6203C19 SHSpec-123  Mechanics Of Suppression

     The axioms always have been "way ahead of us.  Trying to get scientology
tech to catch up with them is a tough job.  The axioms contain the basic data
on suppressors under the heading of "not-isness".  Not-isness is a suppressed
is-ness; it is the effort to put an isness out of existence.  Running lies out
of a bank runs out alter-isness and not-isness.  Alter-isness is change.  It
sits between an is-ness and a suppression.  Time, mechanically, is change.

     A cycle of action runs from a non-existence to an existence to
non-existence.  The first material on this is "Science of Certainty" [See PAB
No. 3 "Certainty Processing", p. 4.  The earliest reference is to Journal of
Scientology, Issue 16-G "This is Scientology -- The Science of Certainty".],
the something-nothing process.  The cycle of action never entered in; it was
just alternate something and nothing used to unstick a maybe.  Most people
consider a maybe as an unknown, though it isn't really an unknown, except
perhaps mechanically.  A maybe is really the no-man's-land between the
certainty that something is and the certainty that it isn't.  A cycle of
action can be stacked alongside maybe, and you could say that change is
maybe.  It looks, in the reactive mind, as though the middle of a cycle of
action is a maybe, so that all change is a maybe, and therefore, if anything
is changed, maybe it isn't:

     START             CHANGE            STOP

     CERTAINTY         MAYBE             CERTAINTY

     We get a new process out of the above: the "something-nothing" process.
It is hard to word this so that it is comprehensible to a mind.  We have had
trouble processing not-is, something-nothing, lies, etc.  Lies get into
creating, which beefs up some banks.  This new process (something-nothing),
which is a Class I process, [A Class I auditor is relatively unskilled and is
only permitted to audit a process that he has had success with on pcs.  See p.
152 and HCOPL 29Sep61 "HGC Allowed Processes".] needs refinement on wording perhaps.  It is just "It is / It isn't" repetitively.  If he is run awhile on this the PC will move on the track.  He will also, before long, deliver up his chronic somatic, PTP, current difficulty, or whatever, by applying the process directly to his case.  What you are doing is running him on the cycle of action.  You haven't said whether the "It isn't" is vanishment or not-isness, but the PC will always run it as not-is, or suppressors.  So you are running direct suppressors, and the thing he is most immediately suppressing is most likely to come into view: his hidden standard or chronic PTP.

     The thing he is trying to make up his mind about is something he has
said, "It is" about, then, not liking it, has said "It isn't." This has left
him in the maybe or whether it ever was, is, or will be.  You would get
nowhere processing someone on "maybe", because basically, there is no such
thing as maybe.  There is only creation and the conditions of the creation.
Even when a cycle of action has been completed, it is still there as a
memory.  This gives the PC a recording of the "It is." You never get a pure
nonexistence after an existence; the only pure nonexistence was before the
existence.

     So this fantastically simple process can produce practically every other
phenomenon in scientology.  It stems from existence and nonexistence, which
stems from perception and "don't-want-to-perceive", which goes over into
creativeness and destruction, and wild bands of change in between.  Most
people avoid isnesses like the plague.  In the course of running the above
process, the uncertainty of the case blows off.

     The open-minded, maybe case is the normal frame of mind for modern
scientists.  They think LRH isn't scientific because he is so positive;
because he is not full of maybe's.  Scientists are always on the verge of
something being revealed suddenly, which scares them.  Therefore, they make
bad auditors.

     People that have a lot of withholds don't want their minds to be
invaded.  People are hung up in revelations.  The Catholic Church is against
the idea of investigating the mind.  They are big on revelations, which are
all delusory.  Modern science's revelation is the H-bomb.  But this is too big
a revelation, so people won't look at it; similarly with scientology.  It
would be more successful to oppose the H-bomb by cutting back the revelation
to an investigation of the guy who pushes the button, [than to try to impress
people with the whole picture of the H-bomb.] With scientology, revealing that
it clears people is too much revelation.  You will have more success with, "Do
you have a pain?  Scientology would probably take quite awhile to do anything
about that." The person could confront that much.  You could run, "Get the
idea that there is a pain there / Get the idea that there is no pain there."
This would tum on the pain.  He could confront it, because it is slightly on,
unlike his suppressed pains [so he won't be faced with an unexpected
revelation].  Check every five or six commands to make sure he has followed
the commands.  Pains which appear in some [previously] non-painful areas,
where the person has some malfunction, will turn on.  He will be completing
old cycles of action.

