

Type = 3
iDate=13/12/62
Volnum=1
Issue=224
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-224 R2-12 Data -- Needle Behavior




6212C13 SHSpec-224 R2-12 Data -- Needle Behavior

     A clean needle is a free, flowing needle, a slow, pleasant rise or fall,
which does nothing when the auditor is doing nothing.  It has no trace of
irregular or reacting motion on the meter.  A clean needle is like molasses
"being poured out of a bucket by a statue." Flawless mid-ruds will give you
one.  It flows at a uniform rate of speed.  The PC may have an intransigent
dirty needle, but after you find the first RI, you will get a clean needle.
The only problem with this is that you have to assess over a filthy needle.  A
dead horse list does a minimal amount to clean the needle.

     Cleaning a needle is not the same thing as cleaning a read off the
needle.  You will see a clean needle when you have finished a list, before you
have done anything else.  It will be slowly, flowingly rising or (more rarely)
falling.  This is particularly visible on a Mark V E-meter.  That is what you
should have before you start nulling, so as to be sure that you can null.  If
you put big mid-ruds in faultlessly, without missing a read or cleaning a
clean, a clean needle is what you will see.

     R2-12 is such a good process that it shows up any flaws in the auditor's
TR's, model session, or metering.  You cannot use PC upsets as an excuse.
There is only one point in running R2-12 where things look awry: about half or
a third of the way through a list, when the list is getting hot and the PC
doesn't want to confront the next string of rock slams, or when the auditor
tries to null an incomplete list and finds the needle frequently getting
rough.  In these situations, the PC will undoubtedly get somatics, misemotion,
etc.  That is usual.

     The final check for completeness of a list consists of asking:

     1. Is the list complete?

     2. Are there any more items?

     3. Have you thought of anything else that should have gone on the list?

     4. Could there possibly be anything else on the list?

If you get any reads on these questions, the list is incomplete.

     The reverse of a clean needle, more or less, is a needle pattern, a
chronic needle behavior that a PC exhibits while the auditor is saying and
doing nothing.  "A needle with a reaction on it is a dirty needle....  [It]
doesn't look like molasses being poured out of a bucket by a statue: any
ticks, any roughness, any slight speed-ups as it goes....  A dirty needle is
any needle that departs from the appearance of a clean needle....  It has
nothing to do with the auditor." He is doing nothing.  "If [in mid-session
with an auditing cycle complete] it is doing anything that has any
irregularity if it of any kind whatsoever, that is a dirty needle, and your
mid-ruds are out!" Watch the needle for a count of five, doing nothing, and
that -- whatever you see -- is "the state of the needle".  It is not how
sticky or unsticky the needle is.  It is whether the needle is ticking at all
or halting at all.  Seeing this, the auditor is expected to get mid-ruds in.
Not to do so is a goof.



                                      363

     A raw meat PC or a PC who has had previous bad auditing and has a filthy
needle presents a problem.  On such a needle, you can't expect much until you
get your first RI.  That is the easiest way to clean the needle, except that
you have to assess accurately through a dirty needle.  That is your most
critical time in auditing.  It lasts only as long as it takes you to get an
accurate first assessment.  It should take you only the first hour of
auditing, assuming that you don't get a lot of dead horses.  If you get a hot
item, just listing it will clean the needle.  You don't even have to null to
clean it.  After you have the first RI, you should be able to get mid-ruds in
pretty fast.  The PC will probably rockslam on List One, anyway.

     Needle characteristics tend to become misinterpreted.  For instance,
people have failed to recognize rock slams.  A rock slam is simply a slashing
agitation of the needle.  A dirty read is a buzzing agitation of the needle.
A rock slam always has a slash in it.  A rocket read "takes off.  It always
goes to the right.  It takes off with a very fast spurt and does a very rapid
decay, like a bullet fired into water.  It's very fast.  It goes, "Pshoo!" It
looks like it's got all of its motive power from its first instant of impulse,
with no additional motive power being imparted to it by anything.  It's kicked
off, and it has no further kick, so it just rapidly dies out.  How wide is
it?  That's a silly question.  I've seen them from a sixty-fourth of an inch
to a dial wide.  You see, they are any width." A rock slam can have its first
slash mistaken for a rocket read, if the auditor has never seen a rocket
read.  But the rock slam doesn't go in a spurt.  It is uniform and has power
put to it the whole distance of its slash.  It doesn't decay.  It stops
suddenly. Most commonly, the first slash is to the left.  Just one slash to
the left is enough to identify it as a rock slam, even if it doesn't
continue.  It can be awfully tiny, too.  The first stroke could be a sixteenth
of an inch, followed by a dirty read.  A rocket read should never be confused
with even a one-stroke rock slam, because of its rapid decay.  But a dirty
read is different.  It "looks like an electric buzzer going.  It doesn't look
like anything slashing, and a rock slam always slashes."

     A dirty needle is caused by big mid-ruds buttons being out.  Every PC has
a favorite button, as you find out when doing an eighteen-button prepcheck.
If you go beyond eight or nine buttons to get big mid-ruds in, you might as
well do a full Roll Your Own Pre-Hav [See pp. 333-334, above.], except that
you are now doing Routine 2 [See HCOB 5Jun61 "Processes Allowed" and p. 34,
above.], instead of R2-12.  The only trouble with Routine 2 was that its
results weren't lasting, good though they were at the time.  You have to find
items for the benefit to last.  It is the need for mass that requires R2-12.

     Item 1 is held in suspense in time because it is held in balance against
item 2, which is also held in suspense in time.  This configuration can be
unsettled somewhat just by running item 1.  The balance will stay out.  But
full benefit, i.e. ten to fifty times as much benefit, will result from
running the whole package.  If you leave too many of these single items around
the PC doesn't know what he is leaning against, now, and he doesn't think that
he has gotten any gain, even if he has.  After about six unfound items, the PC
will start getting nattery.



                                      364

     Therefore, you will get only so-so gains on R2-12 if you don't really
find both sides of the package, although you may think you did.  You can get
lots of gains if you go back to the lists that didn't end up with an RI and
extend them to get the item.  You will get no gains if you represent an item
that rockslams or if you fail to complete your cycles of action.  In fact, you
will get adverse results, especially if the PC was very interested in the
cycle you were on.

     You must have a clean needle before you nul.  A Mark V E-meter expresses
a clean needle much better than a Mark IV.  It expresses a "ruds in" PC.  When
the slightest little thing is out, the Mark V just doesn't look clean.  It
gets less flowing, less "right".  The Mark V just amplifies the Mark IV's tiny
little ticks.  It is not more sensitive.  It is just easier to read.

     You can harass a PC in trying to clean up a needle, to the point where
the needle gets dirty, especially by asking a super-generalized question like,
"What are you thinking about?" If the PC knew what he was thinking about, it
wouldn't make the needle tick.  Therefore it is useless to ask this broad a
question to clean the needle.  You will do better to get in mid-ruds.  On a
heavily charged list, the PC's think influences the needle more than on a
less-charged list.  If the needle has been clean, then slowly dirties up,
don't leap to put mid-ruds in.  The PC will feel interrupted and protesty if
you do this.  When the needle gets dirty, you can't always put in mid-ruds, or
you get no-auditing.  So when the needle was clean and gets dirty during
nulling, slowly twist the list around and show him as much as the needle has
been worse on and ask which item he has had thoughts on.  Get his suppressed
and invalidated items cleaned up, and go on nulling.  The PC may get allergic
to this after while, but this is not as bad as running mid-ruds all the time.

     The rud that goes out on checking, especially goals checking, is "anxious
about".

     Getting a needle clean is an operation that takes all reactions off the
needle when the auditor is doing nothing.  If the list is complete but the PC
has some minor withhold from the auditor, the withhold will cause him to be
individuated, so he will think things as you assess which, because of the
missed withhold, will read and make items appear to read that are not
reading.  You will have to clean them up.  Also, a PC with an incomplete list
essentially has a missed withhold.  Hence he has a dirty needle and the needle
reacts on everything the auditor says.  The PC is vulnerable to auditor
actions [because of the inflow of the withhold].  He isn't critical yet, but
he thinks extra thoughts.  He is individuated.

     High sensitivity picks up all the analytical thoughts of the PC.

     A really severe ARC break will give you a very nice flowing needle,
also.



                                      365


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=13/12/62
Volnum=1
Issue=225
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-225 Repair of R2-12




6212C13 SHSpec-225 Repair of R2-12

     [Some of the material in this tape is covered by HCOB 30Dec62 "Urgent --
Important -- Routines 2-12 and 2-10: Case Errors -- Points of Greatest
Importance".]

     There is a law embracing your disheartenment.  The more you goof, the
more disheartened you will get.  We are no longer dealing with a process that
has to be tailored to the PC, so any problems have to be with the auditor.
Someone has to be shoved through it to a win as an auditor so that he has
reality on the workability of the process.  This is hard to confront.  It is
like someone saying, "Be responsible." R2-12 produces results when it is done
right or even not quite right.  When you first look at it, you will think that
R2-12 has hundreds of variables.  Training auditors in R2-12 is based on the
idea of, "Walk before you read a book on walking." The only liability of this
teaching method is that you need someone there who can untangle the inevitable
goofs, when several have gone by and the PC has gone weird.

     The whole technology of straightening out a goofed-up R2-12 is to do it
right.  The only crime is to lose the session records.  One way to lose them
is careless labelling, e.g. no PC name or date or page number. You need to
know what went on and what the items were, etc.  Let anyone do R2-12, as long
as they keep the papers.  This applies to goals.  Don't lose old goals lists.
There was a place to write goals in Handbook for Preclears; those goals could
very easily get lost.  R2-12. lists are even more important than goals lists,
since you can get back to goals with R2-12, if need be.  So mark down what
happened, especially if something rockslammed.  Pain and sensation are less
important to note.  Note what happens to items when tiger drilled.  Auditor's
reports are less important than lists.  They can be used to summarize, not to
keep track of TA reads.  Needle behavior on lists is what counts.  Give a
detailed report of results, not session actions, in the Auditor's Report
Form.

