
SHSBC-302  ren 332  4 Sep 63 How to Find a Service Facsimile


HOW TO FIND A SERVICE FACSIMILE

A lecture given on 4 September 1963

[85 min]

[Clearsound, checked against the old reel.  No omissions found.]

[Note that there is an older freezone transcript which is missing
the next to the last page.  The version given here is complete
and older files should be replaced with this one.]


Thank you.

I'm very, very glad to announce that there are some of you
who are not in trouble. Thought we'd start the lecture on a
happy note.

What's the date?

Audience: 4 September.

4 Sept. A.D. 13. Don't know what the month is named after,
but probably something very barbaric.

Well, the shadow of your big toe has approached within
several yards of a service facsimile.

You remind me of a scout looking over a citadel which is
bristling with guns and quite hostile, observing it from as
far deep in the neighboring woods as you possibly can get.
And I think maybe you've caught the tip of one turret or
have seen a sign which says Citadel. And I'm going to ask
you now to be brave and even get out to the edge of the
woods and take a look at this thing, because it's well
worth looking at.

And perhaps the fault that you have not seen it is resident
with me. It appears to be quite lucid to me; it doesn't
seem to be offering very much complication and so on.

But I know what this breed of cat is. I myself have taken a
look at it and have audited it and have seen the results of
it, and over a period of years have had an unhappy history
of colliding with it. You know, you're going down M1 there
and you're wide open, you know, and everything is fine and
I'll be a son of a gun if somebody hasn't piled barrels
across the road, don't you see? And well, that's the end of
that one, you see?

PCs have always been full of surprises, and it's been of
great interest to me to find out how they create these
surprises. And so I'm very, very happy with what we've got
here in the service facsimile, because it is how they
create these surprises and what happens. Apparently there's
a great deal to know about this thing. And I have not, to
any great degree, relayed this information even in the
bulletin of R3SC. Apparently this takes a lot of grasp,
basically because it's terribly simple. And it's not that
anybody is protecting their service facsimile - you can
almost wipe that out.

You head a person's attention toward the service facsimile,
and they go right on in, man. They go down the toboggan and
over the falls - crash! They are no more able to keep out of
the service facsimile than anything. And you needn't erect,
now, a structure of philosophy to explain bad assessment by
saying the PC will defend himself against his service fac
being found. The PC will not. The PC gets to the middle of
this whirlpool and just whirls. That's it, man. All you've
got to do is swing him somewhere in the vicinity of the
lake in which the whirlpool exists, and he dives right in
and swims like mad and goes right to the whirlpool and says
that's it - unless he's prevented from doing so.

My first plea, then, is don't prevent the PC from finding
his service facsimile. That seems to be a rather obvious
point to make, and I'm sorry that it sounds sardonic or
sarcastic, but I'm afraid has to be made.

Because you could say, "Well, of course, if the PC counts
on this for survival, he's not going to let it be found,"
you see? And you could go off on that line and make a lot
of hard work for yourself, and actually it's not of that
nature at all.

Now, there are so many ways of isolating a service
facsimile that to cover the area of assessment at this
particular stage of the game is merely to put in your hands
a lot of rote this and that which will more assist you to
miss the service facsimile than to find it. There is no
substitute whatsoever for knowing what one is; there is no
substitute at all.

Now, the service facsimile, first and foremost, is a
tremendous solution which the PC believes, if disturbed,
will end his survival. It is always an aberrated solution;
it always exists in present time and is part of the
environment of the PC. And it is something that everyone,
unintentionally or otherwise, is telling the PC is wrong
and causing him to assert that it is right.

Now, you get to understand a service facsimile a little bit
better when you recognize that last point. That last point
is very, very important. Otherwise, you're going to be
running some of the silliest things and calling them
service facsimiles, and you're not going to make the boat
at all.

The environment, the mores, one or another dynamics, is
insistently and constantly at work trying to tell the
individual that the service facsimile is wrong, and the
individual is constantly saying that it is right. And when
you have that situation you have all unauditable PC,
because he is getting audited only to prove that this is
right and actually will constantly bring it up in auditing.

It is about as hard to find as a burning tar barrel in the
middle of an empty field on a dark night, see?

The PC is always bringing this to the auditor's attention.
This is so much the case that once you have found it you
will consider that you have been very obtuse indeed. But
sometimes it's being brought to the auditor's attention in
different wordings, in different conduct, in different
approaches that one doesn't find it easy to label. And it
is probably labeling it that is harder than finding it.

Now, let us first look at the exact thing we are trying to
do with a service facsimile - the exact thing we are trying
to do with it; there is one thing we are trying to do with
it - and then this will move out of your perimeter, as an
auditor, any necessity of trying to use this principle to
make an OT, because that is not what we're using it for.

I'll give you an idea now of this. Reg and I just had a
discussion a moment ago, and he was saying, "Well, a human
body would be a service facsimile." He's absolutely right.
He's absolutely right. But this, of course, is being
applied to going OT - not for the purpose we are applying it.

See, the remark is absolutely correct. It turns on mass.
See? It is being asserted constantly, and so forth.
Obviously it's a perfectly good service facsimile, you see?
Well, all that's wrong with it is that it isn't the service
facsimile we are trying to target. See? The wrong target.
Because if you used that, you would be going to OT, don't
you see? And we are not using the service facsimile for
that. We're simply using it to get a person auditable this
lifetime and get out of the road those constantly
restimulated solutions that make it hard to audit this
person. And that's its purpose. Its purpose is simply to
clear this lifetime.

Now. I'll give you some beauties on the application of the
service facsimile on the whole track.

What do you suppose you have a bank for? It obviously must
be some sort of a service facsimile. Obviously: it turns on
mass, doesn't it? It follows all of the rules.

Obviously, "How would having a bank make you right and
others wrong?" well, obviously -  ha! - obviously would kill
the PC. Why? Well, you'd just restimulate the whole early
track and you'd throw him into countless GPMs and you'd
overrestimulate him like mad. But obviously, according to
the theory, it's a perfectly valid service facsimile. A
reactive mind is a perfectly valid service facsimile, but
not for the purposes that we are going to use this for.

It's well to remember the basic principles of the service
facsimile when you are running somebody to OT, because
sooner or later you're going to find this guy, and he just
can't seem to get up to a point where he can tilt a planet.
You're having trouble with this PC. He sits down there on
one mountain top, and you sit there on the other mountain
top and you're trying to audit him, see? And the E-Meter
you use are the little glows that appear in the various
parts of his vicinity. See, you say something; you see
something glow, you say, "That read." Probably your
auditing commands are all in telepathy or something like
this, but we don't care much about that. That's a good
thing to remember. This guy just keeps complaining,
complaining -  ARC breaking. Weather gets terrible on the
planet, you know - keeps ARC breaking.