     Only two things can happen to a person: to have nothing appear and to
have something appear.  So the two conditions of any game are appearance and
non-appearance.  So we get the anatomy of games, which is the context in which
LRH originally studied this subject.  The opposing player in a game either is
or isn't.  The middle between "It is" and "It isn't" is what reads.  There
are all kinds of ramifications of "It is." Anything can be represented by "it"
-- the opposing player, the team, either team, etc.  The amount of "is" the
person can conceive compared to the amount of "isn't" the person can conceive
finds the disagreement between the "isn't" and the "is" that gives the read.
All the meter reads on is the disagreement between the "It is," and the "It
isn't." Two valences in one mind can produce quite a disagreement, e.g. an
atheist and a Presbyterian.  It is the disagreement that gives the read, so in
the case of the atheist and the Presbyterian, you will get a big registry on
the meter from either one because of the other.

     On 3DXX, you will get as much charge off running terminals as oppterms.
The whole mass goes out of balance when you discharge one; but that one won't
discharge totally until you can discharge the other.  Why are they
counter-opposed?  It is because one says certain principles are and the other
says certain principles aren't, and vice-versa.  They are violently opposed.
You will find that this is characteristic of every GPM package: You get
identities which are opposites which make problems.  So all these isnesses are
opposed by all these not-isnesses.  It is heavily charged and violent because
of all these disagreements.

     You could probably put this theory into any process.  For instance, you
could make a prepcheck zero question out of it:  "Have you ever considered
that another didn't exist?" or "Have you ever insisted something was?" With
that, you would get tremendous number of overts, since trying to damage
something is trying to make it not exist, and when you are creating something,
you are asserting it is.  Every overt is an assertion that something is or
isn't.  This is all very black and white, unlike non-Aristotelian logic, which
insists that positives and negatives don't exist.  It is true that there are
gradient scales and that ultimates are unattainable, but you would be speaking
nonsense to say that positives do not exist, though ultimates don't.

     General Semantics (See Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics) and modern
science shy completely away from positiveness and certainties.  As time drags
out, positiveness reduces.  The less concept of time a person has, the less
positive things seem.  All you have to be is aware of the now-ness of the
instant, and you get quite a bit of isness and not-isness coming in.  This
occurs during havingness: the walls seem brighter; what happens is that the
not-isness disappears and is replaced by nonexistence.  It ceases being a
suppression and becomes, so to speak, an awareness of nonexistence rather than
a suppression of existence.  A person sits surrounded by masses.  These are
all not-isnesses.  The first thing the PC would say about them is that they
don't exist.  As he runs havingness and comes up to PT, the walls get brighter
and these things would disappear.  But when you run some people on havingness,
it goes from not-isness to nonexistence on such a clear-cut track that, as you
run havingness on them and make the walls more real, their bank materializes
and they have people standing in the room.  You run off the not-isness by
running on the isness of the wall.  The not-isness that pushed the picture
into invisibility released, as the person's reality on the wall increased.
You ran out the invisibility of the isness.  The "people" have always been
there, but he has not-ised them and has had to be quite careful about them all
this time.

     The fellow whom you audit on and on, who never gets any pictures is a
classic.  He is totally suppressing, because there is something he is deathly
afraid will appear.  You could make a list of "Who or what would be afraid to
find out?", oppterm the terminals, etc.  As this ran awhile, the dead bodies
that he has not-ised would start to to show up.  Sometimes someone in a
weakened condition will take his attention off these things for awhile and one
will materialize and spook him.  He will say that he has been blanketed.

     Many people don't have a time track; they have only a series of
not-isnesses.  These are the "calm" people.  Hah!

     There are some pretty hideous phenomena that can occur while running this
out, but continuing to run it will turn them off.  Auditors used to get upset
by this while running "not-know".  They would get curious when the PC actually
not-knew something to the point of its vanishing and go off in a Q and A and
never flatten the process.  Of course, this was terribly restimulative on the
subject of not-find-out, the not-is button.

     When the not-is disappears, the isness materializes and scares the PC to
the point, at times, where the PC decides never to let that happen again.  The
pictures that turn on can be more real than PT, for awhile.  This is quite a
surprise.

     A PC gets afraid to find out, when an identity in the bank has been
asserting isness and somebody else has been asserting not-isness.  Various
bank phenomena turn on and off and the PC gets stuck.  Then he gets afraid to
find out.  Something is liable to materialize, to appear.  This makes a bad
auditor.  He is just shaky on the subject of things appearing.  He can be
gotten over it educationally and/or with processing.  "It is / It isn't" does
it.  3DXX would do it, as would various prepcheck and not-isness questions,
etc.

     Another method is a change in the withhold system.  [See pp.  186, 190
above.  Also see HCOB 21Mar62 "Prepchecking Data...", p. 2.] To use the
withhold system on suppressors, add "Appear" before "Who".  This might even
run an engram.  Go "When, All, Appear, and Who".  "Appear" is "What might have
appeared (or revealed itself, or should have shown up) at that point?" or "Is
there anything that didn't show up?" This mechanism helps get suppressors off
the withhold.  Beefed up in this way, it might be strong enough to run an
engram.

