SHSBC 77

RUDIMENTS

A lecture given on 31 October 1961

Thank you.
Okay. And this is...
Audience:       October 31st.
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, October 31st, 1961.
All right. Now, you have come to grips with clearing since I've talked to
you last in a very definite and broad way and I want you to do this with
your pc at the very next session before the session is started. Do a
Dynamic Assessment just for the dynamic. Do a Dynamic Assessment for the
dynamic before your next session. I simply want a Dynamic Assessment.
Now, if you don't know how to do a Dynamic Assessment, that is very simple.
You just ask the pc how he feels about the various dynamics and you take
the one that reacts the most or the change of needle pattern from the
remaining dynamics and then you tell me which dynamic fell the most on your
PC.
Now, there's a few bits and pieces of news with regard to processing. And
you are posing the problem in a very heavy way of broad, rapid clearing and
we have been using some Class II types of technology in order to clean out
circuits that interpose and so forth in clearing and so on.
Now, you know that it would be very difficult to audit anybody unless you
had some Security Checks squared away on this person. I think you will
agree with that, with the experience you have had here. Isn't that true?
That'd be very - rather difficult, if you never did a Security Check on a
pc to expect him to go anywhere.
Now, you see the goal will disappear rather easily. The terminal will
disappear rather easily, so that assessment becomes rather difficult. But
remember that you are running a goal and a terminal and in view of the fact
that you are running a goal and a terminal on the pc, whether you're run -
fling it by Prehav Scale or some other process, no matter what you're doing
with the goal or terminal, it can disappear. These two can disappear as
easily during the run as they can disappear during the assessment. So you
see, a goals-terminal run then must be handled with the rudiments in just
as you have to have the rudiments in, in order to assess them. Does that
make good sense to you?
All right. Now, those things which are closest to present time often have a
greater influence upon the preclear than the whole track. Now, where is the
boundary? This life is more important than other lives. In the pc's eyes
only, not from the standpoint of his aberrations. His past lives have far
greater aberrative value because of course, they're more hidden. But in the
pc's eyes, this life of course has much greater importance than any past
life. So you have at once a situation where the person who is sitting there
being processed by you is completely convinced that anything that is wrong
with him has happened to him in this lifetime. Well, this is one of the
things that's wrong with him: that he considers that he could get this
aberrated in just a half a century or less.
You see now, that's silly. There's really nothing happened to anybody in
this lifetime compared to what has happened to them over thousands and
thousands of lifetimes, you see. So you're processing somebody who believes
that this lifetime is more important than past lifetimes, when in actual
fact this lifetime is not at all important as far as auditing is concerned.
As far as the basic seat of aberration, as far as his reactive bank is
concerned, it all has its fundamentals in his past track before this
lifetime ever began.
All right. Now, let's take that a little bit further. What has happened in
the last twenty-four hours is more important to him than has happened in
the last month. Let's just look at that again.
Now, of course, what has happened to him in the last twenty-four hours is
not more important to him than has happened in the last month. But the pc
thinks it is. Well, here we go again. You see, it's the same equation
working out now in a little more finite piece of time.
All right. According to the pc's viewpoint, what has happened to him in the
session is more important than what has happened to him in the day. Let's
get it down - you know, not this lifetime - past lives, but let's move it
down to now, to this day is more important than this month. Therefore, to
the pc, what has happened in the vicinity - in the immediate vicinity of
this auditing session or in it is more important than what has happened in
this day. That's what the pc thinks.
So of course, you get a tremendous reaction on the part of the pc from an
ARC break and he thinks this is the thing. Right now this is what is wrong
with him. It isn't what is wrong with him at all. It's probably those
fifteen thousand prisoners he had executed way back when, you see. And he
made them sit in a chair, you see - he made them sit in a chair and he
executed them with electrodes which look remarkably like E-Meter cans.
Something on this order, don't you see.
So he has an ARC break and he will tell you it is the ARC break which is
holding up his auditing, when as a matter of fact it's the fifteen thousand
prisoners. But because of this value, you cannot audit across the top of
the ARC break easily. You can't do it because his mind is fixated on the
moment of time nearest to present time. He fixates on this superficially
and analytically. So that has to be pulled before you can get to anything
else.
And it's something on the order of a little tiny gate made out of strips of
flimsy tin or bits of Dennison crepe paper and the pc says, "This huge,
enormous, iron gate, which is spiked, counterbalanced and which weighs
seventy-five million tons, called an ARC break, is the gate that is
interposed between me and getting on in this session." See, that's what he
says; that's what he thinks. All right. It isn't true. It isn't true.
This ARC break, actually, as far as his future life is concerned, is made
out of Dennison crepe paper. But it looks awfully big. Now, as this ARC
break floats back into the past, gradually drifts back into the past, it
gets to be yesterday's session, it is not so important you see. It gets to
be last month's session, no great value. It gets to be last year's session,
well, you have to dig like mad to find it.
Well, why is this? Because of progression of time. The analytical mind
fixes closest to all of the havingness. You've got all this havingness
around here, you see. Present time has got all the havingness in it.
Therefore, those things which are closest to the havingness are, of course
more valid than those things which aren't close to the havingness. He no
longer has Camelot, see. But he does have modern England.
So what happens close to modern England, of course, that's close to the
havingness, so that's fine, you see. But Camelot, he never can get that
back; that's gone. Of course, it really has no value as he looks at it. It
has great aberrative value, but it has no analytical value.
So there is this basic disagreement always occurring in an auditing
session. What is wrong with the pc is in the yester-lives and what the pc
says is wrong with him is right here and now. Now, if you treat what is
wrong with him right here and now with bulldozers and heavy axes and
dynamite, as though the gate which is closed in your face is made out of
iron, is of enormous tonnage, is a tremendous barrier - if you treat it in
this fashion, if you slug away at it as though it is iron - the pc will
think so, too.
You can validate the pc into out-rudiments. You can work on him and you
very often will be right, but in the process of working on him too hard,
you can actually blow rudiments out.
You start removing rudiments ineptly, you start slugging them around and
you get the PT problem out and the ARC break in. And then you get the room
out because it's the havingness around which the bad incident occurred,
don't you see? And the room goes out and of course withhold goes in. But by
this time you've cleaned up the PT problem and the ARC break, but now you
have the room out and the withholds are out.