Thunderstorms and other things occur. And he's got this
PTP, you see? He just can't tilt a planet. Weak. And I bid
you remember this point, you see, that undoubtedly you are
now bucking a service facsimile, see, which would probably,
after you've talked for a while, add up to something like
"being incapable."

And you ask him, "All right. How would being incapable make
you right and how would it make others wrong?" and so
forth. And you run it on up with just the same steps of R3SC.

You undoubtedly got this boy flying again, you see, into
some new zone or area.

So you're never really rid of the principles of the service
facsimile. He's got some tremendous solution, and that
solution is "being incapable." How does he survive? By
being incapable. At what level? At some very upstage level
of some kind or another, you see? All right. So that's
perfectly valid.

So it'd be valid almost at any point of a case, but that
isn't what we are using it for and that is not the design
and style of R3SC. It's the same breed of cat - the same
breed of cat. But we are attacking here a solution which,
just like any other solution, is a barrier to the discharge
of the confusion.

What's made this possible is a new evaluation and a new
road found through the bank on guess what? You've had a new
communication level in auditing, and so forth, and that
clarified a lot of things. But, of course, the service
facsimile is borne out of a reevaluation and a readjustment
of the confusion and the stable datum - that basic: confusion
and the stable datum.

The confusion can only stay in place as long as it has a
stable datum to hang it up. Now, that is so light and so
easily changed by a thetan or a being that this does not
much get in anybody's road. It's only when it becomes an
aberrated solution, the loss of which threatens survival,
that the individual fails to be able to discharge the mass
associated with it.

So if you could see confusion as a stable datum (you know
those principles; they're old HCA principles), you should
realize that you can actually pluck,, out of the center of
the confusion, the stable datum, and at that point get a
discharge of the energy held in place. It's a new
discovery, you see? What holds the confusion in place? A
stable datum. That's a new thought, do you see, because you
handle life all the time on the reverse line. You've got
too much confusion: put a stable datum in and the confusion
lines up on the stable datum. That's how you've been using
it before.

All right, let's take a reverse look: How is the confusion
held in place? The confusion is held in place by a stable
datum. So the removal of the stable datum then discharges
the confusion. And a confusion is a very good description
of "what is charge?" Charge is an electrical confusion.

Now, as long as a stable datum is held in place by the
person, the confusion will not discharge.

Do you see this? So here's a new piece of advanced technology 
- rather remarkable piece of technology - that we have had 
around for a very long time and it's simply a reverse look at 
the thing, and we know now how to hold a confusion in place.

Now, fortunately for us - fortunately for us - confusion's are
tolerable and not always aberrative. In fact, the biggest
part of the confusions of life are not at all aberrative;
they could go on for a long time without hurting any thetan
or incapacitating him for a moment.

You're playing a card game; you're playing a card game and
you're having an awful time playing this card game. You
just never seem to really get anyplace playing this card
game. And you discover a little booklet and it says "How
You Play Canasta," see? And you read over this booklet and
it gives you some hot dope on the thing, and after that you
can play canasta. This is just about as aberrative as
eating blueberry pie. You understand?

Nevertheless, the confusion's of canasta are held in
abeyance by these little rules you have learned about canasta.

Now, of course the confusion's concerning canasta, as I
say, have no aberrative value whatsoever. Zero. Life, you
see, as I've told you several times in recent lectures, is
not in itself an aberrative activity. Aberration has to be
rather extraordinary. It has to be worked at; it has to be
kept in restimulation all the time

Now, this rather innocent action of the switchboard girl
solving the confusion of her job on the principle "If I
have twelve calls simultaneously appearing on the board, I
handle one and then handle two and then handle three,"
don't you see? In other words, she's got a confusion of
calls, all you have to do is teach her to handle one call.
Each confusion she has from that point thereon is handled
by that. Well, that actually is not at all aberrative to
her. Nothing going to drive her mad because she has twelve
calls simultaneously, don't you see? That's nonsense.

So now, we pull off the case - we say, "All right, what
system or solution have you had to answering calls when
they were too many or a confusion of calls?"

And she says, "Well, I answer one at a time," and so forth.
We get the motion of the tone arm here could not be
detected with a micromilli-vernier UNIVAC. See, it actually
doesn't back up any charge. You get the idea?

No, there's got to be force and violence mixed up with
these things. There's got to be something fabulous. Now,
she could add this up and you could add this up as part of
the confusion of trying to survive by having a job - and this
could be part of it. And you might touch on it and it might
appear to move some mass, but actually she's got something
else she is worried about. Her survival is threatened by
the fact that she could not handle her job and she's liable
to be dismissed, don't you see? Ah, but look, solving how
she handles a switchboard does not solve what she is
worried about. She is worried about the fact that if she
does not handle her job she will not have a job and her
survival will thereby be threatened.

Ah, there's a much bigger tower on which this little piece
of confusion was leaning, don't you see? All right, so we
address this. How does she hold her job? By being a
competent switchboard operator. Well, I'm afraid that this
is not very aberrative either.

Why is she worried about holding her job? You say, "What
solutions do you have for holding your job?" And you get a
little TA action, see? Get a little bit of TA action.

She says, "So-and-so, and be nice to the boss" and so
forth, and so forth, and you get a little TA action, see.
Because this threatens her survival, don't you see, much
more intimately.

But the case is still relatively unauditable. There must be
something on this case if we're auditing this case and
we're having trouble with the case; there must be something
else that we are bucking into here. What are we running
into? Something else. Something else.

And we look around and we find out, "Well now, what makes
you upset, particularly, about losing a job?" or something
like that. "What would be upsetting about this?" And you
hear, marvel of marvel and wonder of wonders, you hear - you
expect to hear, you know, "My aged mother would then starve
to death," you see, or something like that. And she says,
"Well, actually, it's my dog." You can't add this up.
Actually, she can't either. Actually, it's unaddable.

And you say, "Well, what about the dog? What's this got to
do with the job?" "Well, you see, uh ... they'd put the
dog to sleep if I couldn't feed the dog, you see?" Now, you
might be getting here close someplace and that even looks a
little bit sensible, don't you see? That doesn't look quite
completely dippy. But you've got the idea of a human being
working like mad and terribly worried about their job and
so forth, and we've traced it back to a dog. Now, ordinarily 
human beings do not work to support dogs. But this one is; 
this one is.

And my golly, we work this around for a little while and we
suddenly find out that she has lots of trouble all the time
and lots of upsets about keeping the dog in an apartment.
And we may have a service facsimile that is simply
described as keeping a dog.

See, that's probably too mild a look at it, and I haven't
given it to you as rough as you would actually find it or
as incredible, because I want you to understand it, not sit
there with your jaw dropped, see? But keeping a dog - 
keeping a dog, or keeping a dog in an apartment, some such
action as this, or keeping a dog... "And how would keeping
a dog make you right? And how would keeping a dog make
others wrong?"

