep doing that, in order to bring them up gradiently.  We are not necessarily
improving their ARC with us.  We are just improving their ARC to a point where
we can hit another level of agreement.  The dynamics, various scales, the ARC
triangle, and the dynamic principle of existence -- all of these are too
high-toned for Scientology 1.  So they comprise Scientology 2.  [See p. 462,
above for a description of the Scientology Levels.] So we are back to 30-60
day HCA/HPA training.  This is only possible because of the discovery of the
itsa line.

     Some of you, as auditors, overlook what is a win for a PC.  Knowing that
your goal is to run out GPM's, etc., you miss the fact that the PC has had a
win in being able to talk to an auditor, when he couldn't talk to anyone
before.  The feeling that one is getting case advance, and real case advance,
lies in the fact that the itsa line is in and the TA is moving.  Get the itsa
line in and the TA moving, and you will get a level of improvement and result
never before achieved.  This has nothing to do with significances.  If you get
somebody talking about his health or his lumbosis, you find out that the
cures, solutions, decisions, discoveries, cognitions, comments, reiterations,
and hopes about that lumbosis, in their aggregate, caused the individual to
have lumbosis.  If you get them off with TA action, you get a recovered
lumbosis.  The condition could well vanish just from getting the PC to itsa
about these cures, etc.  This does not apply to broken legs -- yet.  Someone
who has been trained in getting an itsa line in and not cutting it, given also
some basic training in the Auditor's Code, the Axioms, the ARC triangle, the CDEI scale, etc., would have good results and wins.

     Scientology 1 operates at the level of: "It is possible to have a happy
marriage," or "If you want to get along with children better, listen to what
they say and let them know you heard it.  Don't just ignore them," or
"Employee-boss relations are mainly problems of communication."  In fact, you
should make communication the stable datum.  How you design this line is all
regulated by what people can go into ARC with.  You have to talk to people at
a level where they can have ARC.  R1C is a list of questions that you can use
to get in an itsa line.  Specific questions from this list could be used by a
Book Auditor to run on someone's lumbosis.  This could be done on a co-audit
basis and would get fine results.  That is the auditing level of Scientology
1.

     Lower grade Scientology 2 (HPA/HCA) can get fabulous results with R2C.
R2C is R1C, preceded by an assessment on the expanded CDEI scale, plus the
eight dynamics.  [See HCOT/F 17Oct63 "R2C: Slow Assessment by Dynamics", as
well as HCOB 17Oct63 "R2C:  Slow Assessment by Dynamics -- Directions for Use
of HCO Technical Form 17Oct63" and HCOB 31Oct63 "R2C: Slow Assessment by
Dynamics (Continued)".] The tone arm is used.  The PC first looks over the
CDEI scale to see which level best characterizes his life.  It might take ten
minutes and it might take fifty hours.  The PC has to see which levels
applied, at which times in his life, and where and how and which they are, and
how they relate, etc.  You can get a lot of TA on examining the scale.
Eventually, the PC comes out with a level, X.  Now give him the eight
dynamics, expanded, i.e. broken down into sub-parts.  He has to find out which
ones he has been most concerned about this lifetime.  This could also take ten
minutes or fifty hours.  Eventually, the PC comes out with a dynamic, Y.
Therefore, the question becomes X, Y.  The PC gets asked about the combined
assessments, e.g. curious about children.  The question could have a third
component:

     Considerations

     Solutions

     Decisions about

     Concern for.

So you have matched up the ARC triangle with MEST, form, and location.  The PC
will start off with ARC vs. ARC.  Then, when he can confront MEST, he will get
into the sixth and seventh dynamics.  So, as you repeat this operation, the PC
will go up the dynamics to the sixth and seventh.  This would be a way of
clearing this lifetime.

     Upper-grade Scientology 2 would use R2H, ARC break dating, and any other
process, like prepchecking, that uses needle action as well as TA.  It is a
retread level for HPA/HCA's.  So the line-up for Scientology 1 and 2 is:

     Scn 1:

        a)  Non-auditing: P.E.-level scientology.

        b) Auditing: Book Auditing, on a co-audit basis.

     Scn 2:

        a)  Lower level: HPA/HCA level.  Uses R2C.  Tone arm used only, not
            needle action.

        b)  Upper level: HPA/HCA retread level.  Processes using needle action
            and TA.

     Another element enters the scene: the ARC break assessment.  This would
be a specialized activity.  It can be done by central orgs or auditors in
private practice, to patch up field auditors' PCs, and, at the same time, the
field auditor whose PC needs this action can be nudged about following the
Auditor's Code, e.g.  about keeping his mouth shut.  Try to bring it home that
ARC break assessments need to be done.  We can use them, both on PCs and on auditors. You can keep a lot of co-auditors straightened out by having someone around to do ARC break assessments.

     You could have a course in which you can give a classification of HBA
(Hubbard Book Auditor).  The student gets a gen on:

     1. The itsa line.

     2. The Auditor's Code.

This course would also include testing and co-audits.

     The whole secret of our communication is that it is up to us to establish
the level of the communication that we engage in.  We have considered it
somewhat dishonest to put our communication at a level of anything less than
everything we know.  But it isn't really dishonest to say less then we know.
There is no reason to overwhelm people with all the data.  It would just be
out-reality.

     There will be snags in the program.  There will always be people who are
uncomfortable with motion and change.  These people will try, overtly or
covertly, to stop it all.  They will be the people who despair of getting a
result by doing the usual, because they won't do it.  They will be the ones
who keep applying unusual solutions.  Don't get your attention pinned on one
bad apple and forget that everywhere else it is going fine.  To do this would
be to embark on a crusade in an ill-advised direction.  Probably all evil
generates from too great a concentration on evil.  If you concentrate on how
the show isn't getting on the road, when it is in fact on the road, you will
contribute to keeping it from being on the road.  You should take care of such
matters on a routine, rather than an emergency basis.

     When we have auditing at lower levels totally shaped around the
definition of an auditor as a listener, we will have no trouble getting the
whole project well done.