Now, if we were to go back over the rudiments again and check them, we
would find this to be the case, but in order to get on with it and have an
orderly progress of rudiments, we run, of course, the rudiments
consecutively and never cross them again. So we don't notice this other
point. An auditor has to judge this way. He has to make a judgment. He has
to say, "Is it going to do more damage to get the rudiments in than to
audit with them out?" Now, that is sort of a - sort of a wild one because
it's up against this perfection: is that the best auditing and the best
gains always occur against rudiments in. And a goals run is very, very
difficult to achieve with rudiments out.
All right. That's - that's the ideal, isn't it? The ideal is all rudiments
in during the entirety of the run, right? Now, how about crudely putting
the rudiments in? You can actually put the rudiments in with such ardor,
you can attack this gate the pc has got closed against auditing in his bank
with such ferocity, with such battering rams, with bulldozers and dynamite
and so forth, that he becomes utterly convinced one way or the other that
the rudiments are way out and that it's all a pretty hopeless proposition.
And you throw the rudiments further out than you throw them in.
Can a condition exist whereby the handling of rudiments worsen the run? Can
a condition so exist? Yes. And this is the discovery which we make here and
it's an interesting discovery. There are two or three I will detail to you
here.
And that is that any auditing of a terminal other than the goals terminal
of the pc can increase the density of the bank and the resistance of the
preclear. It doesn't happen a hundred percent, but it happens enough to
make one very wary.
Any auditing of a terminal which is not the goals terminal of the preclear
can result in difficulties. Tone arm rises; it gets sticky; it goes up; the
pc gets very uncomfortable; the pc becomes very ARC breaky; the pc gets
very, very upset; the rudiments are very, very hard to keep in. Why? Why?
Because in not auditing his goal and his goals terminal, you are of course
liable to be auditing other terminals and these increase the density of the
bank. So that the pc becomes more ARC breaky by auditing certain rudiments
than if you left them alone. See how this could be? It's one of these - one
of these horrors. It's one of these super-impasses. It's one that requires
judgment on the part of the auditor.
Well, I'll give you an idea. The pc's goals terminal is "a willow wand."
Let's take something nobody has for sure and so the pc runs a willow wand
and you can do all sorts of weird things with this willow wand. You can run
concepts on it and brackets on it and you can run it backwards and upside
down and nothing very grim happens on the willow wand, see? This can run,
you see.
But in the rudiments, he has a present time problem with his boss. So we
say, Well, get an idea now of getting even with your boss; get an idea of
your boss getting even with you. Thank you. That's fine. Get an idea of
getting even with your boss, your boss getting even.. ." We're auditing the
PT problem, you see. And we're going to clear up "boss." The boss is not a
willow wand. And the harder we try to get it in, the less it goes in,
because the pc's attention is distracted off of his goals terminal every
time we say the word boss. He goes flink, boom. "Boss, boss, boss. Wow!
Boss. Well, us willow wands. . ." See? So off it goes and the bank gets
stiffer, heavier.
All right. We're going to have an ARC break. We're going to run this ARC
break in, see. This is going to be real good. Well, the person has an ARC
break with the auditor and has had ARC breaks with past auditors and we're
all set now. And we'll say well, "What has an auditor failed to do? And
what have you not been able to say to an auditor?" And we go on this way,
and we go on and we go on and we go on. And every time we say the word
auditor, the pc's bank says, "Well, us willow wands. . ." No thank you. His
attention is being pulled out of session, out of session, out of session,
out of session. Don't you see? So the ARC break eventually disappears
without the tone arm going down. You've stiffened the bank up, don't you
see?
Now we had it stiffened up on the PTP. Now it gets stiffer on the ARC
break. And now you say, "Do you have any withholds from me? Me over here,
see. Me. Me. Me. You know? Me. Me. Me. You know? Withholds from me. Me.
Me."
And all of a sudden - all of a sudden, "Us willow wands. . ." And the bank
again doesn't go down. Nothing deflates here; nothing happens. So having
"gotten the rudiments in" (quote) (unquote), in this particular instance,
all we have succeeded in doing is getting a non-registry of the meter by
stiffening the bank up past registry. You see how this could happen?
Well, it's happened here lately to several cases. I've been steering you
along the line, I've been steering you close to the edge in a few places
and out of the last week-or-so's auditing, these facts have emerged: that
some of the cases present in the last week or so being audited - a very few
of them, only something on the order of about 20 percent, but that's good
enough - would have done much better, thank you, if the auditor had never
touched a rudiment. Because the auditor was getting them in by attracting
the pc's attention violently off the goals terminal with a resultant rise
of tone arm.
In other words, the rudiments weren't being put in; the meter was sudden -
just being beaten into non-registry. So finally all rudiments are out but
not registering and rudiments can go out and not register if the tone arm
is very high and the needle is very sticky. You should realize that as part
of your auditing kit.
Try it sometime. Assess somebody very carefully and get a terminal. Let's
say it's "a hyperbolid," see. And then very carefully for a very long time
in auditing, avoid ever letting him put his attention on a hyperbolid and
very carefully put his attention on everything else but a hyperbolid. And
you'll wind up at the end of this particular run with about 20 percent or
something like that of the cases so run with a high tone arm and a sticky
needle. The rudiments have just all been violently driven out.
How have they been driven out? Well, the pc is actually experiencing a
scarcity of auditing. That's one of the reasons. He feels he isn't being
audited. So that would be one reason. And the other more important reason
is the person's terminal is not getting the attention it thinks it
deserves, which is total attention. You see how this could all add up then
to a miserable sort of a situation?
So if, in the process of putting rudiments in, the tone arm starts up, it's
a very good thing to look very pleased as though you've just gotten the
rudiments all in beautifully, give two more questions, give the rest of the
rudiments rapidly and look very pleased - needle falls off the pin on
withholds, you get the idea - look very pleased about it all. Even heave a
sigh of relief if you want to make a liar out of yourself, but the sigh of
relief would actually amount to the fact that you've actually gotten him
out of that particular embayed position without running him aground
completely. He's just partially aground. And then run whatever you're
running and for heaven's sakes make sure that what you're running has
something to do with the goal or the terminal of the pc. And his bank will
soften right up and it'll all come out all right.
But if you keep at it - if you keep at it, pound, pound, pound, pound,
pound, pound, pound, pound - and that tone arm isn't coming down and the
needle is getting too stiff to read, you're just heading for trouble. You
can just park the case just like that.
Oh, I'm - can tell you all this because it has been subjected to
considerable test and nobody here was being used as a guinea pig. It just
turned up as a gratuitous fact. It just turned up and took off its hat and
said, "I am a sturgeon." And we said, "Well, how do you do?" That's the
truth of it.