We find out that this girl has one computation in existence
which makes her right and makes others wrong, and it has to
do with keeping a barking dog in an apartment where it'll
annoy people. And that makes her right and makes others
wrong, and she feels if she were deprived of that solution
her survival would be shattered. And this is what's causing
her to worry about her job. Don't you see?

So she always carefully gets these little, sharp-bark
terriers, you see, that scraffle and raffle when they walk
around on the floors, you see, and that yip and yap
endlessly, particularly in the middle of the night. Sooner
or later as you're running this thing, she'll all of a
sudden cognite, "You know, I always seem to get very noisy
dogs. Wonder why that is?" Well, of course, naturally. It
bothers people more.

And you run this thing down and you will get some kind of
an incident, early-life incident and that sort of thing,
where somebody insisted that a dog be put to sleep or
something like this because it was getting old and scrawny.
And she had to drive it down to the pound, and everybody
was busy making her wrong and, he [she] was trying to make
everybody else wrong, don't you see? And this thing is all
wound up in a ball. And wonder of wonders, we get this
thing audited out - it's all about dogs, you see? And
suddenly, because keeping a job and handling a switchboard
was attached to an aberrated service facsimile, you see, to
this degree, then, her worries and anxieties all have a big
lie in them, you see? And they're all twisted around wrong
way to, and all of a sudden she can operate a switchboard
much better -  doesn't even have to have a stable datum to
operate one, she just operates a switchboard, don't you
see? And she can keep a job, she doesn't worry about the
job, and so forth. She's released on this line. You get
this action?

Now, I've given you a very, very simple, understandable
solution here -  very simple, very understandable. And
they're not quite that simple when found in real life; they
are more aberrated. I gave you a more intelligible one
because I wanted you to understand there was some
connection. Now, as you walk across this in real life they
jump, usually, a wider gap than from job to keeping a dog,
see? Probably be more involved than this.

They arc across a larger spark gap. You may find out that
it is "breaking dishes." So you may have some more steps in
it, you see? Breaking dishes. And t this doesn't make any
sense at all about keeping dogs or holding jobs, but
nothing makes any sense anyway. She's breaking dishes to be
right, you see, and breaking dishes to make others wrong,
and this is the service facsimile on which everything else
is piling up. And oddly enough, if she's not permitted to
break dishes, she knows she cannot survive.

She may not know what the barometer reads; she may not know
how wide the street is; she may not know a lot of other
things in life. But this she does know: that if she ceases
to keep the dog or break the dishes or something like that, 
why, that's the end of her - total tertiary line of defense.

Now, you may not discover this at once on a case. You may
not discover this promptly, immediately and at once on a
case. You may audit off one, two or three apparent service
facsimiles that all answer up to the complete description
of a service facsimile, but are actually only leaning on
the central service facsimile that is restimulated in
present time, don't you see? But as you take these things
off, why, the central one comes to view.

Now, you see now why, when you say or imply to me, "Now
Ron, you should give me some kind of a rote procedure by
which to isolate this every time," you're asking me, of
course, to apply a logical system to an illogical action. I
probably could do it and we probably will do it and all of
that sort of thing, but I actually would much rather you
understood what you are doing. See, I'd much rather.
Because, frankly, you can hunt and punch around on a case.
You can take old case assessment sheets and folders and
2-12 and something, you know, on the case, or the case
reports or auditors' reports or case histories or something; 
and you could get a whole list of things - anything that's 
been found on the case. And you can have a discussion over 
these various things and points, and you can assess them in 
various ways and get one or another of them to read. And 
you'll find out the PC's interest will hang up someplace on 
this list. He'll be very interested in it. Far from leaving 
it, they dive right in on it, see? And here's the PC's 
interest; it'll hang up with a somatic, so forth.

And now, in fooling around with this, it is sometimes
necessary to reword it. You don't have to worry about
rewording the command. You'll get results on cases by
running different commands, but you'll only be running
oddball, flank material on the service facsimile itself,
don't you see?

Now, the command is always "How would it" - whichever you
have found, makes the PC right and makes others wrong. It's
always that command, see? It's not "How would opposing it 
.." " ... stepping on it ..." " ... throwing it away ..." 
or something like that, or " ... fighting it make you right?" 
see? Because you haven't got the idea of what the service 
facsimile is, see? Because the condition, the final 
identification is that the service facsimile solution is 
the PC. That solution is the PC, so it is something be has. 
It's "How would it make him right and make others wrong?" 
Now, you can vary it: "How has it made you right?" and "How 
has it made others wrong?" You could even say "What would 
be made wrong by it?" Now we're going afield, but the PC 
sometimes springs over, and when they're operating in an 
aberrated area of this particular character, their ability 
to follow an auditing command deteriorates markedly and 
they slop. That's all right.

The way you handle that, and so forth: All of a sudden PC
is answering what and not answering how, see? You say, "All
right. Well, just give me the rest of the what's and we'll
get back to the how," you know? I mean, they're not very
tough. You know, don't make them wrong and stop them and
all this sort of thing. Let them go because you may be
standing in the road of an avalanche at an automaticity,
see? They'll slop on that auditing command, do you understand?

But the auditing command is not ever "How has it made you
wrong?" Never. Never. Never.

Oddly enough, it' I run, but it'll run the PC down scale.
"How would doing things to it make you right?" see? Oh, oh,
oh, no, no, no. You'll get some tone arm action. See, this
is what'll fool you. You'll get a little tone arm action.
It'll look okay.

Well, let me take the case in point. We assess Father, and
some "genius" has just read the rest of the 2-12 bulletin
and found out that it was always "oppose" - you were supposed
to oppose what you found on that. So he ran 2-12 plus R3SC,
which is pretty good. I suppose you can run several other
processes in conjunction with it, too. You could probably
have the PC feeling the walls at the same time you ran the
process. I mean, you could do a lot of things. But anyhow 
.. I'm sorry, but that actually happened. And the command
was "How would opposing Father" - this is not quite the 
right one, but don't want to cast too many bricks -  "How 
would opposing Father make you right?"

Brother, that is not a service facsimile: opposing Father
is not a service facsimile, that's an action. See, that's
just an action. Now, if you assessed it out, you've got to
try it. You got to try it on for size and you got to find
out if there's anything to this, because it would be if you
assessed Father - it just simply - I mean, it's too idiotically
simple: Father must be a solution.

See, it must be a huge solution. So we say, "How would
Father make you right?" And "How would," you know, "Father
make others wrong?" you see?

Now, you can drag this over into the cow pasture and say,
well, hating Father is probably the service facsimile and
so forth, but actually you're just looking at a secondary
or tertiary condition of a service facsimile. You're not
looking at a service facsimile, because this is no action.
See? This'd be something which was the result of a service
facsimile.

And the first rule is - what I first gave you in this
lecture - if the PC doesn't immediately jump into the lake
and swim right straight to the whirlpool, but tells you
"Oh, well, Father ... make me right ... Father ... Uh
..  - make any sense," I call to your attention the PC is
still standing on the bank - not service facsimile. Got the
idea? PC has not swum madly in and got all embroiled in
this thing. Because that's the first thing they want to do:
Hit the service facsimile - drown. Why? Because to drown is
to survive. Obviously - that's the characteristic of a
service facsimile.