     Don't get the ideas that there are lots of rules covering lots of
variables in R2-12.  One thing that will louse up some, but not all, cases is
to represent a rockslamming item, instead of opposing it, especially a List
One item.  "You never represent a rockslamming R1." The PC will go along with
it, the idiot!  But he knows that he shouldn't take his attention off the
rockslamming item itself for a second.  You are pulling his attention away
from where he thinks he must remain, with fixed bayonet.  So when fixing a
case, check to see if that has been done.

     When repairing a case, take repairing the first List One mistake as a
priority action, because it has more bearing on the session.  The worst goof
on List One is to represent what was rockslamming and should have been
opposed.  It is less awful to oppose something you should represent.  Complete
opposition lists.

     Which way an item should be opposed can be problematic.  The closer
things are to PT, the more likely they are to be co-terms.  Therefore R2-12 has
more co-terms than 3GAXX, being closer to PT.  Coterms are opposed both ways:
"Who or what would (co-term) oppose?" and "Who or what would oppose (co-term)?"
You can swap it back and forth, half a page each.  One side will run more
smoothly after awhile, and that is what you use.  Opposing a co-term can be
tricky.  The commonest goof is not completing the list but trying to make it
oppose instead.  This co-term thing is one thing that that makes it hard to
complete lists.



                                      366

     A represent list that goes nowhere can be dumped with small liability.
The item will be found later, somehow.  There are lots of rock slams in the
bank.  But opposition lists must be completed.  If you represent something
that didn't rockslam, you should check, if you having any trouble with it, to
see if it is actually rockslamming.  What you are representing might be the
item, suppressed, and your representing it cleans it up, so it now rockslams.
Like prepchecking, representing is powerful auditing.

     On the other hand, when you start to oppose something, you key it in.
Therefore, you must complete oppose lists.  On R2-12, the commonest goof
relating to this fact is failure to oppose something both ways to.  The method
described above for handling co-terms is not infallible.  The item might not be
a co-term, wrong way to.  It might be an item that is deaded down, never
rockslammed, or wrong source.  If it is wrong source, it never becomes
nullable.  "Nullable" is different from "item capable of being found on it".
A non-nullable means a list where the needle won't stay clean enough on it to
null it.  So extend the list.  The trick in extending an "oppose" list is to
do it the reverse way to, the other direction.  This will prevent a list from
becoming 1000 items long with no RI's.  If it is wrong way to on "oppose",
never renull.  Extend the list and null what you now have.  This, because an
incomplete list is the commonest error in listing.  If you nulled it to
nothing and ran out of rock slams, it is incomplete, so get more items.  Your
auditing could become good enough for you to be able to null a list that isn't
complete to nothing.  If you continue the list, you will find that the rock
slam will turn back on, on the thing that you are opposing, and you will get a
reliable item.

     In repairing lists, get old cycles of action done in order, from first to
last, starting with "oppose" lists, then doing "represent" lists.  Always
begin with Scientology List One.  So start with the first goof made on List
One.  This usually involves getting the rockslamming item that was missed and
opposing it.

     In any new group on R2-12, there will be people who tell you that it
doesn't work.  This is the not-going-right type of case.  There are two
possible reasons why the case is not going right:

     1. A rock slam on List One was missed and not opposed.

 or  2. Somebody shifted the cycle of action.

     Opposition cycles of action are always more important than represent
cycles.  So get the earliest and come up the track consecutively, unless the
List One was done as a later case action, in which case you fix any goof there
first.  Fix the first goof on List One first.  So the order of repair is:

     1. First goof on List One.

     2. Rest of List One goofs in chronological order.

     3. First goof on R2-12 oppose list.

     4. Rest of R2-12 oppose list goofs in order.

     5. First represent list goof.

     6. Rest of represent list goofs, in order.



                                      367

     Then there is the dead horse case, on which no one can find a rock slam.
This could be an incomplete cycle of action case.  You should look for the
following in such a case:

     1. Failure to oppose a rockslamming item, particularly on List One.  List
        One must be in restimulation for the case to now be laying dead
        horses.

     2. Failure to complete the "oppose" list, if the item was opposed.

     3. Auditor needed a white cane.  He didn't recognize or report rock slams
        that were there, particularly in a co-audit.  To determine whether
        this is the case, you have to observe.  Get one of the dead horse
        lists extended and see if it rockslams, or extend it yourself and
        see.

     4. Representing something that would become a dead horse.  You will get
        complaints about cases rockslamming too much to get ruds in.  The best
        way to turn off the rock slam is to represent something that would
        become a dead horse.  The rule is that a case will continue to
        rockslam only when the subject that the rock slam is on continues to
        be addressed by the auditor.  If you are listing one thing, the PC
        doesn't rockslam on something else.

     "You don't even get a phantom slam on an uncharged list.  The list has to
be hot ... to turn the slam on." You can get confused as to which item is
slamming, as the rock slam turns on and off.  The phantom slam has this
characteristic: it never obeys the auditor.  It turns on and off, but it can't
be controlled.  The PC, in such a case, can't be controlled either.  He is
never doing what you tell him to do.  But a rockslamming item on such a case
will obey the auditor.  The item will slam as long as the PC thinks about it,
then stops when he puts "suppress", etc., on it.  If you get these buttons
off, it will slam again.

     However, you can kill an R2-12 item with tiger drilling.  It should be
done briefly, because the items are in PT.

     So, in patching up a case, look for:

     1. List One errors.

     2. Oppositions.

It is lucky that case patch-up is so simple, since the number of possible
errors is almost infinite.  However, there are not infinite numbers of special
cases on R2-12.  The commonest mistake is for someone to go on and on
representing and never check whether the item they are representing is now
rockslamming.  It may well, now that it has been unburdened.  So check it from
time to time, especially if it won't null.

     False reports will give you the least difficulty, except for cases where
PCs tell you that they have pain, when it is really sensation.  They will also
lie about the fact that they have been invalidating items.  Getting a clean
needle before nulling pulls all that up.

     Running the case parallels repairing the case.  Doing R2-12 follows the
same order of importance as the repair priorities.

     An embarrassment you can get into is getting rocket reads instead of rock
slams on R2-12.  First be sure it was a rocket read.  Rocket reads take
precedence over rock slams, so just oppose it.  Since the PC can use a rocket
read item to find a goal with, the PC may be continually intruding his goal,
at this point.



                                      368

Fine.  Get it checked out.  Don't leave it in doubt.  When he gets his goal he
can run R2-12 better.  This doesn't mean that he can be run on his goal.
Complete R2-12 first.  The case that is being cleared over the top of an R2-12
PTP won't stay F/N'ing, even if it gets to an F/N.  Eighty percent of all
cases that have tried to go clear have hung up here, so it is very important.



                                      368a


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=8/1/63
Volnum=1
Issue=226
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-226 R2-10 and R2-12




6301C08 SHSpec-226 R2-10 and R2-12

     [Part of the data in this lecture is also found in HCOB 30Dec62 "Urgent
Important: Routines 2-12 and 2-10 -- Case Errors -- Points of Greatest
Importance".]

     "In August, I wrote a jerk ... named Kennedy.  This latest adornment of
the Russian victory parade was offered help in the space race -- straightening
up I.Q., etc.  This 'lighthouse' has twice asked for presentations of
scientology.  We've granted them, and they have done weird things like fire
the guy who asked for them." Time rolled along.  The FDA started sniffing
around.  The government organized a smear campaign in the press, and they
raided a church, seized philosophic texts and E-meters.  How did they do
this?  They lied to the court!  They didn't tell the court who the warrant was
for and they didn't mention books.  The warrant was signed by the president.

     So ads are being placed in newspapers in the bible belt, and there will
be a delay in the court hearing.  "I frankly was getting worried.  We'd been
ignored too long!" We needn't waste time fighting the government.  It is its
own oppterm!

     What should happen when you find an item?  If you give the PC the wrong
item, he will have markedly more mass than he had a minute before.  If the
list is incomplete, the PC will also ARC break in the next few minutes, and
you will be unable to get him out of it except by completing the list.  With a
right item, mass diminishes.  A PC knows whether or not it is his item.  You
are only auditing up to the PC's knowingness, so if he doesn't know whether it
is his item, you know it isn't.  He has to be certain that it is right.  Also,
when you package the item, the PC must know that it is a package.  If there is
any queasiness about it, it is out.  The PC's knowingness is paramount, in
getting the right item.  Well done listing should produce an item that brings
in VVVGI's, not just agreement.

     Routine 2 has a little miracle to offer.  Done this way, the masses go
"Pffft!" against each other; the rock slams cancel out.  Wrongly done, R2
delivers more mass; done right, the PC has less mass.  It is a question of
havingness.  The wrong item has mass because:

     1. Though it does have its own mass, it is not the fundamental mass.

     2. You have told a lie about it by saying that it is the fundamental
        mass.

     [More data on running Routine 2]

     Some day, on Routine 2, you will have the bad luck to have a very
suppressed PC.  He will suppress the item as he puts it on the list.  You will
miss the rock slam, and you will know you goofed and have to do something
extraordinary.  The PC may ARC break very thoroughly and auditing with ruds,
missed withholds, etc., won't handle it.  Only Routine 2 will fix it.  Get him
to extend the list; get the item, and the ARC break will be gone.



                                      369

     The more unnecessary arbitraries you introduce into how something is
done, the more trouble you will have with it.  R2-12 began to handle
rockslamming.  R2-12 can be done at several levels.  There are a lot of
results to be had, even doing it wrong.  Auditors have had more trouble with
it than LRH expected.

     There are three sources for the first list in R2-12.

     1. The PC's immediate session environment.

     2. The environment the PC lives in more generally.

     3. The various parts of existence.

If you already have the PC's goal, you can ask, "Who or what, in PT, would
your goal influence?" to get a rockslamming item.  You could get life and
livingness sources by asking, "What is part of your life and livingness in
PT?" and "What is not part of it?" Each could be a complete list.  If one
doesn't rockslam, the other will.  Often both will.