Now, terminals arrived at through a Dynamic Assessment, a full Dynamic
Assessment, were apparently not too far off goals terminals, so old Dynamic
Assessment runs were not too bad, but any vast concentration on the case
where the auditor simply picks the terminal out of midair and makes the
case concentrate on it, is liable to bring about in enough percentage of
cases to make you worry about it on all cases - any time it gets up above
20 percent, well, it's liable to happen to you at any time, so just avoid
it. We recognize clearly that the goal and terminal of the pc, properly
run, will get the case further than any other single process.
Now - remember now, as we say this, that rudiments are just a process. They
are four or five processes. That's what rudiments are. They are just
processes.
Now, if those processes take the pc's attention off his goal or terminal to
too great an extent, you suffer from this other liability. The rudiments
will go out faster than they go in and that's what I've been talking about.
On such a case, you will get further, actually, by auditing with the
rudiments out rather than audit with the rudiments further out.
Now, it isn't true that a case makes no gain with the rudiments out. The
gain is very tiny. There is some gain with the rudiments out. It is very
slow. It's quite microscopic. But it is a gain. It is a gain. And that
little, tiny gain of course, is better than a negative gain, see. It'd be
better to audit toward a tiny gain than to a thoroughly messed-up case,
see. The better choice.
Now this is no invitation to assess people with the rudiments out. It is no
invitation to run people with the rudiments out. I'm just pointing out to
you that under these circumstances that when assessment is driving the tone
arm up - pardon me, when rudiments for assessment just drive the tone arm
up and make the needle sluggish, when rudiments for the original runs on
the case just drive the tone arm up and make the needle sluggish, you're
much better off saying, "Well, how do you feel about the room? Good. Is it
all right if I audit you? Fine. Do we have any ARC break? Good. Do you have
any withholds? Oh, fine. Good, so forth. Oh, yeah, present time problem.
You haven't - you don't have any present time problem. Oh, that's good.
That's fine. Fine. That's wonderful. All right. Now we're going to run this
process, and it has to do with a willow wand."
Or in assessment - in assessment there is another dodge. You pick up the pc
when the rudiments are most likely to be in and assess him at those times
when the rudiments are likely to be in and don't assess him during times
when they are likely to be out. Doesn't that sound weird? You say to the
pc, "How do you feel?"
And the pc says, "Oh, I dunno. I'm not too good," and so forth.
And you say, "Well, we'll have a session tomorrow."
You see? You actually could do this. You recognize that you could do this.
You say, "Well, what time of the day do you feel best?"
And the fellow says, "I feel pretty good around three o'clock, usually -
afternoons." He thinks this over, "Well, yeah, usually, afternoons I feel
pretty good. After lunch I feel pretty fine."
And you say, "Well, that's fine. That's good. Now, we're going to have our
assessments here. We're going to assess for thirty-five minutes immediately
after lunch."
That'd be a way to get the rudiments in, wouldn't it? So it wouldn't be
impossible, even if the rudiments appeared to be out, you would get
someplace this way by picking only times when the pc was in good shape.
Now, you're laughing about this now, but you actually will encounter this
in your auditing and I can see that sooner or later you're going to use
this on somebody.
Well, why all this? Why did they go out? Well, I should give you this very
important datum, this extremely important datum. You understand the datum I
just gave you as important was that taking the pc's attention off his goals
terminal could result in a stiffening or a massifying or solidifying of the
bank as registered on the tone arm and needle of the pc. And, therefore, it
is a liability to run any other terminal than his goals terminal.
All right. Here's the other one: The pc's goal, if run by itself on a
two-way or more flow, should bring down the tone arm and that is a
wonderful thing to know. That is a wonderful thing to know.
You've got the pc's goal and terminal. You can't get the rudiments in.
Everything you're trying to run for some reason or other causes the tone
arm just to go higher and causes the needle to be stickier and it goes
along with an ARC breaky pc and you're trying to run the goals terminal,
but you don't seem to be getting anyplace at all. You know, on a 5-way
bracket or there's something messed up about the command or maybe the level
isn't right or you've overrun a level. This was an old problem in clearing,
was overrunning a level and getting the tone arm so high and getting the
needle so stuck, you couldn't reassess.
Now, I can give you a method which should, under ordinary circumstances -
since I haven't done it to enough people to tell you broadly that it'll do
it to all cases - I myself believe at this time that it'll probably, will
undoubtedly do it to all cases, but I can't tell you that from actual fact,
I can only tell you my observation up to this moment - that running at
least a two-way flow on the exact goal of the pc phrased in some action
wording would cause the Prehav Scale - or stiffening of the bank or
rudiments stiffening of the bank to come right off.
Quite marvelous. You see a high tone arm - you see a high tone arm, a stick
needle, you don't know what's gone wrong. Your assessments might have been
out on a Prehav Scale. You might have overrun something. It might not have
been a proper command. You might have been running with the rudiments too
far out. There might have been a level which was left unflat, and then you
went on to another level and this goofed it. There might be something wrong
here and you can't quite find out what it is. You apparently have this to
fall back on: You can phrase up the pc's goal. You - it's given. You have
to have his goal already. You can phrase it up so that it can be run just
as itself and that is all. You just run the goal.
It has to be action phrasing, however. You can't just chant. Let's say the
pc's goal was "don't want to go home." You can't just say "Don't want to go
home. Home don't want to go," you know. That would not be a proper command
phrasing. You would have to say how, or what, or something like that. "What
would you have to do to go home," see, something like that, you see. "What
would go - what would wanting to go home involve," some such phrase, but
it's better to have it in a two-way flow and you'd say "What would make you
want to go home? What would make another want to go home?" Now there's a
very good one, see. "What would make you want to go home? What would make
another one want to go home?"
"What would you have to do - ?" - any such phrasing - "How could you go -
?" "What would this involve - ?" Any such phrasing woven around, leaving
the goal more or less exactly worded and intact will give you a brand-new
lease on life.
Now, you can - you can discharge it all down. You get back to where you
were and you've now got a needle that you can assess. You got a pc who
isn't ARC breaky and you now feel happy about the thing and you can go on
auditing and find out what is wrong. This is to get him back into the realm
of the living. So you see, that's a valuable thing to know.
If that fails you, well, you've always got suicide. You could propose that
to the pc. That would solve his problems. "R2-45" by its various - various
other techniques. So don't think that you just have this one technique to
fall back on.
Now, that's a valuable thing to know, that you can probably desensitize the
situation - that is to say, you can resensitize the meter by running the
goal.