The PC says, "Um ... I don't think ... - ... um ... I don't
know. It's ... I'll have to ... right ... I don't know whether 
that's right or not. I'll just ... make me right? And ... 
don't ... I don't know if that would make me right or not. Let's 
see, would it make me right? Would it make anybody else wrong? 
I don't know. I can answer the question. There doesn't seem
to be very much wrong " Wake up there in the auditing chair
and take a look at what's going on. PC is standing on the
bank, feet not wet, whirlpool not approached - equals service
facsimile not been found.

So go on and do something else clever. Say, "Well, that's
fine. I'm glad we covered that," cheerily, cheerily,
cheerily, cheerily, cheerily, and you gather up your papers
and get the hell out of there, see?

PC won't be able to keep out of it - that I guarantee you,
man. Won't be able to stay out of it.

You say the service facsimile is "burning cats." See,
something weird like this comes up, see? Or "being a cat,"
you know? Something like that. "Being catlike." "How would
being catlike make you right?"

"Oh, well, that's so-and-so and so-and-so, and so-and-so
and so-and-so and so-and-so, and then, of course, so-and-so
and so-and-so, you understand. There's quite a suite
a - that's quite a thing when you start really thinking about
it like that. You see, catlike is so-and-so and so-and- so
and so on, you understand? And so on, and a lot of times
been catlike because, you see, it - it uh ... it's catlike,
you know, and - and so forth, and uh ... that's the way it
is and so on." And when you can't get in an auditing
question to get the session properly started, know that you
have hit one.

Now, the reason it turns on automaticities is, of course,
that it is automatic, unanalyzed solutions, and they simply
just pour off in a Niagara. When you got a real one and
you're running one, always note in your auditor's report
"automaticity." It merely means, more answers than the PC
can articulate are arriving from the bank - conveyor belt
stacking up. Just note down when you find one of those
automaticities. It's a guarantee you've hit on a service
facsimile.

Now, this gives us the way it has to be run. Because it is
susceptible to avalanches, you can't then run it with the
old TR 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, see? You've got to throw the question
into the arena and let the lions fight over it for a while, 
you understand? And just don't stop it with a new question;
don't stop it with acknowledgments; let it sort of run out.
After a while, the PC has given you fifteen, twenty answers
and so forth, and seems to look rather blank - doesn't seem
to have one now, and that sort of thing. Well, you can
either give him another question or you can change the
thing over to the other side, and it does the same thing
then. So it's actually not one auditing question for one
auditing answer. You're not running it that way. You're
running it one auditing question for one waterfall.

But sometimes the PC swaps ends in the middle of it. Well,
this is no time to stop him either.

He's busy making others wrong with this "being catlike,"
you see, and others wrong, others wrong, others wrong,
others wrong, " ... and it'd make me right to so-and-so
and so-and-so." And he's just reached the end of the flow
and he's turned around and he's on the back flow. You can
also overrun these things and put the PC into a stuck-flow
sort of a drifting anaten. You're insisting that more
answers must exist, you see? Well, he's already at the end
of his rope, and you're making him run too long on that
side. So it's run very permissively.

What you're trying to do is get rid of this avalanche and
automaticity and get some tone arm action. That's your main
purpose. So how you do that as an auditor is give only
enough questions to get the PC going and only enough
acknowledgments to acknowledge the fact that you had a lot
of answers. And turn it around whenever it comes toward the
end of the rope; and turn it around the other way. It's
very simple stuff.

Now, trying to keep the PC answering the auditing question
is sometimes difficult, as I just told you because the PC
will skid around on this and disassociate because he's in
disassociated area. And don't you ever tell me that you're
very shocked because this PC has given you a whole bunch of
answers that weren't answers to the auditing question. Now,
that's expected.

That's expected, see? Because what?

This solution - now, let's talk on the theory of the thing.
This solution, you see, is holding back a tremendous amount
of aberration, none of which makes sense, so it doesn't
as-is. So there sits this solution, see, "keeping a dog,"
you see?

All right. All this stuff is back of it and nothing is
going to flow, because as long as this person is able to
keep a dog, life is handled: Jobs are taken care of;
everything is protected; all is right in the world except,
of course, for the painful stomach, a hatred of dogs and
some little marginal fringe worries, you know, of one kind
or another. And being broke all the time and not being able
to have a job or hold a job.

It's like trying to solve a problem with a whopping lie,
don't you see? And boy, would you have to get busy to keep
this problem solved with this whopping lie. So it has to be
continuously asserted - continuously asserted. And that
solution, then, is just a solution.

That's all it is. And the PC doesn't even have to work on
it consciously because the PC has got it all triggered to
be worked on all the time anyhow. It's the immediate answer
to anything.

So life just continues to stack up on this solution, and it
accumulates mass on this solution, and the solution
accumulates mass.

Now, because the solution ... Now, let me give you the
condition of what kind of a solution it's got to be: It's
got to be a below-2.0-on-the-Tone-Scale solution - always
below 2.0, nothing above 2.0, see? It's a below-2.0
solution, because it, perforce, is a substitute for an itsa
line. It's a substitute for an itsa line.

The PC started out by feeling he or she could not itsa the
object that he or she was trying to make wrong and so
dreamed up this solution - dreamed up this solution as a
final solution.

And that, then, is a substitute for an itsa line, believe
it or not.

Well, there's a girl sitting there and Mother has not
spoken to her since noon because the fender of the car has
been dented. And she has this solution: "Well, families are
no good," you see?

Makes it unnecessary to observe Mother; makes it
unnecessary to observe the environment; makes it
unnecessary to participate; makes... No necessity at all
to do anything about it because it's all done - it's all
contained there in the solution. And then because, you see,
there is no isness occurring on the environment, you get an
accumulation of mass. See, mass only accumulates in the
absence of itsa. So there goes the old shell game. So it's
actually a substitute itsa line.

Now, because of this, of course, it then is referred to
every time one refers to anything. And when it is a
below-2.0-on-the-Tone-Scale solution, it of course is
propounding this - it's propounding this very clearly, as
aberrated as this sounds: To survive it is necessary to
succumb. And that solution always propounds that, one way
or the other, in some oblique, aberrated way.

Survival is made up of a numerous number of succumbs. How
to survive: "Not to have any fun" - that's a good way, see?
"To cry all the time." "To appear to be destitute." See,
obviously, see, I mean, to... These are all manifestations
of nonsurvival, don't you see? It's necessary to manifest
nonsurvival in order to survive. It's always this kind of
an oddball solution, see? You'll get something like "not
eat," see? That's a quite common, by the way, service
facsimile; refusing to eat, not eating - common service
facsimile. Little children will play this an awful lot of
the time, and when it gets out of that realm and range and
moves into adult life, why, you have diets. They usually
don't amount to a service facsimile, but when they do,
you've really got a mess on your hands. It's really a nice,
big mess. And this must be terribly common because one of
the major problems they have in insane asylums is making
people eat. Not eating is one of the final protests - hunger
strikes. Throw guys in jail, one of the first things they
think of is go on a hunger strike - if they want to make a
big protest, they go on a hunger strike. So there's a very
common service facsimile.