     We have to find something that isn't rockslamming to get a list, when you
are after a "part" or "consist of" list, because you only oppose rockslamming
items.  If the PC rockslams on "Your life", don't list, "In PT, W/W does your
life consist of?" Test the source of a list to make sure that it doesn't
rockslam.  You can even tiger drill sources to be sure.  If a source does
rockslam, skip it for a represent list.  Also, don't oppose some
out-of-the-blue rockslamming item.  A rockslamming source for a list is always
out of a context of another incomplete list that you don't necessarily know
the heading of.  A rockslamming item is therefore not necessarily an RI.  It
is not totally destructive to oppose such an item, just dicey.  Sometimes the
lists you get when you do this won't complete, or you will get lots of
co-terms.  If you found "scientology" rockslamming, you could just oppose it
as a security measure, but there is a liability to doing this.

     So avoid the sourceless rock slam as something to list from.  If
"scientology" rockslams, find something else to list from that gets at the
same thing.  You can't do a "represent". You have to find some way of saying
scientology" so you are not representing scientology, e.g. "Ron's work", or
"mental activities", or some such.  Say four dynamics rockslammed.  Therefore
the source is an incomplete list.  You have to complete it, but how?  You find
something about scientology or the dynamics that is broad and embracive, like
"mental activity", or "What is/isn't part of existence?" Then you get an item
and oppose it.

     Your success is monitored by this:  Do Routine 2 right and repair it with
Routine 2. A little Routine 2 and a lot of general auditing won't give much
result.  R2 is more powerful because it is hitting at the PC's PTP and hidden
standard.  He doesn't know what they are until you direct his attention to
them.  You could ask, "What would some healing process have to do to you in
order for you to know you were better?" The PC will consult with a circuit and
give you his hidden standard.  If you tried to list this PC's goals, all you
would get would be the goals of those circuits.  This is another reason why
you cannot get the PC clear with these circuits and hidden standards in the
way.  After Routine 2, you will begin to get the PC's goals instead of
circuits' goals.  Get a few packages off and out of the way, and the PC will
give you his goal.  Then you can run him on a goals process and clear him.
But you have to clear up the PT environment first.



                                      370


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=8/1/63
Volnum=1
Issue=227
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-227 Case Repair




6301C08 SHSpec-227 Case Repair

     If you did the pure form of listing and opposing described in the last
lecture, you get less mass as a result.  If you start seeing more rock slams
than before and there is more mass on the PC, you have been goofing.  The best
visual indicator is the PC's skin tone.  If mass is increasing, the PC's skin
goes green or yellow or grey or black.  The eyes are also an indicator,
although they are somewhat less reliable, because going through a period of
sen. will make the eyes look "sen.-y".  But do note the PC's skin tone at the
start of the session, so that you can compare this with its later appearance.
Age is another symptom.  The PC should look younger half way through the
session.  Even hair color will change: it will get grayer or less gray.
Weight will also change, over the course of two to three sessions, in the
direction of optimum weight.  The meter should also behave better.  It should
be more responsive; there should be a cleaner needle.  Routine 2 doesn't do
much for the TA position.  The needle is more indicative.  The PC's TA can sit
at five, with the PC getting better and better.  If the TA remains motionless
throughout listing, that's fine.  After awhile, there should be some change.
It is not in the course of one session, but after several.  Eventually, there
should be improvement in a high or low TA, or the mass hasn't been cleaned
up.  Persistent low TA is worrisome.  Seeing no change in TA, look for:

     1. A wrong source

or   2. A list that should be completed.

You should be especially concerned if the PC was at 1.5 and didn't change
after a couple of packages had been found.

     Listing wrong way to makes the needle stiff and jerky.  On a right list,
the needle should free up, get clean and stay clean.  A list can go clean
needle before the item is on it, so avoid short lists.  A super-long list, say
twenty-five pages, is from wrong source or wrong way to.  Five to six pages
should do.  The wronger you are, the longer it takes.  The right way goes
fast.  When nulling a list, don't tell the PC that an item rockslammed until
you have finished nulling.  Then watch his indicators to be sure that it is
his item.  Don't shift his attention after telling him the item.  If he ARC
breaks when you have given him the item, it is wrong, and you had better get
him to go on.  He won't mind, if it was the wrong item.  If he knows it is his
item and you try to make him go on, he will ARC break.

     When do you repair a case?  When it won't run right.  The commonest error
in Routine 2 is wrong source, and the commonest source of that is an item
taken from an incomplete list.  Any item is viewed as coming from a list, even
if it was never before listed.

     The three areas that you have available to get items from are:

     1. The PC's PT session environment.

     2. His PT non-session life and livingness environment.

     3. The parts of existence.

So if the PC has several rock slams on List One, you know at once that List
One is an incomplete list.  This gives you the problem of regress: you are
always starting from a list that hasn't been written.  The auditor's
responsibility is to make sure that the list source question doesn't rockslam,
since if it does, it is obviously part of a list, so he can't use it for a
represent or a "consist of" list.  All lists start with a represent list.



                                      371

     Just because something slams, you don't necessarily oppose it.  You might
try to find out what the item is from by asking, "What list question would
_______ be an answer to?"  If you have been listing from something which, when
you check it, now slams, it is wrong source.  It is not that it is "getting
unsuppressed".  So what you want to do is to find a non-rockslamming list
question that produces rock slams.  There must be no rock slam anywhere in the
list question.

     If you list from a non-rockslamming source and don't get rock slams, you
can always use the negative version, "What doesn't _______ consist of?" If you
don't get anything on "Parts of existence", try, "What isn't part of
existence?" You can also do this with List One.  If a PC has his interest
stuck on an item, find what list that item was on, and complete the list.
Once you have got a rockslamming item from a complete list, you can go ahead
and oppose it.

     What about a case that has been run a long time on wrong sources, wrong
way to, and has lots of wrong items?  This is pretty sad, but the case will
still have been improved.  Just repair it by finding the first incomplete list
on the case, even a suppositional one or a List One, or whatever.  Get a list
question of some sort that doesn't rockslam, add to the list, and try to tiger
drill alive what originally rockslammed.  If you get a rock slam while
extending, watch to see whether you keep getting them.  If you do, it shows
wrong source or wrong way to.  Try it the other way around.  If it still won't
clean up, it is wrong source.  Complete all such incomplete lists.  Where you
get RI's, oppose them, and the bric-a-brac will blow off.

     When repairing lists, just examine the genus of the list and see if it
needs completing.  Get it completed to its proper item, oppose it, and package
it up.  Before this is done, the PC will be interested in the item.
Afterwards, he will have no interest in the item; it erases.  He will cognite
on it.  The PC may have trouble remembering right items; wrong ones will be
memorable because the PC's attention is still stuck there.

     The purpose of Routine 2 is to clear away chronic PTP's and hidden
standards, so you can find and run the PC's goal.  Having found his goal, you
may still need to use Routine 2 to wipe out restimulated terminals, when the
PC caves in while running the goal.  You can use, "What does PT consist of/not
consist of?" or "What does auditing consist of/not consist of?" Everything
said here about lists also applies to goals clearing lists: Routine 3-21.
[For more data about R3-21, see pp. 332 and 356, above. More data is also
available in confidential HCOB's 7Nov62II "Routine 3-21:  The Twenty-one Steps
-- Finding Goals" and 17Nov62 "Routine 3-21".] One of the hardest things you
will use to get a rockslamming item from is a goals list.  Goals lists almost
never run out of slams.  When they do, though, they behave like any other
list.

     Remember that a rocket read is senior to a rock slam, and that in other
respects, you trust it the same.  If you find rocket reading items on a
(therefore incomplete) list, complete it to one rocket-reading item.



                                      372

     The "frequency of rock slam" test is senior to the "stickier needle" test
on wrong-way-to.  Having found an RI, a PC's needle may be fine, but the
wrong-way-toness of it will beef it up.  Do it the other way.  If it still
doesn't clean up and give one rock slam on nulling, the source item must have
been from an incomplete list, so complete it.  Be prepared to be wrong, and
straighten it out.  Straighten up Routine 2 thoroughly; fix up auditing
briefly.  You could also find one rockslamming item that never got opposed.
So oppose it.

     You could take List One and ask, "What question would complete List
One?", and complete it.  This would handle most problems.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=10/1/63
Volnum=1
Issue=228
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-228 R2-12




6301C10 SHSpec-228 R2-12

     The only Commonwealth nation that has picked up on the FDA raid was
Australia.  This shows the connections between Australia and the U.S.

     Routine 2 has an important liability: someone can be put off but good if
you miss an item [e.g. by giving the PC the wrong item], since the missing
item acts as a super-sized missed withhold.  You must get the item on the
list, or run into this missed withhold phenomenon.  On a certain PC, you may
get away with having an incomplete list sixty to seventy percent of the time,
but the time you don't get away with it makes up for the lot.  The PC becomes
unauditable.  He doesn't know why, and he will just go 'round the bend further
if all you do is to pull missed withholds, without completing the list.  Say
you give him a wrong item.  He may not ARC break spectacularly then, but his
session goals in succeeding sessions will get less and less bright.  You
should be able to see this as you go over the auditing reports, and pick up
the list where this goof occurred.  The PC will also be very massy, ARC
breaky, looking older, darker skin-toned, etc.  He may also be ARC broken when
you tell him to complete the list.  This doesn't matter.  Complete it anyway.

     A wrong-way-to list doesn't produce the ARC breaks.  Neither does wrong
source.  It is just incomplete lists.  So watch carefully when you abandon a
list or give a PC an item.  If he goes out the bottom, immediately or slowly,
repair by completing the list, even if the PC has been doing lists off the
wrong item for eighteen sessions.  On a wrong-way -- to list, the rock slams
keep increasing in frequency.  That is a good way to spot one.  But beware of
PCs wearing rings.  That can cause "phantom slams".  On a right-way-to list,
the slams will be less frequent from the third or fourth page on.  You may go
another six pages before you get the next slam, before the needle goes clean
and the item is on the list.

     If you give the PC a wrong item, he will do a downcurve on the tone
scale.  If the PC starts to go the slightest bit BI's on being given an item,
tell him that you are sorry, that is not his item, and that you are going to
extend and complete the list.  He should brighten up immediately.  That's all
it takes.  Don't ever shift a PC's attention immediately after giving him an
item.  Watch him.  If it is the wrong item, he will age, subtly but
definitively, before your eyes.  You can watch his tone level go down by the
second if you have handed him a wrong item.  Just tell him, "I don't think it
was your item.  We'll extend the list," and he will brighten up.