The goal run all by itself apparently produces some interesting -
interesting phenomena. Apparently, a goal can be run all by itself. Now let
me give you a further ramification on this.
We find the pc's goal and the pc has a goal of - well, let's say it was,
"Under no circumstances to let the auditor have my terminal." Let's just
corn it up, but let's say that that was the pc's goal: "Under no
circumstances to let the auditor have my terminal." Now, of course, you'd
recognize clearly in black and white letters of fire that under no God's
quantity of expert terminal-finding over the next three weeks were you
going to have much of a show because your pc is always going to have the
rudiments out. The pc's always going to have it mucked up one way or the
other - obviously, with a goal like that. You see that clearly? "To never
let an auditor get anywhere near my terminal," or some such goal. That's
his - the lifetime he's - I mean, it's a goal for the last trillion years,
see. He knew he was leading up to this lifetime or something so he had his
goal all set.
Well, you could turn around and run it and all you do is run the goal.
That's all you've got. You haven't got a terminal. So you just run the goal
until you can - got the goal kind of tamed down a little bit and you can
find the terminal now. Cute, huh?
In fact, this is so good that I don't know that it wouldn't become standard
procedure to run the goal before you looked for the terminal, because it'd
be very fast assessment if you did. I don't know that it would become
standard procedure, but I'm just giving you warning. Having made a
discovery of this particular magnitude with what you can do with a goal,
why, you can be prepared for anything.
You can do something with a goal and if I find you can do something with a
goal, why, I guarantee you that we will do something more with a goal, you
see.
All right, so there is a method of short-circuiting it. Now, I've given you
a very weird and corny type of goal: "To never under any circumstances,
over my dead body, to let the auditor have my terminal." See? That's very
corny, isn't it. How about a goal like this? How about a goal like this?
"To remain totally undiscovered." Well, isn't that the same goal? Isn't
that the identical goal? Now, how long are you going to sweat over that one
before you get smart and remember this lecture?
I'm going to invite your attention to the pc's goal as indicative of his
behavior in processing. You look at the pc's goal, I'll predict his
behavior in processing and I won't be a hair off any time. I've been
looking down your throats on this now for weeks. Matter of fact, I just - I
once angled in toward a pc's goal because of his behavior in assessment. He
was just laughing a minute ago there.
I did. I said, "Well, let's - let's sort that out from that angle because
we couldn't get anything to stay in. Nothing ever would stay in on this
goal and of course, the thing was practically "Nobody is ever to find
anything on me," you see. That was the goal and it was very hard to find.
And this pc, by the way, was being assessed, continually, with the
rudiments wildly out. They were always out.
Well, look-a-here. It was after the fact. You've got the goal. So now you
can understand why it was hard to get the assessment. But remember, you're
doing - you're doing the assessment before you've got the goal. You - you
don't have this datum yet, do you? Valuable as the datum would be, to know
the person - the best way - the most easily - the easiest sessions you
would ever run would be those sessions in which you were trying to find the
goal that you already knew what it was. That'd be a very easy session to
conduct.
The goal is "To hit the audit - hit an auditor over the head with an
E-Meter," you see. And you know that, so every time he reaches over for the
E-Meter and so forth, you put his arm back in the chair, and you - there's
no surprise involved with it, don't you see. But we sweat along over this
goal for a long time and we are considerably annoyed all during the
assessment because at the least provocation, the pc picks up the E-Meter
and hits us over the head with it and we think this is getting in the road
of the assessment. You might say that the pc sitting there is the
assessment. So if we knew it in advance, the pc would never give us any
trouble. But we don't know it in advance.
But let's use this idea. We go down a long list of goals on the pc -
Routine 3 is just done Routine 3, you understand. There isn't big changes
occurring here. I'm just showing you some of the mechanics back of all this
- and we do an assessment. We get our rudiiments in. We get them in very
well. We make sure that a Sec Check has been done on the pc. We make sure
everything is grooved in and everything is very neat and everything is very
nice. And we go down and we get the goals list and we get the thing all
assessed out and we wind up with the pc's goal. All right, that's the way
we should do it.
Is there any way to make it any easier on us? Well, that's for sure.
There's ways to make it easier on us. As we look this thing over, we should
do a goals list rather relaxedly. We shouldn't attack the pc and extract
his goals list from him something on the order of a highwayman taking the
gold off the night mail, see. This is kind of a wrong approach.
We can weight this thing up with importance, you see. We can make this so
terribly important. We can make it under such strain. We can put so much
attention on these Dennison crepe paper doors of the rudiments, you see,
that he begins to think these things are castle high. "Oh, God, nobody
could ever - . Oh, I hope I don't - I hope I don't have a present - I hope
- I hope I don't have a present time probllem before this session because,
of course, I won't get any place in the session. And we'll have to spend
the whole session on present time problem, and I hope I don't have a
present time problem. And let's see, how can I keep from having an ARC
break with the auditor. Let's see, if I get an ARC break with the auditor,
then the auditor won't be able to find my goal and terminal and - and the
session will be no good. So let's see. I guess no matter what the auditor
does, I won't pay any attention. I think that would be a good idea. Now,
let's see, room. Room. Well, that room always makes me nervous, so-so-so
the best thing for me to do is just not look at it, the whole session."
See, the pc is helping you out, see. "Ah, now let's see. I have no present
time problem and I'm not going to say anything much to the auditor or not
going to hear anything very much that he says and then I'll get no ARC
break and - and then I won't notice the room, so that'll stay in. And -
withholds, withholds. Do I have any withholds? Do I have any withholds at
all? Let's see, do I? Do I? Do I? Is there anything I haven't told anybody?
Let's see. Let's see now. No, I guess I don't have any withholds, but - but
on the other hand - on the other hand, he might find out the first third of
my life. Somebody might get into that quarter of my life and maybe at the
time of withholds, maybe if I just sort of clench the cans convulsively
when he starts asking about withholds, we'll get across that one all right.
"Now I've got the rudiments in, we will have a session."
You'd be surprised what goes on. The pc - pc tries to help you out all he
can. I just ran an assist a little while ago, by the way, on Quentin. It
had been carefully buried. Nanny had told him it was all better now and he
was now well. And you know, I couldn't get a single somatic out of him?
This little kid runs like a - like a baby carriage, you know. He'd fallen
out of bed on his head. No somatics? This character? Impossible. Because
usually all I have to do is say, "Bing, bing, bang, thud. Put your
attention on this, that, boom," and it blows. And that's about the end of
that. But in this place, no somatic? No somatic? So I trace it back and I
find out how he's been reassured while he's in a state of near concussion
that "it doesn't hurt now." Somebody's installed a somatic shut-off. So I
had to search this over, and - it took me a moment or two, and I said,
"Well, has anybody said anything about this? You mentioned this to
anybody?"