Some version of no sex - no second dynamic. I don't care how
you have it or how you phrase it. It's got to be some
no-second-dynamic one way or the other, see? It's an
incapacity on it; it's an aberrated practice of it. It can
go worse than that. How to survive, you see, is to murder
children. How does that add up? Well, it adds up to the guy
all right, you see? And on the first dynamic, how to
survive? Well, commit suicide, you see? In innumerable
ways, you can commit suicide on many gradients, you see?
"Be ugly," you see? "Be overweight." "Be too thin." Be
this, be that, be disabled, be something, be something.
Doesn't much matter what it is, you see? You might collide
with that on the first dynamic.

On the third dynamic, "to be antisocial." See, these are
all sure methods of nonsurvival, don't you see? And yet
they are added up as a survival computation. "Shoot
policemen." Third-dynamic solution: how to survive shoot
policemen. Simple, effective. And you say, "Yesh.

But that couldn't be a service facsimile in this lifetime,
because this PC has never shot a policeman in this
lifetime" - ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Don't make me laugh. This PC has
always shot a policeman; every time they see a policeman
they shoot a policeman.

"Robbing houses." You say, "Well, robbing houses - this
individual ... This couldn't be a service facsimile,
because this person has never robbed a house." Oh, well
now, don't be too sure. Never passes one but he doesn't rob
it - thinks about it and so forth.

Well, how does he use this service facsimile? Oh, he uses
it via the newspapers. He always clips out robberies and
shows people about robberies and that sort of thing.
Figures out robberies; reads nothing but detective stories,
see, and - robbery - robbing houses. That's a good service
facsimile. So, you see, it doesn't even fit in with the
guy's environment.

Therefore, it sometimes is rather hard to trace.

You get somebody who is in a death cell, you see, having
already shot up innumerable policemen and so forth. Well,
you know what his service facsimile is - you think. You say
it's obviously "shooting policemen." You know, I'll point
something out to you: He's shot policemen. Probably wasn't
his service facsimile at all. His service facsimile is
probably "never loading guns" or - you know? Service facsimile 
is "being kind to everyone." See, the exact circumstance of 
the person doesn't always guarantee you that you have your 
hands on the service facsimile. That's what I'm trying to 
point out here. Because this thing goes underground. It's not 
very visible, and they very often ... The most effective
service facsimiles are those which are totally hidden - until
you've come anywhere in their vicinity and then they're
laid in your lap, see?

You don't find service facsimiles above 2.0 on the Tone
Scale. Now, it'd be completely silly, then, to add up the
ARC of the lower Tone Scale, like "not communicated" or
something like this, and say "Well, his service facsimile
is 'not communicated.'" "How would not communicated make
you right?" or " ... not having communicated make you right?" 
or " ... not communicating make you right?" and so forth.

Well, this is, I'm afraid, a little bit too general, see?
You don't use these buttons by their isolated selves
because they are insufficiently directional, and the PC
answers them too broadly. And all you do in such a case is
restimulate the service facsimile without labeling it.

Well let me give you - just dream one up here; don't say it's
terribly workable: "Who or what would make themselves right
by not communicating?" Something like this. Or "Tell me a
means of not communicating," and make a list and assess the
list. Don't you see? Some odd action of this particular
character. Such a button, then, is useful for the location
of a service facsimile, but is not in itself a service
facsimile.

You eventually get, on this list, "hiding pencils." And you
say, "Well, this can't be very damaging, but we will run it
anyway." Well, it's not maybe very damaging; but you find
out that the reason the PC has always looked so bulky is
because they're always carrying fifteen or twenty gross of
pencils; can't get into their room at night because of the
crates of pencils, you know? Everybody in their vicinity
misses pencils all the time. Never spotted him. This is
loopy conduct of one kind or another. But sometimes it can
look so ordinary to you - because this is this planet - that
you sometimes don't put your finger on an obvious service
facsimile.

Let's say it isn't "being sick" but it's "having chills."
"How would that make you right and make somebody else
wrong?" or something like that, you see? Or "having a
cold," or something like this. That still could separate
out into a service facsimile, don't you see? But it might
not be on and it might be on: it doesn't matter.

See, I've given you a bunch of stuff that you may think, by
this time, the service facsimile, again, is very hard to
locate. No, it isn't. I'm just giving you she idea that
you've got to look for it. You've got to prowl around.
After this character has given you something that might be
it, make a "represent" on it. Be quite frank with the PC.
Don't pussyfoot on this thing. There's been too much
pussyfooting about already.

Say, "We's looking fo' you' service facsimile. What is it,
boy?" You know, subtle.

"What do you think your service facsimile is?" Do a list.
Pull the missed withholds and null that list - good reliable
method. PC [will] withhold it perhaps, and then just the
fact that you put it down on pulling the missed
withhold - and all of a sudden he dives into the water, swims
right over to the middle of the lake, dives right into the
middle of the whirlpool and says "There we are. Uhhhhhh!
What am I doing here?" Interest! Attraction! So forth.

Because, of course, it's not a volitional solution. That is
to say, he doesn't think up this solution all the time.
It's a sub-awareness solution which goes into automatic
action. It's that buried. He's right on the verge of it all
the time, he's in direct connection with it all the time,
so you just lay down the faintest link to it and he can't
help but travel that link, don't you see? That's one of the
reasons, you say, that neurosis and psychosis are very,
very difficult to maintain. All you practically have to do
is spot them and they start blowing up. It's very hard to
dramatize the exact reason for them.

Why anybody would go through heroic actions to explode a
psychosis or neurosis, or electric-shock people or go into
brain treatment, just because the person is jumping about
the floor and screaming or refusing to eat or doing
something like this, and so on - that's not a good enough
reason. That doesn't mean that the psychosis or neurosis is
violent, you see? That only means that it produces violent
reactions. See, it doesn't mean that it is violent at all.
Maybe this girl, insane, is jumping about the floor because
she doesn't like cockroaches. And that's the logical
explanation of the thing, and people fail to note that this
is true because there are no cockroaches there. But she's
seeing cockroaches, you see?