                                      373

     There are a very few PCs around who are ARC breaky as Hell and have been
for several years.  They can get audited, but it is gruesome.  What is wrong
with them is most likely an unflat repetitive process.  The omitted Answer is
the "missed item".  Of course there is no list!  A Problems Intensive
approach, sorting out when they were happy with auditing, using the meter as
necessary, can be used in this case.  Using "suppress', you can fish up what
process it was.  Theoretically, then, you could prepcheck it out.  But why not
let him complete the process?  So -- when the PC is left ARC broken with the
auditing, the organization, or whatever, find the unflat process and flatten
it.  You wouldn't have to flatten everything ever left unflat.  It [the unflat
process? a missed item.] could also turn up on an "oppose" list to
"auditing".

     But a missed item could turn up on any case that you are doing a list on,
so watch for it.

     Another source of missing items is failure to oppose.  This especially
happened when the List One item was opposed, but the item found from this was
not opposed, in its turn.  The rule is that anything that keeps slamming must
be opposed.  So you could get two packages by the time you are through.

     An item from a wrong source will slam until you straighten up the
source.  A rockslamming item from a right source should always be opposed.

     Routine 2 is like a racing car.  It gets you there fast, but if you drive
it wrong, you can really wrap someone around a telephone pole.  So you have to
be skilled at case repair.  This has become an important skill.

     The reason the PC gets more upset if you try to pull missed withholds
when it is a missed item, is that the item keeps getting restimulated, but he
can't give you the item, because you are not listing.  The PC may not be
enthusiastic about extending the list, but he will do it and brighten up.

     Watch out for this situation:  If you had two items slamming on the list
and when you null only the second one slams, beware when you give it to him as
an item.  Watch his indicators for a few seconds before you go on.  Don't
distract him at this point.  It will aggravate the ARC break if it is the
wrong item, among other things.  If it is wrong, backpedal gracefully and
continue the list "a bit" to get the item.  Of course, the list may go on for
pages, also.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=10/1/63
Volnum=1
Issue=229
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-229 How to Audit




6301C10 SHSpec-229 How to Audit

     For years, we have had the problem of finding some PC who, even when run
on proper processes, tears up the neighborhood.  This is the problem of the
missed withhold.  That is all it is.  "The biggest missed withhold you can
have is the missing answer to the auditing question.  He didn't give you the
answer.  He didn't put the item on the list." This is such a big missed
withhold that if you always got it right, you could virtually omit pulling
missed withholds.  But you can't totally omit pulling missed withholds.
Here's why:

     Among the manifestations of missed withholds are dope-off and boil-off.
Dope-off and boil-off are only caused by missed withholds, not by anaten
contained in GPM's.  Anaten is contained in a list, but only acts on the PC
when there is an actual nearly-found-out in PT.  You have to keep the little
missed withholds



                                      374

cleaned up, because they are the ones that make the PC groggy and dopey, not
the missing items.  It is a PT nearly-found-out that makes the PC "go under"
on an item or a list.  It doesn't happen just from the list.  R2-12 pulls
withholds by the carload on track.  If you miss a package, it is a giant
missed withhold and a screaming ARC break.  But if you see a PC go even
slightly groggy, dopey, slumping down and shutting his eyes, etc., on nulling,
"pull up right there and get the nearly-found-outs!" You are after regular,
PT-type missed withholds, because a missing item on a list doesn't give the
same dope-off symptom.  Having missed an item will give this other phenomenon
"body".  [See HCOB 3May62 "ARC Breaks -- Missed Withholds" for the fifteen
signs of missed withholds.] The expected behavior of the PC during L and N and
receiving or thinking of items is wide awake. though the PC could have his
eyes closed.  This is terribly important during nulling, when you are
depending on the item rockslamming.  It won't happen if the PC is anaten.
Meters don't rockslam when the PC is anaten.  A meter will tick, but you can't
depend on it rockslamming when there is insufficient attention present to
charge up an item.  The same is true for rocket reads in goal checkouts.

     Boil-off, anaten, etc., were discovered in 1952 to be "a flow running too
long in one direction." A missed withhold is a restrained flow.  Any effort to
outflow, by a PC who has a missed withhold, is blocked and only causes a
further inflow.  The PC has a stuck flow.  If the "PC has a missed withhold,
he's inflowed as far as he can go, and he's very, very prone to boil-off." He
is holding back a flow, so he gets a stuck flow very quickly.

     Sometimes a missed withhold from out of session is keyed in by a withhold
in session.  Then the PC boils off.  In this case, you have to run the
out-of-session missed withhold.  That is why "missed withhold" stays in as a
random rudiment.  It gets you out of more trouble than it gets you into, if
you broaden the missed withhold question to include the track.  Then you will
get the restimulated ones too.  For instance, you might ask, "In the past
week, has a withhold been missed?" Do this when you can't wake the PC.  Not
all missed withholds are on the second dynamic. If you start steering missed
withholds by dynamics, you will start more incomplete lists.  Keep the
question general.

     The nearly-found-out is a "left-hand" button, a suppressor-type button,
which doesn't necessarily read on the meter.  If you pull a session missed
withhold but the PC goes dopey fifteen minutes later, prepcheck the
nearly-found-out button, with or without a time limiter.

     Left hand buttons are those that prevent things from reading, e.g.
suppress, fail to reveal, anxious about, careful of, nearly found out.

     Right hand buttons make things read, e.g. mistake been made, suggested,
decided, protested, invalidated.  "Protested" follows on the heels of a
"nearly-found-out"; thus it is a point where left and right hand buttons
meet.

     In a co-audit, watch for dope-off and put in the random rud yourself.
Don't try to get students to do it.  Take for granted that it is something out
of session that keyed in.  You can use, "Is there anything we nearly found out
about you?" The "we" limits the question.  Or get the student to run the
random rudiment muzzled and repetitive, until the PC looks desperate and about
to ARC break.  Then go back to listing.



                                      375

     Which model session should one use?  As much as necessary; no more.
Model session has these elements:

     1. Adjust the PC's chair.

     2. Get a can squeeze.

     3. Give the R-factor for the session.

     4. Give Tone 40 start of session.

     5. Find out if the session has started for the PC.

     6. Have the PC set goals for life and livingness and the session.

What you do next depends on whether you are going to list or null today.
Don't worry about ruds in a listing session.  Who cares what the needle is
doing?  A dirty needle can best be cleaned up by listing.  The dirty needle is
probably being caused by thoughts about doing the list.  If the list is
complete, the PC's list will be clean.  In this case, it is no-auditing to do
anything other than to null the list.  Take a chance on between-sessions
out-ruds.  Only get worried if the PC starts to boil-off.  Get off missed
withholds if possible.  If it is not possible, the list is incomplete, so
extend it.  In a listing session, get goals set and go right into listing.
That is more effective in cleaning up the needle and having the PC in session
then anything else.  If the PC won't sit there and list, that is different.
If the PC stops listing, it is either suppress or inval.  Forget the rest of
the ruds.  Take any items the PC gives you on these buttons, put them on the
list, and go right back into listing.  That was the purpose of the rud, after
all.

     At the end of the session, discuss where you and the PC have gotten to
and where in general you are going.  Close off the body of the session.  Then
check end-ruds at sensitivity 64.  Get the PC out of the auditing environment
with, "In this session, was the run all right?" Get your question answered,
but don't grind the PC to death.  Check protest if this looks necessary.

     Refer to Scientology 8-8008.  It talks about a thetan in the physical
universe.  All the thetan is doing is stacking himself up against the physical
universe and batting around like a bluebottle fly in a cage.  If you want to
free the PC from the session, ask if the room was OK.  Then you have got the
thetan and the physical universe straightened up.  If the PC starts inventing
answers or seems nerved up, it is probably a missed withhold.  You won't do
anything about it.

     Then get a can squeeze.  Asking about whether the run was all right
usually gets his havingness back up.  But if he is down on havingness, don't
work over ruds.  Run some havingness for a few commands, to restore the can
squeeze, not to run the bank.  The best havingness processes are:

     1. Feel that   _______ .

     2. Touch that  _______ .

     3. Notice that _______ .

Only use a few commands, not more than twelve.  This is also a good way to get
the PC back in session.

     Then take up session goals, not life and livingness goals.  Take down
whatever gains the PC mentions.  Get ask/say.  Answer a question if he has
one.  Don't start handling what comes up.  You are ending session.  Don't
press for more.

     Give the PC a Tone 40 end of session, and have him tell you that you are
no longer auditing him.  Give him an altered visual aspect also, to keep him
from going on running his case.  Look more cheerful and natural.  Ask for a
cigarette or something.



                                      376

     This is Routine 2 model session.  Using more than this minimum can get
you into trouble.  For a nulling session, you can show the PC the list and ask
for any major thoughts that he has had about it.  This practice lets the PC
get off out-ruds on the list.  Then you don't have to ask for them.

     If the PC gets agitated in a Routine 2 session, the first thing to assume
is that there is something wrong with the Routine 2.  If the PC gets
self-audit-ish or interrupts to get his ruds in, just give a cheery
acknowledgment and go on.  Don't let the PC obscure reads while listing.

     If you are nulling, just go down the list, going, "Bark!  Bark! Bark!" If
the needle gets dirty, don't assume that it is out-ruds.  It is more likely
that the list is wrong way to or from a wrong source, especially if your
nulling was too brisk to give the PC time to think.  Even more likely than the
above is that the item is not on the list.  If a list is incomplete, a PC
won't register protest on the meter when you ask for more items, even if he is
protesting verbally.  You could also list for pages beyond where the list was
complete.  Then the needle can go dirty on protest.  But all other crimes fall
short of not completing the list.

     R3-21 requires more mid-ruds than Routine 2 [See p. 371, above for R3-21].
As soon as you have PTP's out of the road, the case is ready for R3-21.  Find
his goals nice as you please.  It is safer for an expert auditor to do goals
on a case than to do Routine 2.  An inexpert auditor is safer with Routine 2.