"No, nobody but so-and-so, and they said it didn't hurt now."
And I said, "All right. Well, do you recall when that was and where it was?
All right. That's fine. Got that all straightened out. Okay, now let's go
through this whole thing again." Somatics, you know, bang! Right in there,
thud! And he was running.
So don't think that I'm saying you don't have to have rudiments in. Here
was a somatic shut-off and here was somebody auditing before me. At the
moment of the accident, he had another auditor and he was still - as far as
the accident is concerned, you see - still totally fixated see, on a person
that was supposed to be helping him out at that time. So as long as that
person was standing there in the incident, the incident was shut off.
Well, of course, rudiments are in essence an effort to be the pc's auditor,
and if you can become the pc's auditor through putting the rudiments in, of
course the pc runs wonderfully. The somatics go on. All kinds of things
happen; various phenomena occur. Pc goes rapidly through the bank. The
rudiments are out; benefits occur less to the degree that the pc doesn't
have an auditor, you see. I mean, it's a direct proportion proposition. The
more he has an auditor, the more confidence he has in an auditor and so
forth, why, the more will occur in the session beneficial to the pc. It's a
direct proportion, so don't let me discount in your mind the importance of
getting rudiments in. I've just told you that there are times when it's
better to leave them slightly out than to drive them out with clubs.
I think we need a new phrase about there. Let's just call them muzzled
rudiments. Muzzled rudiments, you know. You say,
"Rum-thum-thum-thumthum-thum. All right. Now we're going to run this
process." And bang, here goes your session. You see, you've gone through
the form of Model Session and if one or two questions didn't release the
needle, you leave it alone. You don't run any process on the pc. You would
do that at times when the tone arm was high and the needle sluggish during
the last session that you gave the pc.
Of course, the pc comes in - of course, any pc of mine comes in with a high
tone arm and a sluggish needle and they left the last session with a low
tone arm and a loose needle, I curl my long, nonextant black moustache and
I say, "Well, I don't mean to inquire into your private life, but what have
you been doing?" They usually tell me and the needle goes down thud, see.
Needle goes loose. Tone arm goes down. They go into session. Now in
essence, however, if they're not going to and if this phenomena is not
going to occur by reason of everything being out, you - you're better off
auditing them with rudiments out than trying to slug the rudiments in.
Do you see? That's the only point of judgment I'm trying to make with you.
Muzzled rudiments. If you notice that every time you try to get the
rudiments in the pc becomes more ARC breaky than before, you might decide
that it's a marvelous idea to do, certainly one thing - to sort of muzzle
down the rudiments. Toughen up security checking on the pc.
You see, that's not a rudiment. Security Checking is Security Checking,
see. If he's going to be so chopped up and messed up and ARC breaky, he's
probably got withholds like crazy, so throw that over into the department
of Security Checking and if his tone arm and needle are not responding to
any process known to man or beast, if you're lucky enough to have his goal,
run it. You just run it and the whole thing will soften up. It'll bypass
everything else that's happening to the pc because this is the single, more
important thing than present time.
You have something more important than present time. So, therefore, it
overrides the top of rudiments and so forth. So is the terminal more
important than present time, but less so than the goal. The terminal is not
quite as important as the goal. And the goal is the softer road. See, there
can be several terminals to one goal. You can run a terminal flat for that
goal and then have to find another terminal for that goal. See and maybe
have to find another terminal for that goal before you get rid of the goal.
But goal? That's just one goal. Zoom! When it's out - when you've got it
audited out, then it is out. And that is it.
These are all points of adjudication. What do you do in auditing? And a
very finished auditor, an auditor who really knows his business, can handle
a pc well, goes on the basis of fundamentals. He sees what is happening
with the case. He knows what he wants to have happen with the case and he
just throws aside all barriers which interpose on his having that happen
with the case. I gave you a very crude example but a very easily
understandable one.
Well, all right, I'm trying to give a little boy an assist. No somatics.
Well, I don't try to sack into his past life and do this and do that and
the other thing. I just figure out "Well, what - woo-woo. This boy has no
somatics and he should have somatics. And nobody has run this thing. And
must have been something in the environment at the time." And sure, we find
a somatic shut-off. Somatic shut-off. Knock it out. There goes the rest of
it.
Would it have ever come out into the clear if I'd just run the process?
Yes, yes. I could have run the thing and run the thing and run the thing
and all of a sudden he would have remembered the person telling him this
and it would have blown anyhow and I would have come out the other end. And
it would have been the difference between about a two-hour session and a
fifteen-minute session. The way I did it was a fifteen-minute session. You
can always cut corners by knowing your business.
You understand that an auditor can almost always get there in some
knuckleheaded fashion. Skill does just this: It makes a time difference in
auditing. It can make an enormous time difference in auditing. It can be
something on the order of five hundred to one. See? It can be five-hundred
hours for one hour. See, pc gets this session. Auditor really understands
this. Gets a good grip on it. Has a little bit of luck. A couple of
horseshoes in one pocket and a rabbit's foot in the other pocket and some
shamrocks stuck in his lapel. Just hits it, you know. Bing! And he said,
"Is it so-and-so?" And the pc says, "Yes, it's so-and-so." And he does
so-and-so. And zoom and that's it. And that clears all that up and that's
the end of that.
And somebody else runs the CCHs and then follows through CCHs and he runs a
Present Time Problem Intensive one way or the other and gets that out of
the road. He runs all existing Security Checks, fifteen Security Checks
more that he himself has thought up and so on. And somewhere in this mass
of stuff, why, he hits the exact thing that the pc was on. And it happens
more or less at that point because the pc is softened up. You get the idea?
You could get there. You can always get there, you know, but riding what
tortoise sometimes.
Now, it isn't just basically that you always have to get there faster. As a
matter of fact, getting there swiftly is sometimes an economic liability
and in a society of this particular character, getting there too fast and
getting there too slow can be looked on alike as undesirable. They would
have you strung up in short order, I'm afraid, if you went out on the roads
and you saw somebody sick and you said, "God bless you, my son," and it -
he instantly was well. And you looked around throwing these God-blesses in
all directions and so on. Well, they'd say "That fellow down there in
Judea. It's about time we hang somebody else, man." They'd hang you, that's
for sure.