So you might have something on this order (this becomes
very elementary): You say, "What really might be worrying
you all the time?" You make a little list. And she jumps
about the floor and hangs from the chandelier and rolls up
in a ball and so forth, but she'll talk to you and she
gives you, finally, a list. And you assess this list out
according to interest: Which one is she really most
interested in? And you'll find out that it's cockroaches.
She's very interested in these cockroaches that are all
over the floor. And you'd say, "Well, how would seeing
cockroaches make you right?" And that's probably the end of
her insanity. Why, she probably couldn't maintain it from
that point on. She wouldn't be well; she wouldn't be calmed
down or anything like that. But she's now going to have a
hard time maintaining it because she's got a connection to
it. And the thing will discharge. See, it's hard to do now.
Now you got to get volitional about jumping around in the
middle of the floor; now you got to mock up the cockroaches
to put them on the floor, don't you see? And she just can't
make it. And that charge, just that much charge, and it's gone.

That, by the way, was practically the totality - the
accidental fact there, is probably the totality of the
Freudian recoveries - is contained right in that. It's just
that they would evaluate in some fashion or another, like
you do with an ARC break, you see? And they'd happen every
now and then to strike something that was a service fac,
and the individual would think about it, and it would be
impossible then to dramatize it. But not knowing the
mechanics of it, it nevertheless would slightly discharge,
don't you see? And it's all those false assignments that
made their people sick, see? It was the assignments that
weren't service facs, and that sort of thing.

So you can learn from that just in passing. And don't give
a guy a bunch of phony service facs, see? Let him decide
what it is, you see? Don't ever foist one off on anybody.
You'll find that's always a good part of the rules. If he
says it isn't it, it isn't it, man. That's it. That's the
rules.

Customer is always right. Because frankly, if you've got
it, he can't stay out of it, see? Man, if you keep that
little fact up your sleeve, why, you can afford to reject
any quantity of them. You say, "All right, 'beating dogs'
and so forth. You don't think that is it. I had it on the
list here. It read a little bit."

"No, I don't think that is . . Beating dogs, beating dogs,
beating dog, beating dogs, beating dogs, and so on....
Beating dogs ..."

"Would it make you right in any way?"

"Nah. Would beating dogs make me right? Hm. Heh. No. No.
No. Wouldn't do much. Well, actually, could add it up - it
could make me right to object to bad behavior on the
conduct of dogs and make dogs wrong to indulge in bad
behavior." End of computation, see? You'll find every once
in a while a PC will give you something like that. And then
they'll say, "Oh yes. Let's see. How would it make me
wrong? Now, let's see. How would bad auditing make me right
or bad auditing wouldn't make me right - it'd make me wrong."
Of course, that's the end of that. You pursue that no
further, see?

But, "How would getting stuck in an engram make you right
and make others wrong?" "Wouldn't do it."

"Well, how would auditing make you right and make others
wrong? you see? How would auditing make you right?"

"Well, it'd make me right if I got better and it'd make the
auditor wrong if I didn't." End of computation.

Of course, that's no service fac. Perfectly logical answer.
There are no further answers behind it. No vast blast of
the TA as it falls down; there's nothing going on here
particularly. So you don't want to hang people with these
things, because it's too easy to find the right ones. And
they abound, man.

This is one of the most interesting little treasure hunts
you ever engaged upon, see? And you might as well get used
to what it is and figure out what it is and put your own
itsa line in on it, and so forth, because you'll sure know
what it is, then, see? You say, "Here it is, man. This guy
has got this thing which is some kind of a horrendous
solution of some kind or another, and it's got all this
charge backed up. And whenever I audit him with a
Prepcheck, why, very little TA action or mass turns on with
a Prepcheck - must be a service fac. This case not very easy
to audit; has a fragile tone arm; tone arm gets stuck hard - 
another condition, you see? -  must be a service fac, and so
on. Can't get this thing. Why?" Well, look-it - obviously, if
all the discharge you're going to get is a confusion
running off in the form of charge - if the charge won't run
off, there must be a solution there which prevents the
charge from running off. And that's all there is to it.
He's got it solved. He doesn't have to look around: Back's
bad and his head's bad and his ribs are bad and he can't
sleep at night and he's got ulcers and so forth; but he
doesn't have to inspect this. See?

Say, "Well ..." You start running this down, you'll find
out, well - do this little list or something like that, or
however you're going to run it into, or do past data,
moving in toward this thing - you find out he sleeps on the
floor. Doesn't sleep in bed - has a bed but he sleeps on the
floor.

Well, I'd try that on for size and just say, "Well, is
there any possibility you do that because it would make you
right?"

Now, you're going to get one of two reactions: "Pprffff.
Well, it would make the landlady wrong, because she doesn't
change the sheets very often, and so I sleep on the floor,
see?" Or, the other reaction, which is the one you're
looking for, see, is "Well, sleeping on the floor make you
right? Oh, yes, yes. As a matter of fact, it would, so on.
And a long time ago when I was in - when I was in ... in
boarding school, you know, we used to have these bed - big
high beds and so forth, and could pull you out on the floor
and ma ---. But that isn't the real reason why this thing
was. You see, I kept sleeping on the floor. Actually, you
get more fresh air, and so forth, and uh ..."

Well now, look, don't be a complete knuckle head as an
auditor and try to go through some more action, see? You're
just using auditing actions to cut the itsa line. You got
one running, man. Just sit back and let it run. Now, do the
easy thing, see? All you got to do is sit back and let it run.

The only trouble you'll get into is sometimes the PC starts
running backtrack on it in a hurry, and then you should
start getting nervous. So if you can get in an auditing
question on the thing, why, slide "in this lifetime" or
something like that on the front of the auditing question,
providing you have asked an auditing question. If you
haven't, why, try to get it in at the next question - if you
get a chance to ask the nest question. Got the idea? You
might not get a chance to ask the question at all. It may
run all the way out and he's now ready for the other side, 
see?

Now, the main thing that you gain from all this and the
main thing you gather from all this is tone arm action.
You've got the mass flowing that kept the PC from getting
tone arm action.

And that's your interest in it. You're not interested in
his social conduct. You're interested in his auditing
conduct. Where old medical psychiatry went adrift, we
needn't go adrift. They become so fixated on the subject of 
"r-r-r-right conduct," without even being able to define 
what it is (except maybe a slaver when the bell rings), that 
these birds are always adjudicating everything on the subject 
of conduct. Insanity is a brand of conduct. Neurosis is a 
brand of conduct - conduct, conduct.

Well, the unfortunate part of it is - the unfortunate part of
it is - that it doesn't catalog, it doesn't classify. You
can't do that, see? Because it just renders everybody open
to the charge of being neurotic or psychotic. just
everybody, wide open - which is one of the more interesting
factors, and then they can use this politically, don't you
see? And then anybody they don't want around, they merely
say some of his conduct is aberrated and they can throw him
in the local spin bin and chop his brains up for hamburger.
I don't know what they eat.

The point I'm making here is that's highly dangerous - highly
dangerous - saying a person is insane or sane when your sole
basis of adjudication, you see, is conduct.

So this doesn't always meet the eye. Some of the most
roaring insanity's on this planet are classified as sane
behavior, see?