     The list, "In PT, who or what are you upset about?" would probably run
more easily on a PC simply in the form, "Who or what does present time consist
of?" [Cf. Expanded dianetics PT environment list.] This is the basic model,
but you could use, "Who or what are you in contact with in PT?" On missed
withholds, realize that you can list whichever area is of most interest to the
PC.  If you pick the wrong one of the three (Session, Life and Livingness,
Parts of Existence) to do first, it can react like a missed withhold.  Make
sure you get the universe where the problem lies.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=15/1/63
Volnum=1
Issue=230
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-230 Dead Horses




6301C15 SHSpec-230 Dead Horses

     An emergency is an unpredicted event -- a failure to predict.  Anything
else is life.

     Dead horses lists are a problem.  Often you do a "represent" list, and it
misbehaves.  It is hard to complete; it cycles.  The essence of a cycling list
is that the needle periodically goes beautifully clean, then dirties up
again.  When LRH first noticed this, he didn't understand.  It was like a list
wrong-way-to, but how could that be, on a "represent" list?  The cycle on a
right-way-to list is: dirty needle, dirty read, rock slam, dirty read dirty
needle, rock slam, rock slam, then needle clean, and it stays clean, unless it
rockslams.  On a wrong-way-to "oppose" list, the rock slams increase in
number.  The clean needles do, too.  You can tell by looking at any PC's list
whether it is OK or wrong way to.  You will need to be able to do this when
you are auditing in the field, where you will have to repair other auditors'
PCs.  PCs can get sick on R2-12, and you had better know what could be wrong,
so that you can fix it.  Compare page two and page five of the list.  If there
are more rock slams on page five, it's wrong.



                                      377

     You can list a list each way for a page or two, observing how the PC
looks before you start and when you stop.  You will get good at seeing changes
in PC appearance as his bank caves in on him.

     Don't let anyone who isn't a real expert do R2-12 on children, because
they won't sit still long enough to be repaired.  They are easier to cave in.

     So, getting back to dead horses and "represent" lists acting like
wrong-way-to lists:  "The flaw in Man is that he does not know himself." He is
"much more [able] to observe enemies than self." Ask a guy to name his enemies
and he will give you a list of names.  Ask him to name himself, and you will
get, "Joe".  That is why "represent"lists tend to be wrong-way-to sometimes
and to give you oppterms.  They are easier to see than selves, and they often
don't rockslam properly.  The PC gets a stuck flow of listing oppterms,
enemies, and you must find a wording that causes the PC to list himself, his
terminals list.  So the "represent" list is all oppterms, and it doesn't
rockslam, and it gets a clean needle -- dirty needle cycle.  If you are lucky,
there will be rock slams on it, and you will find an item.  But often the PC
will go greenish and the list is a dead horse.  The case that gives you a
wrong way to "represent" list or dead horses, is someone whose next available
item is a terminal, not an oppterm.  The more the PC lists oppterms, the worse
he feels.  The missed item is the one that the PC is being right there in the
session.  This also applies to the "skunk" list, which runs out to no item,
despite rock slams.  A dead horse list is a list with no rock slams on it,
even with mid-ruds in; a skunked list has a rock slam, but doesn't go on to an
RI.  The PC doesn't know from which point of view to give you enemies, so he
has to give you everything. Say the terminal is "a bad boy".  We are asking,
"To a bad boy, what does life consist of?" and we get just oppterms.  That is
how you get a wrong-way-to "represent" list.

     R2-12 can be run over another PTP and still get good results, although
under these circumstances, the PC gets a bit dispersed at times.  R2-12 gets
the big hidden PTP's and hidden standards out of the way, so that goals can be
found.  Until these PTP's are out of the way, the PC doesn't have enough free
attention units to do R3-21.

     Most people don't think at all.  They just feed questions to circuits,
which answer.  A special case of this is the PC's hidden standards.  "A hidden
standard is a circuit that is telling [the PC] what to think." The PC has a
signal system rigged up:  "Scientology works if _______ ."  It is quite a
complicated communication system, like an automatic train-stopping system. The
guy who leaps up and says, "Oh, yes! Scientology works!", first had to ask one
of these systems.  They don't think at all.  For instance the FDA thinks the
whole world is composed of two valences:  victims and victimizers.  There are
no other items for the FDA.  The guy who makes food is a victimizer and the
guy who eats it is a victim.  This makes the FDA an enemy of all industry,
since industry emanates, and those who don't are victims.  The FDA, lacking
any other than those two terminals and wanting to be Effective, is a
victimizer and can only create victims.  This leads to a whole country of
victims, communism, etc.



                                      378

     All do-gooder government agencies fall under this heading:  "Life is a
sort of a dreary game that goes on between all of these victimizers, who have
to be stopped, and all of these victims." The government official in one of
these agencies is trying to protect everybody from himself.  A do-gooder gone
mad has nothing but victims left.  Eventually these boys have no more purpose
in life, because so much is now missing from it.  The way to handle this
do-gooder is to sympathize with him.  If you do this, he will go right out of
the victim-maker valence and straight into that of a victim.  He is defeated
instantly.

     If you like humanity, you will leave that kind of politics alone.  In
fact, you will leave all politics alone.

     The thing that Man is tuned up to see first is enemies.  When they go
batty, they can see nothing but enemies everywhere.  "The do-gooder never
recognizes that he is a victim-maker." However, he would never give you
"victim-maker as a terminal.  You could ask him, "Who would have your
problems?" and get terminals.  [Cf. Expanded dianetics "wants handled"
rundown.] "Nobody recognizes what he is being as easily as what he is
facing....  Terminals are harder to pick up than oppterms at the start of a
case.  So you get wrong way to 'represent' lists, dead horses, and skunks, and
that's the source of all of these." You want terminals, and you must phrase
questions to get them.

     The last rung of cases is that of PT rock slams.  That would be pretty
grim, because now you can't do a "represent" list.

     The way to get someone to list terminals is to list, "In PT, who or what
would have your problems?" or "Who or what would live the life you are
living?" or "Who or what do people think you are?", or "Who is looking at me?"
or "Who could be looking at me?", or some such.  PCs have items stacked up in
order, as well as packages stacked up in order.  The majority of PCs "are a
bit overwhelmed, and the first item [to come up] is an oppterm.  They are
being an oppterm." Other PCs, not a few, have a terminal as the first item.
They need a terminal question.  If you said, "Who or what are you?" as a
listing question, remember that "you" is undifferentiated.  So you should
somehow differentiate it.  If you have listed a dead horse list, ask the PC,
"Who or what would oppose all those things?" and get a rockslamming list.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=15/1/63
Volnum=1
Issue=231
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-231 R2-12 Nevers




6301C15 SHSpec-231 R2-12 Nevers

     Never represent a rockslamming item, i.e. anything that ever rockslammed,
because a rockslamming item comes from some source, and if you don't know what
the source is, it could be wrong.  An arbitrary source is dangerous.  This is
the most dangerous point in R2-12.  Never use an arbitrary list.  Don't try to
oppose some rockslamming word that just comes from nowhere.

     Never abandon R2-12.  Nothing else will patch up R2-12, if it gets fouled
up.  R2-12 is an ultimate process, i.e. a process that repairs itself.  Never
try to patch up R2-12 with something else, because it will fail.

     Never let someone lose records or keep records inaccurately.  There is a
way to straighten out a case whose records are lost, however. Using the meter,
find when the PC's case caved in, the session in which it occurred, and put
mid-ruds in on that session.  This will get the PC's memory improved to the
point where he can give you data about the list, or whatever.  But this is a
very arduous approach.



                                      379

     Never attribute a violent ARC break to anything but a wrong item or an
incomplete list.  It is not caused by a missed withhold, except in the sense
that the missed item is the withhold.  This datum applies in the workaday
world as well as it does in session.  Somebody has missed an item on the U.S.
government.  Probably, the ARC break is from no-auditing and missing all their
items.

     Never run a PC darker and massier.  He won't get lighter.  Come off it at
once.

     Never give a PC an item and then do something else at once.  This is very
distracting to the PC, and if it is a wrong item, the ARC break will be
compounded.  You must allow a minute or two of observation.  Just put the
meter aside and make a little routine of it and say, "Well, apparently your
item is _______ ." Watch him like a hawk.  Does his face get dark?  Does mass
come in?  If so, don't let it go any longer. Tell the PC that you want to
continue listing.  Never lead a PC to believe that you are giving him an item
when you are not.  There can be a funny condition where all the indicators
look right, but after the PC cognites, the rock slam will vanish as the lock
blows, after which the wrong-item indicators start to show up.  So don't shift
the PC's attention.  This will save lots of trouble.  The longer you let a PC
keep a wrong item, the more trouble it will be to patch it up.

     Never persist with a wrong action that is worsening the case, just
because you don't know what to do.  It is far better to end off or take a
break to straighten things out.  It is good sense to know what you are doing
before you do it.  This does not mean somatics.  That's not a sign of the PC's
getting worse at all.

     Never let case errors accumulate or multiply.  When you are aware of an
error on the case, fix it without forgetting that it is an error to fail to
complete a cycle of action on the case.  But also don't interrupt a PC that is
doing well.  If the case isn't running OK, repair earlier mistakes.

     All lists stem from some arbitrary point.  It can't be helped.  The three
universes from which you list are:

     1. The PC's PT session environment.

     2. His PT non-session life and livingness environment.

     3. The parts of existence.

Each of these can be listed positive or negative, oppterm (+ or -) and
terminal (+ or -).  Thus you have twelve sources.  One way to make auditing
with these less risky is, when clearing the command, to test it for rock
slams.  This can include testing words or segments within the command for rock
slams.  Never represent it if it rockslams.  Clear the command and vary it
around until it makes sense to the PC, until it's real to him.  Never try to
list a list question that the PC cannot answer, i.e. clear it with him and get
his agreement to answer it.

     Choosing the wrong universe to list will get you missed withhold
phenomena, including ARC breaks, because the PC's attention is fixated on the
universe that you are not asking him about.