Furthermore, it'd be economically very difficult. Negotiations - economic
negotiations before you said "God bless you," you see, would take more time
than the cure and this would all be rather silly. And of course, I'm joking
now about this, but the economics of the situation do influence the length
of time in auditing. I just don't want them to influence the length of time
in auditing the way they did in psychoanalysis. Almost the total end
product of psychoanalysis is "how long can you get somebody to be
analyzed." Hasn't anything to do with what you do with the person in
analysis. It's how long can you go. Because the longer it goes, the better
your paycheck is and the more weeks you're sure of it. So there's an
optimum that the society will accept in terms of speed, economically.
Now of course, I'm just joking on that point, but there is another point:
it's how much change can a pc accept over what period of time and you just
start talking to this pc you're having too hard a time with on the subject
of Clear and you're liable to find out that it's just a totally
unacceptable proposition because he looks on it as a rapid proposition. And
you talk to him about rapid clearing, he's all set to tell you that he
wants to be cleared this session.
Well, that's interesting because you'll see some pcs putting it down
session after session after session that the session goal they put down is
to be Clear. Well, that's dandy. We're awfully glad they put that down as a
session goal. Nobody's criticizing it. Wouldn't say anything about it
except for this: It should occur to you as the auditor once in a while not
to question the goal, but to discuss the subject with the pc with your eye
on the needle.
Now, you shouldn't take up the pc's goals too arduously as did he reach
them or didn't he and his goals are his goals, and they are his goals for
the session. And you take up the session's goals at session end and find
out if he made them or didn't make them. But if all the pc ever said was
"to be Clear," "to be Clear," "to be Clear," "to be Clear," we wouldn't
question the goal, but sooner or later we'd find out what was he talking
about. What was he talking about?
And you'll find some tremendous variability. They - he doesn't really know
what he's talking about. Now, not that you would do this in a session -
very often he definitely does know what he's talking about - but, not that
you would do this in a session but you could do this in a session: You
could say, "All right. This session we are going to try to make this goal
of yours 'to be Clear.' And we're going to make it in this session." And
this, of course, to somebody that's reading at 6.5 and stuck up and so
forth.
It won't necessarily violate his reality, but it'll violate his
speed-of-progress factor. The idea of sitting down in this session in one
condition and coming out at the other condition without any time allowed
for adjustment, healing, feeling whether or not the water is cold, doing
all of these things, you see - and you're liable to get - you're just
liable to shake up the meter just - just horribly. I'm not saying you
should do that. I'm just saying the consequence of doing it on some pcs who
have this as a goal. Speed. Speed. The speed with which you clear the pc is
sometimes unacceptable to the pc and you very often will find a pc planting
his heels in. But what has got its heels in? And this is very important to
you. His goal has got its heels in. That's what's got its heels in.
Examine a case from the aspect of its goal. Examine the goal from its
aspect - from the aspect of what dynamic it is an overt against and you'll
find out something about pcs. You'll find out how a pc got a goal in this
solid. He had this goal. It was a perfectly honest goal - perhaps. And - it
was - it was a perfectly good goal and he went along, but nobody wanted
this goal because it didn't fit with certain dynamics. And they invalidated
it and he reasserted it and they invalidated it and he reasserted it. And
they invalidated it and he reasserted it, and they invalidated it and he
didn't assert it very much. And then he reasserted it and then they really
invalidated it. And after that, he skipped it and it kind of crops up now
and then. He thinks about it, you know, sort of, "Well, sort of a
fairy-tale thing. I mean, nobody really believes in it, you know. It
doesn't amount to much - just something you..."
And when you first pick it up, you'll find out it behaves like an overt. A
pc's goal, even though it is a goal - and it is a perfectly honest goal -
nevertheless behaves like an overt. And you can run it as an overt. And
that's why it works to run it two ways. It's running overts. It's the most
remarkable thing you ever cared to run into.
All right. Let's take the goal "to climb a mountain." Highly unlikely goal
on some pc, but we will take it that way. "To climb a mountain." All right.
"To climb a mountain." Very good. And you say - you can't figure out that
this would do anything to anything very much. And you say, "What would this
do to a group?" And by golly, the pc will come out with a long chain of
overts. It is an overt against a group to climb a mountain. You wouldn't
think so at first glance, but of course the goal wouldn't be stuck to this
degree if it hadn't been invalidated, if it hadn't been an overt. See, it
was treated as an overt, so it becomes one.
Naturally, it's been objected to so often that it's easily invalidated and
this is how a goal or terminal goes out on the pc. Any goal that was not a
mass goal of the race or line of the pc - but not - you know, just actually
not an axiom; any goal that isn't an axiom - is out of agreement to some
degree and therefore has been invalidated very often by other members of
the groups with which the pc has been associated, has been invalidated on
other dynamics and having been invalidated on other dynamics becomes a
fruitful source of invalidation.
Now he's used it to invalidate eventually and people invalidate it, so you
say to this pc - you're doing a goals assessment on the pc - and you say,
"To climb a mountain. To climb a mountain. Climb a mountain. Did you ever
go in for mountain climbing?"
And the pc says, "Oh, huh?"
And you say, "Well, your goal here 'to climb a mountain,' did you ever go
in for any mountain climbing?"
And the pc says, "Well, no, not particularly. I thought it'd be very nice
to climb a mountain sometimes."
And you say, "Well, don't you find mountain climbing awfully tiring? Ah,
it's not being done much these days, you know. Did you know that - did you
know that airplanes now fly much higher than Everest? Did you know that?"
And you say, "Let's take up this goal now 'to climb a mountain.'" It
doesn't register.
Now we get the rudiments in and get the ARC break off and the thing
registers again. Now, what's - what's the phenomena connected with this?
It's just that the goal has been invalidated very often and has been used
for the purpose of invalidation of certain groups of people and so is a
fruitful source of invalidation. And you just sort of breathe on this goal
lightly, you see, and it apparently folds up.
Actually, this is a misnomer. It simply disappears from view and it
disappears from consciousness, but it sure doesn't disappear from the
reactive bank. It's in there plowing and chewing and mashing, going on like
mad, you see, down underneath the cover, but you can actually - can get it
off of the meter by invalidation.
And because the terminal is an outgrowth of the goal, it of course could be
similarly invalidated. Well, these things are easily submerged. So the
rudiments go out; there disappears the goal and terminal. You could go
forever. Actually, we have. You can pull a thousand, fifteen-hundred goals
or terminals off of a pc when the original ones are invalidated? Mm.