Now, in actual fact, you're measuring up not a person who
is in agreement with this planet but you're measuring up a
person who has lived a very long time. So whatever is the
service fac is the service fac, don't you see? It's not
because he does something peculiar, or not because he does
something this, or ... We have a list of things. I can
tell you what it's more likely to be than something else.
But action that is peculiar is only peculiar, not compared
to the mores of the society in which you find yourself but
just compared to the datum of survival. See, just compare
it directly to the datum of survival. And it's always a
contrasurvival action which is posing as a survival action.

Revolt. I don't even know why you'd revolt against an earth
government; they're all convicts, see? You're living in an
area where there are no wardens, see'? Actually kind of
silly to do anything particular in this particular
direction because they're nuttier than anybody else, don't
you see? They probably need their hands held twice as hard
as anybody in the spin bin, you know? They don't know what
they're doing.

So what is considered normal on this planet might at any
one point be completely batty. So the service facsimile
comes down to the comparison with the datum of actual
survival and the fact that the PC is interested in it and
that it releases tone arm action because it must be a fixed
solution.

So actually, what you're studying are fixed solutions
uninspected by the person, which are contrasurvival. Now,
when you hit all of those, man, you've hit the jackpot.

In any case which has a fragile tone arm which is liable to
stick at the drop of an E-Meter cord, see - bang! like
that - you're looking at a service facsimile. You must be.
There must be a fixed solution. Why? Because there's no
charge runs by it. So if no charge runs by it, it must be a
fixed solution, and it gets in the road of auditing, so it
must be contrasurvival. Actually, it could be a fixed
survival solution which really was a survival solution, and
you'd find it wouldn't even vaguely influence auditing.

See, you'd go out and audit the guy and you get tone arm
action, and he'd go on flying and he's got these fixed
solutions all over the place. He's practically nothing but
a bundle of fixed solutions. You're trying to find the
black spot in the middle of the ball of yarn, see? The
black spot in the middle of a mountain of white spots. The
mountain comes down if you find that spot. Fortunately for
you, there are several gray spots in its immediate
vicinity, any one of which can be hit and do the case some
good. So it's a constant prowl on this route. You handle
one. All right. Fine. Is this case going to remain stable?
Well, that's very doubtful so let's find two. Let's find
three. Let's make sure we got it, see?

Now, your tone arm is flying around and your needle, by
this time - the thing can't stick. You find you find one, the 
case will tentatively resume its stuck-needle condition, 
momentarily resume it. Interesting. Can't hold it, but it's 
a drop, you know?

You haven't got all of these now; you haven't got all of
them you want, and it'll still be a little this way. And
the next one you find - pshew-sss-sss-ssss-ssssew. It's
coming down. Needle, is getting so it can't stand upright,
because there's nothing to hold it. Just the weight of the
needle causes it to bang against the sides, you see" You
actually have trouble reading your tone arm, as you're
winning on these, when you are really hitting center.
You're having trouble with that tone arm because you can't
find out where to center it.

Your needle is not as nice as it was before. It's too
floppy. You're having a trouble centering it.

And you just about get it centered and it moves, see? And
you just about get it centered, it flops over the other
way. Your tone arm reading gets very, very inaccurate as
this really starts to bite.

You can't quite keep it properly centered. It's moving too
fast, too. PC just thinks a thought, see, and it goes
clank! It's gone. But, gee, how much charge went off there?
Well, we don't know. It's because you're bleeding, you see,
a central reservoir of charge and it's flowing in a Niagara.

Now, the other thing it does for you and the reason why
this is very beneficial to the case completely aside from
unblocking this - is a service facsimile is always protruded
into present time, always protruded into present time. So
any constant PTP that your PC has had will of course
produce the service facsimile. And that is very good news
for you. You can produce the service facsimile out of any
PTP that has been constant and continual with the PC.

"What did you come into Scientology to resolve?" And he'll
give you a long series of this and that.

Now, it's very, very dangerous to list too many problems on
a PC. You list too many problems on a PC and you're going
to wind him up in a ... bang. That's dangerous. Call that
to your attention. Listing problems - not so good, see, not
so good. Bad show. Doing an incomplete list of problems
will ARC break the PC. A complete list of problems is very
often too long and is a bit dangerous to the PC's needle
and case condition.

So how do you find out the problems? Well, you have to take
a step backwards before you take a step forwards. See,
locating the problem that you're trying to solve - you can't
let that run forever because that's the exact opposite of
an itsa line. It's a whatsit line. See, a problem line is a
whatsit line. And you can freeze your tone arm gorgeously
with a whatsit line. So a whatsit list will freeze your
tone arm, and so forth. So it had better be on the basis of
a friendly discussion which you can leave in an awful
hurry. And you recognize that you're taking a step
backwards with this case, making him whatsit, which is
basically what's bum with these assessments, and so forth.

"What was your chronic present time problems when you got
into Scientology, and so forth? What were these things?
What are these things you were trying to solve at that
particular time?" Now, if you hang up this case too badly,
you can take that little list and ask for a solution for
each one of the problems he's given you - if you've made a
list - ask for some solutions for those problems, and you
will take the tension off the tone arm. So there is a cure
for this situation, but it's rather a lengthy and involved
cure. But you may have, sitting right there ... you see ...

The solution, you see, is not a problem; the solution is
not a problem, but a few of these problems can be looked at
as pointers to a possible solution.

He's having trouble in a certain area. Now, your problem,
once you've got any idea of his problems, is to put your
finger on some solution with regard to that problem. And
that solution will be the fixed solution which gives you
the service facsimile.

Now, notice that R1C and R2C are designed to strip away
solutions, decisions and stable data off the case - so-called
stable data. Therefore, they are very, very easy to run and
they produce tone arm action and are the least likely to hang 
up the tone arm. You start asking for whatsits, however, in 
R1C: "Well, you say you have had a ... you - you've had the 
idea that all snakes were lived in the tops of houses, and 
so forth. Now what problem would that solve?" Man, cut your
throat! You've asked the reverse side of R1C and the tone
arm is going to go up and stick. But notice that your R1C
and R2C, these itsa-line questions and run, are designed to
strip away charge from the service facsimile area.

Therefore, it is a very good thing to find out if the PC
has been run on R1C and R2C. Of course, they won't have
discharged the service facsimile, but they may have some
data there that they uncovered in looking at all this,
which you might then sort out and get an idea, don't you
see? So you say, "While you were being run in the co-audit
down there, what did you run into that you found very
interesting while you were running your case? What did you
really run into?"

"Well, I ran into this and that and the other thing and the
other thing and the other thing," and you make your little
bit of list of these types of solutions and zones and areas
and you've got yourself an assessment, see? Then run this
thing down, and - with a little further discussion with the
PC - and you're liable to hit right on it just like that.

Funny part of it is that R3R is almost a dead-center pitch
on a service facsimile, providing it winds up in a statable
solution.