     Never, in your anxiety to clear someone or pacify someone, fail to get
his PTP's and hidden standards out of the way.  That is all, in general, that
has been wrong with clearing.



                                      380


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=16/1/63
Volnum=1
Issue=232
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-232 TR-0




6301C16 SHSpec-232 TR-0

     The original TR-0 was to teach the auditor to be there and to be aware.
However, in doing TR-0, students have begun to confront with that definition.
The original definition and TR-0 are still valid.  Additives have arisen: You
can make someone confront with a professional attitude, an auditing attitude,
an interested attitude.  Good coaching depends on spotting what the student is
doing and running it out, flunking it, without either flunking so much that
the student goes into apathy, nor so little that the student never improves.
The purpose of TR-O is to enable the student"to stand up to the duress of
auditing."

     It disturbs a PC to have an auditor whose confront is very unnatural and
who shatters under an upset in session.  Upsets are often assignable to faulty
TR-4.  An auditor who Q and A's gives PCs withholds by not simply
acknowledging.  One Q and A equals one missed withhold.  The PC's statement
has not been acknowledged, just acknowledged.  The reason some auditors take a
long time to learn not to Q and A isn't really out-TR-4.  It is out-TR-0.  The
auditor can't stand up to the session.  Whenever something in the session
looks odd, the Auditor retreats.  TR-0 is out!

     The coach must have considerable perception to coach TR-0 on a useful
gradient.  He has to see confront go out, look at something the student is
doing, and punch the button.

     LRH has noticed auditors who Q and A in the presence of an ARC break,
because there is too much there to confront.  This is as disastrous as it is
likely to happen.  A coaching gradient on this would start with the coach
shaking his hand in front of the student's eyes.  Somewhere on the gradient,
the student will demonstrate his ability to dodge flying E-meter cans, while
still confronting.

     For an auditor to freeze and go totally silent is worse for the PC than
auditor Q and A.  It is a no-auditing situation.  We should give at least
fifty percent of our coaching time to the fellow who goes into wood.  A good
coach can recognize the difference between someone confronting and someone
going into solid granite.

     The next worst thing to going wooden is fleeing.  This amounts to the
same thing.  Don't think someone is doing TR-0 because he has gone into
apathy.  You can add aliveness to being aware.  This point is easy for a coach
to miss.  Someone whose TR-0 is granite won't be able to handle what comes up
in a session because he is not really confronting.  When you find an auditor
who is having trouble with TR-0, you know what kind of response he is getting
in auditing, because when something happens in session, the auditor flees.

     Good auditing, as opposed to bad auditing, will show up most clearly
under duress.  TR-0 is the first thing to go.  The auditor will start making
mistakes, which is one thing you can't afford to do.  If the auditor's TR-0 is
poor, the auditor will make wrong judgments, no matter how well he is taught.

     There is a gradient of bad TR-0, consisting of three grades:

     1. TR-0 of doing the drill, not associated with anything.

     2. The person who clams up and can't act.

     3. Obsessive motion as a form of a and A.

All three of these must be cured with coaching.

     There is something else you could do, different from TR-1 or TR-2: a
talking confront.  You see if the student can go on counting while you throw
the cans at him, or whether he loses count.



                                      381

     Auditors must be trained to expect ARC breaks and to keep going, because
auditors get ARC breaks, as well as getting wins and results.  LRH was aware,
recently, of thinking less swiftly when a pc ARC broke.  He analyzed the
phenomenon as his not wanting to confront it, because it was counter to his
intention for the session.  So he experienced a small impulse not to confront
it.  This gave LRH a subjective reality on how an auditor could go from there
to not thinking and making a goof.  R2-12 ARC breaks can be sudden, violent,
and apparently inexplicable.  So TR-0 must be beefed up in order to cope with
this.

     How much and how long should you run TR-0? Until the student comes to the
independent conclusion that he can do TR-0 and has the ability to do TR-0
while doing all the other TR's, and until he can maintain TR-0 when everything
is going wrong and there is lots of duress.  Bad TR-0 leads to a and A, lack
of comprehension of what is going on, and no-auditing for the PC.

     It takes awhile for someone to learn R2-12.  If he is learning his TR's
at the same time, you are liable to have a mess on your hands.  A co-audit
with R2-10 [See p. 359, above.] can be done, but only because guidance is very
stringent, And they don't have very much responsibility.

     For TR-1, go get a good recording of a lion roaring and then play it,
with the student putting intention into the middle of the speaker.

     The degree of ARC breaks the PC will have on R2-12 is proportional to the
outness of the auditor's TR's.  Bad TR's lead to bad judgment.  If the
auditor's TR's are perfect, he will never have them tested by a violently ARC
broken PC.

     Psychiatrists are trying to make the third dynamic safe by protecting it
from the first dynamic, i.e. from the patient.  He is "curing" motion.  He is
totally sold on the idea that insanity equals motion.  He tries to get the
patient into quietness, into apathy.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=13/2/63
Volnum=1
Issue=237
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHTVD-16; SHSpec-237 X-Unit: Ruds and Havingness




6302C13 SHTVD-16; SHSpec-237 X-Unit: Ruds and Havingness

     [Demo tape of ruds and havingness.]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=13/2/63
Volnum=1
Issue=238
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-238 Discussion by LRH of X-Unit: Ruds and Havingness TVD




6302C13 SHSpec-238 Discussion by LRH of X-Unit: Ruds and Havingness TVD

     There are two reasons why a session doesn't start:

     1. There is something wrong with the room.

     2. The PC has something to say and is holding it back, waiting for the
        session to start so that he can say something.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/2/63
Volnum=1
Issue=240
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-240 Rundown on Processes




6302C19 SHSpec-240 Rundown on Processes

     High-toned items are oppterms.  It is the low-toned item that is the
terminal.

     You can run the TA out of CCH's.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=20/2/63
Volnum=1
Issue=241
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-241 Talk on TV Demo: Finding Rocket Reads




6302C20 SHSpec-241 Talk on TV Demo: Finding Rocket Reads

     [Discussion of a TV demo that is evidently not on a SHSBC tape.]



                                      382


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=21/2/63
Volnum=1
Issue=242
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-242 R2 and R3: Current Auditing Rundown




6302C21 SHSpec-242 R2 and R3: Current Auditing Rundown

     Routine 3M procedure:

     1. Use R2-12 to get the PC capable of getting a rocket read or a rock
        slam.

     2. Find a goal, using R2-12 material.

     3. Or, just list goals, lots of them.  List all the TA out.  Watch for
        rocket reads.

     4. Go over the PC's old goals and find the ones that have been chopped
        up.  This is the same as the beginning step of R3-21.

Always give the PC a chance to orient an RI vis-a-vis his goal.  You can
reword different "oppose" questions in different ways and list the
best-reading version.  [R3M appears to supersede R3-21 as a goals running
process.  See also 6302C07 SHSpec-234-5 "R3MX", 6302C12 SHSpec-236 "Routine
3M", 6302C14 SHSpec-239 "Routine 3M", and 6303C19 SHSpec-250 "R3M: How to Find
Goals".  See also HCOB 22Feb63 "Routine 3-M: Rundown by Steps", which gives
the procedure.  A summary of the procedure is given on p. 506, below.  Routine
3MX and Routine 3M are the same thing.]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=7/3/63
Volnum=1
Issue=247
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-247 When Faced With the Unusual, Do the Usual.




6303C07 SHSpec-247 When Faced With the Unusual, Do the Usual.

     Psychiatry never got anyplace because they never learned to do the usual
when faced with the unusual.  Every desperate remedy devised by Man occurred
because the practitioner Q and A'd with the patient.  The psychiatrist says
that he practices Freudian analysis, but he does it with Adler's twists on
Jung's version as interpreted by Karen Horney -- only he does it his way!
There might once have been a technology of psychiatry, but you could never
find it now, under all the stress-induced Q and A and alter-is that has been
added.

     If you do something unusual every time you see something unusual in a PC,
you will never make him clear.  He will be wrapped around a telephone pole.
The more precise the process and the more you figure-figure on it, the goofier
it will get.

     There is no constant number of items in a GPM.  This makes it possible to
end one GPM and go on into the next one without knowing that you are doing so,
especially if the PC's ruds are out when you end the first GPM, so that there
is no F/N, or it is so brief (say, 3 1/2 seconds) that you don't see it, or
you miss seeing the BD.  If you jam the second goal like that, you will get a
high stuck TA.  After awhile, no items will be findable and the goal stops
rocket reading.

     [More comments on specific goofs on running goals.]

     If the PC gives you a goal, you always take it, but you don't necessarily
do something with it.

     The only time you find no item on a list is when the item has already
been found.

     The PC isn't different.  He has the same bank, or he wouldn't be here in
this time-stratum at this time.

     Auditors are to be congratulated for their willingness to persist on a
case, but when one persists simply because one doesn't know what else to do,
one is doing the unusual.  What you are trying to do, with a GPM, is to run it
out, not just to find RI's.  The goal built the GPM, so you have to knock out
the RI's aligned to the goal, so the GPM will disappear.

     The clear check procedure is given in HCOB 22Feb63 "Routine 3M -- Rundown
by Steps".



                                      383


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=20/3/63
Volnum=1
Issue=252
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHTVD-18; SHSpec-252 Ruds and Havingness Session




6303C20 SHTVD-18; SHSpec-252 Ruds and Havingness Session

     [LRH demo with Reg Sharpe.  LRH does model session and beginning
rudiments, then finds a suitable havingness process and runs it to a
stabilization of the TA.]

     Don't ever nag a PC with a dirty needle.  It cleans up as the PC's
confidence and ARC with the auditor comes up.  Auditors who punish the PC
because they can't read his needle only make the dirty needle worse.  Take
what the PC says and get out.  The PC might have a missed withhold, but here
is the test: he is not mad at the auditor, so that is not it.  You don't need
an axe to clean up a needle.

     You may think that a needle gets cleaned up because you pick up all the
thoughts of the PC.  That's wrong!  A needle cleans up because the PC has more
ARC and more confidence in the auditor.  It isn't cleaned up on the
significance of what the PC says.  So, in a ruds and havingness session, the
primary purpose of the session is to build ARC with the PC by reason of
auditing.  It is not what you do, it is how you do it.  You are smoothing out
his needle.  A PC's ARC determines his reads on the meter.  It is based on
smooth basic auditing.