Oh, I'll tell you one. An HGC didn't take the pc's goals list. Pc
laboriously writes out a goals list, so an HGC didn't take the pc's goals
list, but wrote the pc a new goals list down for the pc, taking it off by
the meter. That was it; that was enough. I don't know how long they
assessed and it wasn't length in that particular instance. They did a
complete misassessment. The goal they found couldn't possibly have stayed
in. The terminal they found couldn't possibly have stayed in. They ran it.
They got nowhere. It was a complete mess.
Fortunately, we found the list. We found the list and found out about this
and got this straight and so forth and it was just a matter of, I don't
know, five, six hours. Just five or six hours. There it was. The pc's goal
occurred on the original, handwritten, personally written list, but didn't
occur on later lists. That any goal had been invalidated, you see - by not
accepting just the pc's list of goals, the goal - the pc's goal
disappeared. It disappeared because when the pc was asked to list the goals
again, she didn't list it. She omitted her goal. Interesting, isn't it?
Ha-ha-ha, boy, I'll tell you. Finding goals and terminals is walking a
tightrope.
Now, are there any processes that you can run - well, I've given you one.
There's this goals process. That's very good. Several brackets of the goals
process; two brackets or something like that. It's marvelous. But there
must be some other processes. Must be some other processes that you can
run. Oh, yeah, well there's a hatful of them. I've just done a safety table
which I think you already have. Should have been issued. It was last
Thursday's bulletin. If it hasn't been issued to class, it should be. But
it's a safety table. Safe processes. That's all.
Now, this particular problem is what can you audit and it lays down this
rule. I have gotten enough information now so that I can write up a
Problems Intensive and will talk and give a comprehensive lecture on the
subject of everything about a Problems Intensive - all the form and so
forth. I'm redoing the form and so on.
But it follows like this: that you can always ask a generalized Security
Check question. Contains the word you and it contains the word someone or
anyone. You can always ask that type of question. You, someone, anyone. You
know? "Have you ever robbed a bank?" Well, fine. Not much of a terminal, a
bank. "Have you ever - have you ever sunk any boats?" These are not as good
a Security Check question as "Have you ever robbed anything? Have you ever
sunk anything?" See?
The further you can get the question away from a particularized or even
what we used to call a generalized terminal, why, the better off you are.
You say, "Has there been any commotion before that problem? Was there any
commotion before you had that problem? When did you have that problem?
Well, what activity was going on then?" See?
You didn't name anybody. You don't direct the pc's attention directly onto
past terminals if you can possibly help it. Now, understand you can get
away with it. You can get away with quite a bit of this. I'm just showing
you that it's a poor practice and you should realize that it has
liabilities and it has limitations. So it is a better Security Check
question - "Have you ever robbed?" What's the - where's the rest of it?
Well, just leave that to the pc's imagination. His mind will go over onto
something, see? See, that - I'm just doing the reductio ad absurdum,
actually. This is being too careful, see.
"Have you ever robbed?"
The pc says, "Well, there's the next.. ." You know, his mind connects on
the proper terminal or whatever he has robbed, you see.
All right. This - that - that's nearly perfect, but too extreme. "Have you
ever robbed anything?" or "Have you ever robbed anyone?" Ah, that's good.
See, yeah, that's all right. That's quite acceptable. You can play that
around and do a lot with this.
"Have you ever robbed your father?" Oh, no, that is utterly and completely
unacceptable as a Security Check question. I finally got all of the bars
down now and got this thing shaken out and seen where it lives and I know
all about this thing and that is just not acceptable, as a Security Check
question. You understand what I mean?
What does this amount to? "Have you ever robbed your Father? Thank you.
Have you ever robbed your Father? Thank you. Have you ever robbed your
Father? Thank you. Have you ever robbed your Father? Thank you. Have you
ever robbed your Father? Thank you. Have you ever robbed your Father? Thank
you."
Well, what's happening here? Attention on terminal, Father. Attention on
terminal, Father. Attention on terminal, Father. Attention on terminal,
Father. This would be a little bit safer but also a little bit corny: "Have
you ever robbed any member of your family?" See? At least his attention can
flick around without you crushing it down against Father. He'd be better
off. That would be the better thing to do.
You understand that you've got wide latitude here and you can get away with
an awful lot. I'm just giving you the perfections of it. That's all. I'm
being pedantic, in the extreme. You can run through a Security Check
question, you can actually assess lists of people and you can find out who
drops the most and run practically a repetitive command on the person of
what they've done to them. You can do all this sort of thing and you just
get away with it left and right - as long as it's a Security Check because
O/W is the only thing that'll run against a terminal. It's the O/W that
excuses it.
You can always run Overt - Withhold as long as overts and withholds exist.
Don't run Overt - Withhold where no overts or withholds exist. That sounds
awfully mechanically something, but why - why do I add the additional
provision? Well, this is strictly and entirely because if no overts and
withholds exist, you're still putting the person's attention on another
terminal, than the person's goals terminal. And you're going to get some
kind of a repercussion.
Therefore, when a pc runs out of overts and withholds against a certain
person in the past, he would get ARC breaky. Why? Did you ever have a pc do
this? "Yeah, but they're - but I don't have any more. I didn't do anything
more. I - I - mean I have no - I - uh..."
He's sensible now that his attention is being crowded newly over onto that
terminal. You got it washed up before, but now newly you're crowding it
onto that terminal. That's a bad show.
So Security Checking is the best way to run Overt - Withhold and a
generalized sort of question is - having to do with the action, not the
terminal - is much better than any other type question. And you get some
sloppy, pronoun type of terminal - well, that's not, not perfect, but it's
quite acceptable. "Have you ever robbed anyone?"
Now, you understand that you can throw questions in along the line, but you
should realize, actually, that you are just to some degree getting away
with something. It's a violation of this other, so you are - you're -
you're just getting away with something.
All right. You take prior confusion. We'll take up prior confusion in
another lecture and beat it to death. But you take prior confusion: the
person says, "Well, was there any excitement before - when was the first
time you noticed you had that problem? Oh, yeah, well, that's good. Was
there any excitement occurred just before that? That's fine. Now, oh, yes,
well, you had a fight with your sister. All right now. What did you do to
your sister there? All right. Did you have any withholds from her? Was
there anybody else you had any withholds from? Oh, yes, you had a withhold
from your sister. Good. Is there anybody else you had any withholds from
then? Any more and so forth? Oh, all right. That's fine. That's good. Did
you do anything else in that particular period? Did you do anything to
anybody else? Was there anything of this a little earlier? Did you have any
unkind thoughts any earlier about anything or anybody and so forth?" And
you're just running unkind thoughts, criticalness, withholds, overts, you
know, just - just reach around the basketful and just clean up the
confusion, you see. Just plug away at it and so on. That's almost perfect.
