620ZC12 SHSpec-110  Prepclearing

     Sec checking is out; prepclearing is newly born.  It sounds better, for
one thing, and it is preparatory to clearing, hence the "prep".  Auditors
haven't learned sec checking very well, despite lots of efforts to teach them
to do it, so it is probably hard to do.  There must have been some element
missing, so LRH has been working on the subject of withholds, realizing that
if nothing was missing, he should have been able to articulate it well enough
so that auditors could get it and do it easily.  He has done remarkable things
with pulling withholds, now and then.  But maybe there is more to the
mechanism.  He had been aware since the first of the year that if he couldn't
relay it so that auditors could get a resurgence after every time it was done,
then there must be some kind of variable in it.  Missed withholds was the
first discovery that resulted from this research.  They have proved out as the
source of all the ARC breaks and natter you get.  The proof is that when you
pull the missed withhold, the ARC breaks and natter disappear and the PC gets
case gain that had been missed before.  This is not a variable.  It is not
true that every time you miss a withhold you will get an ARC break, but it is true that every ARC break comes from a missed withhold.

     The only effective thing to do about it is to pull the missed withhold.
Punishment has been tried in the past and it hasn't worked.  Explaining and
protesting also don't work.  So you have no business trying to handle the PC's
ARC break with you, except by pulling the missed withhold, which is most
likely to have been in the session you are running, since, to the PC, present
time things are more important than the past.

     What the missed withhold is composed of monitors what rud goes out.  A
PTP is a missed withhold in life; an ARC break is a missed withhold in
session, etc.

     A "should-have-known" is an unknown, which puts us back to sec checking
with "unknown".  Auditors doing that were putting people into engrams and
trying to run the engrams with them.  It wasn't running well, although it was
successful at shaking up the bank.  The whole subject of withholds is not-know
and unknowns.  A missed withhold is a half-known, half-unknown.  There seems
to be enough charge to cause a polarity that sets off a God-Awful agitation in
the bank.  It can be half-known to the PC, being half-known analytically and
half reactive, hence half unknown.  Unknow plays a heavy part in 3DXX.

     The not-know that is most important is the should-have-known.  This is
regret; it bunches up the bank.  Something half known is very disturbing; it
seems dangerous and makes one freeze up.  The regret mechanism is what turns a
3DXX valence into a ball and loops the time track.  The mechanism of a looped
time track is due to just one thing: should-have-known.  This smashes
everything into the one time zone of a valence.  It adds up to a feeling that
one shouldn't have done, shouldn't have confronted, shouldn't have
experienced.  So the prior pictures of having experienced are invalidated at
once.  So he tries to say this never happened, and we get the occlusion of the
whole track.  Should-have-known is apparently the most important button in the
bank.  This is the sequence leading to occlusion:

          1. He should have known something.

          2. He didn't know it.

          3. One gets regret; this smashes everything into the one time-zone
             of a valence.

          4. This adds up to a feeling that one shouldn't have done,
             confronted, experienced.

          5. He invalidates prior pictures of having experienced.

          6. He tries to say they never happened.

          7. We get whole track occlusion.

     The only thing that reduces a PC's profile after auditing is ARC breaks.
But what produces an ARC break is a should have known, via a missed withhold.
So you can remedy ARC breaks with should have knowns.

     This universe has a quantitative button.  It isn't the number or size or
gruesomeness of the withholds you get that gives you case gain.  It is just
the thoroughness with which you get a withhold, the quality of your auditing,
which gives the degree of case gain.

     Freud was always trying to get the one button that would produce a big
resurgence in the case.  He must have done it at least once to have such faith
in it.  He never taught it to anyone, but he must have had some success with
it.  He was looking for a withhold.  He was looking in one area (sex) and one time (childhood), which circumscribed it too narrowly.  His occasional successes were what gave psychoanalysis its success and repute, even though they didn't know what they were doing.