     The first requisite of all auditing is to be able to give a PC a smooth
session on ruds and havingness, a session which ends up with the PC in better
ARC, the needle cleaner.  If you can do that, the PC will have confidence in
you.  The PC has to be able to confront his auditor before he can confront his
bank.  The effect scale is at work here.  If you are a smooth basic auditor,
you can run any process.  Ruds and havingness aren't just practice.  They
raise the PC's ARC if they are done right.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=26/3/63
Volnum=1
Issue=252
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-252 Case Repair




6303C26 SHSpec-252 Case Repair

     Worry is the occupational hazard of the auditor doing Routine 2 and 3.
The time to worry is when the PC looks and feels bad.  Don't plow on at that
point.  Find what is wrong.  Case repair can become necessary, once a goal has
been found and run.  If the goal has not been run, all it takes is a prepcheck
to straighten it out.  Sometimes a goal has been found which wasn't ready to
be found or run, and the auditor starts finding items that are out of another
GPM. Then Routine 2G comes into case repair.  [See HCOB 13Apr63 "Routine 2G
... " and 6303C21 SHSpec-251 "R2G Series"] The actions you should take when
one goal has been run and it has disappeared are resident in R2G1 or R2G2,
not in R3M.  You list goals against items, null old lists, run R2G1,
prepcheck an old goal, etc.  If you've got items from a different GPM, in
order to find a goal from the items you have got, you need to use R2G.  You
will appreciate the fact that some Class IV has checked out a goal and
verified that it rocket read, when you try to find the matching items.

     Say you had an old goal, which has been listed out on 114 lines and which
no longer ticks, but on which there was once an F/N.  Or say someone had a
wrongly worded source list, or someone made up his own line plot and got
sick.  The primary datum of all case repair applies to all these situations:
all these weird actions are incapable of deranging a GPM.  GPM's are Almost
impervious to improper R3M, though the PC can be made sick and caved in.



                                      384

So at any stage of case repair, anything that was done right will stay right,
and anything done wrong can be corrected.  R3M stops working where it is done
wrong.  Anything that has been found on the PC has been found, even if it is
not correctly aligned as yet.  That an item was found out of place doesn't
alter the GPM where it belongs.  R3M will still work fine.

     We can call the whole bank the Goals Problem Masses and one GPM a GPM.
One goal and a packet of items equals a GPM.  R3M is what handles the repair
of messed up GPM's.

     If you want to know exactly what a GPM is and the explanation for the
formation of the GPM, read DMSMH.  Wherever it says "engram" in the
explanation of why people have engrams, put in "item" or "GPM".  It is quite
interesting.  There is a reason why the thetan postulated each goal.  It was
born out of the goal that the thetan has just survived.  Only the first goal
of the bank is postulated from nothing.

     The only thing that can upset a GPM is the exact auditing that we give
it.  It hangs together by violence or lack of it, so it is accustomed to
violence and mistakes.  Practically no auditing goof can affect it, though you
can make a PC unhappy and miserably uncomfortable.  By making auditing goofs,
you will upset the PC, but you won't upset his bank.  However, you are not
running the PC.  You are running a GPM with the PC's cooperation.

     The varying length of a GPM depends on how well it served the PC as a
survival mechanism.  That doesn't vary much, although the difference of line
plots gives the appearance of more variation.  This occurs because some items
found are extraneous, and others are strays from other line plots.

     If you can't find anything while doing R3M, you have goofed, and you are
looking in the wrong place.  It is not that there is nothing there or that the
GPM has gotten messed up.

     In case repair at any stage of auditing the GPM, find the first wrong
action that you can find behind you and do it right.  If a Piece or item of a
GPM is missing, you can always find it and put it in.  You can do a goals
"oppose" list to start it and stop it.  Also, don't just straighten out the
PCs.  Straighten out the auditor who goofed.  Get him to study the bulletins
and find what he didn't get.  It could be that he never read them!  Otherwise,
he will keep making the same mistake.

     Handle a case repair as though it were a clear test.  Compare the goal to
the line plot and see if they relate.  Put in buttons on the goal.  Get it to
fire or at least tick.  Go over your line plot and read each item against the
meter.  If one rockslams, even though it is from a source list and has been
opposed, you know the source list was improperly handled.  Any item that
reads, no matter how slightly, after having itself been opposed, came off a
wrongly done or handled list.  That is a stable datum.  If it rocket reads,
you have no guarantee that there has been a wrong way oppose.  The only
guarantee is that the list it came from is wrong.  Correct that list.

     What you want is the earliest item on the line plot that now reads.  Look
behind it at the line plot on which it appeared, and do that list correctly.
If you don't find something wrong with it, the error is earlier.  Look at
items that were found earlier.



                                      385

     What happens when you do a wrong-way oppose?  It usually throws the PC
out of the right GPM into another GPM and gives you a stray item that looks
out of place on the plot.  So, seeing a stray look at the list it came from.
One test for which way to list is to call the question each way.  The one that
turns on more mass is the wrong one. You should get good enough to recognize
it by significance, as all GPM's follow the pattern in HCOB 13Mar63.

     In a case repair, having found the right item, just proceed as though the
subsequent items had never been found.

     Repair a case that needs repair.  Don't just blunder on.  If the PC ARC
breaks, use the assessment bulletin [Bulletin not available, but is based on a
list of fifteen causes of ARC breaks in R2 and R3, given in HCOB 14Mar63
"Urgent -- Routine 2 - Routine 3:  ARC Breaks, Handling of", p. 3] to find out
what was really wrong.  Don't just try to spot it or guess.  The cause of a
rough ARC break is withheld from both the auditor and the PC.

     Don't put figure-figure into what you are doing.  Just be sure that you
are doing R3M right.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=27/3/63
Volnum=1
Issue=254
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHTVD-19; SHSpec-254 Sec Checking




6303C27 SHTVD-19; SHSpec-254 Sec Checking

     Sec checking is an art.  It consists of restimulating stuff which is to
be picked up, and then picking it up.  The way to do it is thoroughly.
Getting through the sec check isn't the point.  The point is, getting through
to the PC and keying stuff in.

     [There follows a TVD of Reg Sharpe sec checking Leslie van Straden.]

     There is a world of difference between sec checking and mid-ruds or any
ruds.  Ruds are done in a perfunctory manner, just to be able to get on with
auditing.  Sec checking and prepchecking are auditing the PC's case.  On goals
running, you are using mid-ruds to brush the PC off, so that there is nothing
in your road.  In sec checking and prepchecking, you are pressing the question
home.  You are seeing to it that the PC sees how the question applies to his
life: dig dig dig.  You discuss and restimulate things so that you can clean
them up.  To be called an auditor, you must be able to do both of these
things: the brush-off and the press-home.  In R2G1, you have to be able to do
both.  It is an art.  You have to be able to audit the PC in front of you.
You have to work around enough to really clean things up.

     R2G1 is not run on the needle.  It is part of Routine 2 Pre-hav levels,
which is run on the tone arm, totally.  As long as there is TA, you keep
persuading the PC to answer.  There is R2GPM [Pre-hav], which is the original
pre-hav levels applied to purposes.  [S-ee HCOB 13Apr63 "Routine 2G ..." for
a summary of the Routine 2G processes, including Routine 2-GPM and Routine
2-G1 to G5.] Sec check, ruds, and havingness are all processes that are run by
the needle, not by the TA.



                                      386


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=18/4/63
Volnum=1
Issue=258
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-258 Directive Listing [Part I]




6304C18 SHSpec-258 Directive Listing [Part I]

     [Details on running R3M]

     Gobbledygook to comply with the form isn't right.  The PC sometimes gives
it, knowing that it should be such-and-such a form.  Don't use it, since it
will result in no rocket read.  Something odd, but conceptually right, e.g.
"Catholicness", is OK.  It is up to the auditor to direct the PC's attention
to what should be there and get him to find it.

     The liabilities of getting wrong items, wrong goals, missed items, etc.,
are so great that you should do everything possible to prevent these things
from happening.  You have a bank pattern that is at least close to the perfect
pattern.  The upper fourteen to eighteen and the lower twelve items (omitting
the two lowest oppterms, which vary on every goal) are very set and
patterned.  The pattern is that of LRH's fifteenth GPM.  He realized that we
needed the basic fundamentals of the bank, and that the PC was in a bank so
far back and so beefy that it was vital to get its character and its right
pattern, or get killed as a PC.  There is more to the GPM than appeared
earlier, because no one could confront it all until a lot of charge had been
taken off.  The goal of that bank is "to create".  To LRH's amazement, the
pattern holds true later on the track and on other PCs.  If the PC isn't run
closely guided to this pattern, his rocket read goes off.  So the pattern has
value.  There will be other patterns for other types of goals, but they can be
extrapolated from this one.

     Directive listing has to do first with the accuracy of the pattern.  When
the auditor doesn't know what he is trying to do, it is not very successful.
Directive listing is kind; permissive listing wastes time and PCs.

     The main thing that will give you trouble is the top oppterm and the top
terminal.  These are characterized as the final achievement of the goal (the
top oppterm) and the negation of the goal (the top terminal).


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=30/4/63
Volnum=1
Issue=261
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-261 Directive Listing [Part II]




6304C30 SHSpec-261 Directive Listing [Part II]

     Finding the pattern of the GPM has been pure slaughter.  You have to hunt
and punch around among various banks, stirring everything up.  LRH was
horrified in the past to find so many items.  He wondered if some were locks.
Now it is all shaken out.  It is mysterious that the noun form declines into
"-ity" forms, then the goal as an oppterm.  The goal declines through the same
pattern, all the way down through "absolute" and "perfect" into the
"ivities".  Then you get to the end of the goal, which doesn't decline,
mysteriously.