Now, "failing not to communicate with eating figs in
Smyrna," I don't think you would find a good service
facsimile. I call that to your attention. If it doesn't
make sense to you, it's not likely to make sense to the PC
So don't go astray on this, because, after all, the
preliminary step of R3R was designed to do an entirely
different thing and it may be only a fragment of that and
it won't be the tone level you found, see? It won't be
that. It'll be some fragment of it or a rewording of it.

Now, I funnily enough have found one on an incomplete R3R
assessment that two stayed in on. The list had to be
extended, don't you see? And one of those was the service
facsimile. I find that quite interesting. In other words,
if we had completed the list to the final run, we wouldn't
have found the service facsimile, see, because it would
have been buried back on the line a little bit, don't you 
see?

Well, this tells you that it doesn't really have to be a
terribly good assessment - any kind of an assessment. You've
run something like "failed to shoot"  -  "What have you
failed to shoot?" or something like this, or "failed to
have been with?" or something. And you get a list, get a
list of this; go on down the line; assess the thing out.
Well, even if your "failed to shoot" is kind of a lousy
level, as long as it's in, not because it's been protested
or was a mistake on your part, see'? PC has protested it,
so it's in, you know? That's the corny way those
assessments go astray.

PC didn't understand it, didn't know what it was. So it
keeps reading, you know? If you don't clear anything with
the PC while you're assessing the PC, you can expect that
problem to come up on auditors that are green in your
supervising sometimes.

That can be sort of corny and it'll still produce
something. And you're doing yourself a list over alongside
of this thing, and you didn't even really get a chance to
complete your list very well, and so on, but it went out,
and you finally had a level stay in. It's much more likely
to be that level if the PC is interested in it. You get the
idea. It's the item - pardon me - it's much more likely to be
the item, you see, than it is the level, because the level
is too broad. And just running it loosens up the bank enough
so that you can then do one with greater accuracy, because
everything on that - as long as you just got something to
stay in for fifteen strikes or something like that - you
know, one of these arduous lists where everything is alive
on the whole list.

[This is where the older freezone transcript is missing
a page.]

Everything is alive on the whole list and you've got ten
strikes after each one, but one has fifteen strikes in before
they all went out. You know, one of those corny ones, and so
forth. You can actually pick up one of those and the thing
that has fifteen strikes, "Was that in because you didn't
understand what it was?" "No. I understand what it is all
right."

"All right.  That's it. Now we're going to list this one."

See, it's that crude. You'll get somewhere in the vicinity
of a service fac, because it operates just like a magnet.
And that you're ticking away at it draws the pc's attention
toward it, and as he lists, he's even liable to list it
non sequitur  on the list. It doesn't even answer the
question, but there it is, see? You want to watch this, see, 
because his attention is being pulled to this thing inevitably. 
You're asking him for right answers, and he gives you the 
rightest answer he knows: "Jump off the top of the Empire 
State Building." That's the solution. That solves everything. 
That solves all problems, so you're asking him "What don't 
you have affinity for in this lifetime?" and he finally puts 
down "jumping off the top of the Empire State Building," see?
Hasn't anything to do with what he doesn't have affinity
for, but it'll go on the list. You get what I'm talking
about, now?

You see, your assessment is greatly assisted, greatly
assisted by the fact that as long as you're not ARC
breaking the pc and keeping him on levels that he is
protesting and is unhappy about, and as long as you don't
disregard the pc's interest while assessing, the mind gets
pulled right over to the service facsimile, bang! They'll
put it down non sequitur. They'll put it down a dispersed,
a disassociated item, and all kinds of wild things happen while
you're doing an assessment. You want to watch this sort of
thing. That thing stays on the list, and you notice it
doesn't even have anything to do with the list sometimes.

Well, actually, the degree it's disassociated from the
subject of the list is the most likely clue that it's a
service fac. But it just reads on the meter as long as
anything else. It'll stay in. You'll assess it out, long as
the pc understands what it is and isn't there because it's
a protest, see? Solution is not very difficult to find. If 
it's the solution to life, the guy is going to give it to 
you. He's going to handle your session with it. See? And 
you'll sometimes think you've been an awful knuckelhead.
You've had a pc sitting across from you for a long time 
that's been handling all sessions with this. Something 
like that. So it eventually dawns on you that that's what
that is, you see? Doesn't make sense, but it's sure been 
present.

And I'd keep looking for and running service facsimiles on
a pc until it looked to me like we had notoriously and
considerably altered this pc's methods of going at life and
until I had a wonderfully free needle and a nice,
gorgeously clear TA, and I'd just keep it up.

Now, what's the basic benefit? I was going to give you one
other benefit to the thing. It, of course, is the source of 
your present time environment. So the pc who is always coming 
to session with a PTP that has to be audited before you can 
get on with the session, of course is having his service 
facsimile kicked, out of session. So it's a diagnosis of 
the existence  of a service facsimile. That's continuous. 
Anybody has a PTP once in a while. That's always got big 
PTP, big, big, you know, big, big. You know, "Il-dal-dal, 
oh-da-da-dal. And we can't be audited today because of 
so-and-so, and we got to handle this other situation and 
so on."

You're just looking at a service facsimile. What mass is it
that is such a magnet for trouble on this case? There must
be something restimulating here in the environment all the
time. There must be some restimulable item right here all
the time. And man, if you can get rid of that, the
overrestimulation factor of a case vanishes. See? The
overrestimulation vanishes. So you have knocked out at one
fell swoop - because restimulation by reason of present time
is always about 50 percent of the restimulation present on
any case at any given moment, that has service facs, you
see? It's about 50 percent of the charge on the case.

You've only got, then, 50 percent, you see, that you can
restimulate with safety because the tolerance for
restimulation, you see, is lessened by 50 percent. All of a
sudden this character will run like a startled gazelle if
you can get this service facsimile out of the road, because
your environmental restimulation has nothing to kick back on.

Now, we used to try to solve this by processing him faster
than the environment can kick him in. Remember? You know?
Process him twenty-five hours during the week, keep him
away from home, and his wife won't kick his head off, and
when he goes back home he'll stay stable. You know? That
kind of thing. But we were just hoping we'd get the service
facsimile before he went back home. You understand? So if
you could reduce that factor out of the case, then all the
gains the case made in session would stay. So there's
another bonus. See, the cases wouldn't drop between
sessions, see?

Now, the amount of attention which the PC has turned in on
this service facsimile and the disabilities which accompany
it, and so forth - the attention that he has on that - also
keep him from looking at his bank. I could say that an
expert handling of service facsimiles - this is just a wild
guess - would probably raise the runability of the case about
a hundred to one. You don't actually know how easy a case
would be to audit. See, if every case has some of this and
it only becomes visible when some cases make it impossible
to audit, see, well, how easy is a case to run? Well, we
probably don't know the answer to that question.

See, but we know some cases are impossible to run, and
those are the ones we have attention on right now. So, you
take care of those for me just now, will you please? Thank 
you. 

[applause.]

Thank you.

******** TAPE END