You'll find out the present time problem will blow. The somatics will blow.
The person's illness will blow. You'll find out the ARC breaks blow and so
forth and it opens up the door to a brand-new type of rudiment. It's a
Security Check type of rudiment. You clean up your rudiments by Security
Check and find out you can get away with it much better.
You don't have those at this particular instant. They're still in
development. It is based on this other lineup, see - the prior confusion to
get rid of the out-rudiment. Well, it doesn't violate the goals terminal,
and it doesn't leave the pc sitting out in the middle of nowhere.
But let me give you just this - this other fact. I've talked about it quite
a bit and I've been asked here a question of "What exactly makes the bank
stiffen up by taking its attention off the goals terminal? What exactly?
Now, I've said that the terminal asserts itself. It's one of the built-in
mechanisms of the terminal that if it is ignored, it gets apparent. This is
one of the mechanisms of the thing. This is still, however, not answering
this question because frankly I don't know, frankly. I can give you the
generality and I can give you the basic law that makes it occur, but the
exact mechanics of how this is done actually, practically - practically it
just staggers you trying to figure these things out. Exactly how would the
pc with his left hand make his bank go stiffer and heavier and more solid
and so forth, so that he notices it on the right hand, you see.
It's always this mystery about "How does the pc do it with his left hand -
in order to feel it with his right hand and just exactly what goes on
here?" Well, the exact mechanics of the thing - electronically and so forth
- I could not tell you at this time. I donn't know.
But I can tell you this: that you needn't worry about hidden standards
anymore, because all the basis of all circuitry are to be found on the
goals list of the pc. The basis of the pc's circuits are in his goals and
the type of circuit he will have of various kinds will be found on his
goals list. So that you get his main goal, you'll find out one line of
circuits and when you go down and assess another goal, you'll find another
whole series of circuits. After you've gotten rid of the first goal, you'll
find another whole series of circuits obeying this other goal. And we have
the basis of circuits for any given individual. And isn't it interesting
that it's different for every other individual, so don't - and there are a
couple of billion of them alive at the present moment right here on this
planet, so don't blame me too excessively for not having noticed they were
all the same mechanism before, but I have just more or less scouted this
out at the moment.
If a person has a hidden standard type of circuit that is immediately in
action, running the goal bypasses it. And if he has several types of
circuits, they will be found somewhere on his goals list, and you will get
to those as you clear him. As you get rid of the terminals and the goals,
why, the next layer will unpeel. And of course, those that are most active
may come last, but they will surrender the most easily.
Well, what - what is the goal of the pc? Well, you'll find this - the first
goal that you find on the pc - remember you're going to find other goals on
the pc, too, after you've gotten rid of the first goal. It has to get out
of the road. But the first goal of the pc will describe the most available
series of circuits and one of the things you do for the pc when you first
find his goal is you actually do blow up some of his circuits. So actually,
the best way to get at hidden standards is to clear the pc. Interesting,
isn't it?
But you clear him with his goal and if you bring his goal into the command,
his circuits will clear up, which is what's new here. You're getting
commands now that include the pc's goals as part of the command, which we
will also talk about at some other time.
But it's quite amusing if you recognize that the center. . . This is a
possibility, you see, that the pc has a goal "never to give the auditor a
terminal." They actually will respond as a circuit which goes into action
in the presence of an auditor and then which blanks out the pc's memory of
anything if the auditor asks for the terminal, see?
I'm just saying - supposing this were the main goal of the pc, just giving
you a piece of idiocy. Which is - nobody ever had that goal. You get how
that would be? He's got a circuit set up so that you say, "Now, what is
your terminal?" and immediately this thing goes into an occlusion, makes
him stupid and doesn't answer. And he says, "Huh?" You know?
All right. That's his goal. His goal expresses itself in a circuit form. So
you get circuitry goals. "Never to make money anywhere." See? That's his
goal. Let's say it's "never to make any money at any time, anywhere." Every
time he sees himself in danger of making any money, a little voice talks to
him and tells him that's the wrong thing to do. He just comes close to
making some money and a little voice says, "Well, that's very bad. That's a
very bad thing." You know? "Much more advantageous to sell it than buy it
at this particular time," you see? And he gets caught in the stock market
crash and he's always in financial disasters.
You ask this person who has a goal like that if he was in any financial
disasters. "Oh, yes, yes. Lots of them."
"Well now, do you have any little voice that tells you what to do in order
to make money?"
"Oh, well, it's funny you ask this, but I always have a hunch."
"Well, how does this hunch express itself?"
"Well, I get a burning in the - under my jaw here, you know. It sort of
comes to life, you know? And I just know."
All right. You run the person's goal, you find the person's goal and run it
a couple of ways and so forth and this somatic will go ke-pshwt! And there
goes the circuit.
So we're down to - we're in reaching distance of straight ways to blow
circuits, anyway. So we have made a considerable gain here in the past
couple of weeks while you've been agonizing around. But I've decided to
treat you all nicely. I've decided to be very good to you and so forth. And
as far as possible at the moment, I have you running directly in the
direction of Clear pointed and fired.
And it's some possibility that some of you in the next few hundred years -
might, as you're auditing might accidentally slip, you know, and disconnect
the E-Meter so the needle will float and something on that order. I'm not
going to threaten you with being Clear. You don't have to be Clear if you
don't want to be. Really. You can go on being aberrated if you want to be
and so forth.
The only thing I will say is if you - if you insist utterly on remaining
totally aberrated and so forth, you have approached a period when you've
got to be very careful. You've got to be very, very, very careful and try
not to do any of the auditing commands because if you do just a few of
them, it's liable to happen. And so I'm not threatening you and I don't
want to beef up your banks and so forth or anything like that, but I'm very
happy to - no, I'm very happy, by the way, with the general run of cases
for the first time in many, many, many, many, many weeks. First time this
year, actually. First happy - where I'm very happy with all the cases which
are running. There's a couple of little question marks hanging over the
left ear of a couple of cases present, but that's all working out and it's
all going very smoothly. But I think you must somehow or another
accidentally have applied some of the information you've been getting on
the bulletins. For that - and for that I thank you. I thank you very much.
So I hope that - I hope you have a very successful run of it, and - I do. I
want to see some Clears here in the very near future. So you, too, could
sacrifice yourself toward this ambition or goal. Okay?
Thank you.