     You have two choices when dealing with a missed withhold:

          1. Do a full dress job of knocking out all the should-have-knowns on
             the subject in this lifetime.

     or   2.  Just get and Knock out the latest key-in.

Which way you do it depends on how successful you are with the light
"should-have-known" touch on the latest key-in.  If the PC stays ARC broken or
quickly re-ARC breaks, you will need the full works, per HCOB 12Feb62 "How to
Clear Withholds and Missed withholds" [Starting from the difficulty being
handled, finding what the withhold is, when, all, and who should have known,
repetitively, per the rules in that bulletin.]   If you work this system, you
will find all of the basic buttons on the case will just roll out.  If you can
do it by the numbers exactly (per the above bulletin even chronic somatics
will straighten out.  They will come back during 3DXX, but this withhold
system does give the resurgences that Freudian practitioners are looking for.

     Prepchecking is the system of getting each rudiment in so it stays in
fairly permanently during 3DXX.  It uses the same elements as the withhold
system given above.  You could also do a Joburg Form Three with one of these
things.  [Form Three is the sec check form for new students.  See HCOPL
22May61 "The Only Valid Sec Check".  The zero question from Form Three would
be any question from the form that you are trying to clear on the PC.  If you
get a read, you move on to question number one, "What was that?" and, more
specifically, "What about (subject of the sec check question)?" Write this
down, because you will have to clear that question.  It should duplicate as
nearly as possible the PC's reply to the zero question and its read.

     A PC never refuses to tell the auditor, but he sometimes doesn't tell
because he doesn't know.  It is the auditor's job to get the PC to look and to
help him find the answer.  It may be so charged that he doesn't want to look,
but it is up to you to get him to look.  It is OK to be positive in getting
him to look, but if you ever imply he knows and won't say, you have admitted
that he is out of session, and you have got a games condition going.  So that
point never comes into the session.

     You must clear questions 0 and 1.  If they clear without 2, 3, and 4,
fine.  When you first get into question 2, you don't have to be precise, but
if you have to cycle through it again, get it more precise, so as to spot it
exactly if it doesn't clear.  [Question 2 is when the withhold occurred.] To
clear question number one, run 2, 3, 4 until 1 is cleared.  When it is clean,
check 0 again, etc.  Questions 2, 3, and 4 are the way to blow the withhold to
Halifax so it never comes up again.

     If, in compartmenting the question, you get a read on a sub-question,
that now becomes the zero question.  It is more important to handle one
withhold question well than thousands indifferently.  It is not the quality of
the withhold that counts; it is how much of it is submerged out of sight.  If
he has done something horrendous and knows about it, it isn't going to
aberrate him no matter how tempting it may be to blame his condition on it.
You will find that it is out of some stupid little incident run back on a
stack of things the PC did that you recover recollections on, bring them back
to view, and the PC confronts them and his case will tend to resurge.

     It is a good idea to take up any sec check question the PC has gotten
reads on recurrently, take it as the zero question, get the what, clean it
thoroughly with 2, 3, and 4, because it must be half-known or it wouldn't be
reading recurrently.  Any difficulty could be handled that way.  It is a
fundamental question.  You may not get much in the way of cognitions for
awhile, as your zero question keeps reading, but eventually things will begin
to blow and it will all fall apart.  Nothing will read on an E-meter that is
not significantly charged, and nothing will fall on an E-meter that is not
unknown in part to the PC.  If the E-meter registers, there must be something
unknown at least in part.

     The only thing you will get into and difficulties with is converting the
Zero question to the what question.  Don't vary the zero or what questions.
2, 3, and 4 needn't be rote, though you shouldn't get yappy on them.  Just be
natural with it.  You only use the meter to test one and zero.  Do not take
past life answers when using this system.  Pcs will duck into the unreality of
yesterday to avoid the withhold in this lifetime, or they are trying to run
the whole bank on this process, and this process won't run the whole bank.
3DXX is for handling past lifetimes; you won't get any gains running past
lives on this withhold system.