     Body weight and machinery get knocked around sometimes, when doing
directive listing.  It is the unrun items which, slamming into the body,
increase the body's mass.  This is one of the oldest findings in havingness
processing, like mock-ups being shoved into the body increasing the body's
weight.  A partially-run GPM, being in restimulation, impinges on the body
more than it did, so you get more body weight.  Mental mass and physical mass
are the same stuff, but mental mass is thinner.  GPM mass looks like a steel
shell, or is a sphere covered with a black or grey cloud.  The mass on a
half-discharged bank looks like grey cotton-wool.  It has finite dimensions.
The mass alternates: black banks and grey



                                      387

banks going back down the track.  A black bank, partly discharged, turns
greyish and murky-brown while there are still some items.  It shakes and
shivers and tries to fall apart.  The best items are those that turn on a
little mass.  The first items off take off proportionally more charge than the
later ones.  However, leaving lower RI's undischarged is dangerous, because
the lower items hold it all together, and it will charge up again.  The top
items are uncomfortable and upsetting, but not that important.  The lowest
oppterm is the keystone that keeps the bank in its channel, because it is a
cross between the failed goal of the next GPM down and the one you are in.
That is how the goals stay in sequence.  What keeps the bank charged up is the
goal.  When you reach the goal as an RI, you can't just leave it.  You have to
list what would oppose it.  But don't let the PC start to run what comes up as
the item, because it is the next bank, and before going into it, the PC has to
come up to PT.  Acknowledge it very thoroughly. Don't null the list.  Go back
to the top of the first bank you ran, and find its goal, find the opposite
"oppose", and go on to PT.  It is always harder to go the other way, going
later, rather than earlier, but that is the way to do it.

     The reason is that you are trying to clear the PC by obtaining for the PC
the greatest possible auditing gains per unit of time.  It is mechanically
true that the more items you get off, the more banks you run, the more charge
you discharge, the more the PC will cognite.  But we are running the PC under
special conditions that you, as a scientologist recognize as special, but that
no one else would see as out of the ordinary.  You are running a thetan in a
body.  That just about ruins ninety percent of the things you could do.  You
are auditing a bank with a frail human body interposed between the bank and
the PC, but you need the PC's body to hold onto the cans.  That is what has
given LRH trouble in research.  The PC is put into danger, in that you can't
audit a dead body, end if the PC dropped his body half way through a bank, he
would probably be sufficiently restimulated so that he would have trouble
picking up a new body.  He would key-out, but he would feel betrayed, because
the hope factor was 'way up.  So auditing is monitored by the consideration of
what gains you can achieve in spite of the fact that the PC has a body between
himself and the bank.  This is a real problem.

     The bank is capable of influencing the body.  That is why the E-meter can
be used.  The E-meter is not connected up to the auditor, but the auditor can,
accidentally, start looking at or into his own bank to figure out the PC, and
kick in some restimulation.  The auditor's bank and the PC's are on different
wavelengths, so they don't collide.  MEST has wavelengths, also.  Someone
whose wavelength is near to yours is someone you feel very close to [ -- a
soul-mate].  You can influence each other more than average, being both more
pleasing and more irritating.  There is also the possibility of having known
the other person before.

     So there is a thetan plus a body plus a bank.  The bank consists of free
track that hasn't been drawn into the GPM's, all the goals, all the GPM's, all
the locks, secondaries, engrams, and circuits.  Then there is the thetan, the
body, and the physical universe, with all its PTP's.  So, in a sense, in
auditing the PC, you are auditing the whole Physical universe and everything
in it.  It is seldom necessary for the auditor to handle the PC's environment,
except when handling a very neurotic or psychotic PC, or a PC with a psychotic
family.



                                      388

     If you were auditing a thetan with no body, you could run him back to his
earliest bank, knock it out, and then run off the later ones more easily.  The
body gets in the way of this, because when the thetan made his earliest bank,
he didn't have a body, and his adventures were more strenuous than a body
could take.  So you can make someone quite ill by chasing them down into early
banks and badly handling them.  The body is a useful adjunct, though a
nuisance, in some ways.  So you should safeguard it by staying with standard
procedures.  Whatever you come up with to run, run it well, with a minimum of
stress on the body.

     What could you do to overstress the body?  You could fail to clear the
bank you are working on and go off into other banks.  You could not run banks
closer to PT before going earlier.  You could not try, as far as possible, to
run a bank from its extreme top to the bottom.  You could keep auditing the PC
over and over, finding nothing and not discharging the bank.  You could find
wrong items and run wrong goals.  You could fail to follow the pattern, but
assume that your PC is different.  Your PC simply won't rocket read well on
some parts of the GPM.  It is just charge that prevents the right item from
firing.

     Just as the PC has many goals and many banks, he has many RI's in one
GPM.  Instead of worrying about all the GPM's there are to run, you should be
worrying about cleaning up the RI's you have your hands on.  Just as if you
half-ran half of the PC's banks, so if you half-run half the RI's in a bank,
the PC will sooner or later feel queasy.  The monitoring consideration is that
you should audit what you have your hands on.  Don't "run R3 on a PC".  Audit
the PC with R3!  That goes for every auditing skill we have.  "I never sec
check a PC.  I audit the PC with sec checking.  I don't find goals on a PC.  I
audit a PC with goals finding." If you keep that frame of reference, you will
win all the way.

     With Routine 3, it is almost possible to audit the PC with scarcely a
somatic, if you use everything you are doing, at the moment you are doing it,
to clear the PC of what you have your hands on.  It will go something like
this:  The first RI takes 2 1/2 hours; the next thirty RI's take half an hour
apiece; the next thirty RI's take twenty minutes apiece; the next thirty take
fifteen minutes apiece.  The next bank takes you 45 minutes to get your first
Rl, half an hour each for the next half-dozen, fifteen minutes each for the
next thirty, etc., etc.  This happens because you are building, on a gradient
scale, the thetan's confidence, and leaving nothing behind you to worry
about.  This state of affairs is attainable, if you follow some rules.  Say
you have spent two sessions trying to get the top oppterm to fire.  You've
still got the whole bottom of the GPM and various points to cut in, where the
PC can get rocket reads.  By auditing the lower parts of the GPM, you could
unburden the case and then progress forward.  You should be aware that you can
always go down in a bank, no matter how hard you try to list upward.  Your
first interest is to get charge off.  If you get charge off, the PC can
confront more.  Now he can find that missing top oppterm.

     You've got countless locks, which will fire when you first enter a bank.
Any part of the goal, anything will fire, because you are looking at the whole
mass, and it is so cross-charged that anything will fire. That makes the top
oppterm the hardest to find.  After you have taken some charge off, all these
weird combinations don't fire. The more bank, the more things will fire, and
the more restimulated the PC will be in life.



                                      389

     [Details on directive listing procedure.]

     Some PCs will have to be taught the language, if they don't understand
the words in the pattern.  Eventually they will get the words.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=16/5/63
Volnum=1
Issue=265
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-265 The Time Track




6305C16 SHSpec-265 The Time Track

     [Some of the data in this tape is contained in HCOB 15May63 "The Time
Track and Engram Rum ing by Chains: Bulletin I" and HCOB 8Jun63" ... Bulletin
II -- Handling the Time Track".]

     One basic tenet has never changed: you have never successfully audited
anything but the time track.  There is nothing to audit but the time track.
There is no grand key to the release of things but the time track.  Locks,
valences, machinery, etc., are all phenomena of the time track.

     The time track is the continuous record of time of the individual, from
the first moment he began to experience, on through until now, an interrupted
three-D fifty-two perception movie.  Things happen to that movie.  It gets
grouped and becomes unavailable to the PC for various reasons, e.g. his
inability to confront the fact that it can get grouped, etc. All that auditing
ever does is to straighten out the time track, make it available, and as-is
it.  The track gets collapsed and looped by chains, which consist of related
incidents, until you get a solid wad of experience which is unavailable to the
PC and thus has command value over him.  There are only two classes of things
involved in the time track:

    1. The mechanical things.  The matter, energy, space,
       and time that is the time track.

    2. The significance of it.

People who can't confront the track at all, e.g. psychologists and
psychiatrists, conceive it to consist of thought only.  The time track is not
imaginary and shouldn't be treated as imaginary.  It has mass.

     In the physical universe, a brick wall is the product of various people
and forces.  Where it all come from needn't be investigated, for practical
purposes.  The time track has remained undiscovered and undescribed by mental
health practitioners, because they have lacked the confront to get past
certain mechanisms that make it unavailable.

     Nothing is holy, to a scientologist.  There is nothing that should not be
investigated.  Nothing is unavailable, although psychiatrists think so.  They
don't know that the time track is real.  They have fallen for the first trick
that the time track employs to make itself unavailable:  the idea that there
is "nothing in the mind but thought".  That is a trick of debarment.  The
consideration is, "Anybody who says that he is looking at a brick building in
the mind ... isn't looking as a brick building, and it must therefore be
imaginary, so therefore he is living in the field of illusion or delusion, so
therefore he must be slightly mad...."  "Insane people must be mad because they
are seeing things," says the psychiatrist.  Then he compounds the insanity by
saying, "No, you are not seeing these things." He makes the time track less
available.



                                      390

     "The direction of sanity lies in the capability of confronting the time
track and the PT environment." For any individual, "existence consists of the
physical universe, PT and everything that is in it at this exact, precise PT
instant, and the time track, which consists of everything that has been, and
that is the total isness, as far as this thing called 'reality' is concerned."

     Archeology studies "a suppositional reality", but it is not outlawed for
that reason.  You can take some ruin and say, "What has it been?" But that is
not the isness.  It is a suppositional reality, subject to error.  However,
archeology is not outlawed as a science for that reason.  Furthermore, all
futures are suppositional.  If they are suppositional enough, they come true.
LRH used to tell fortunes by looking at a person's facsimiles and mocking
something up.  The future is always enforceable with altitude and authority.
This is just a trick method of making a postulate stick.  It is still a
suppositional reality.  There is isness, and there is suppositional isness.
"The time track often gives people the feeling that the 'was' can return." It
can be quite solid, when there is extra awareness jammed into a particular
moment.

     You also have to look at a borderline phenomenon:  creating.  Someone
says he will build a building, and he does.  His saying he will nearly puts it
there.  But a creation is a suppositional reality until it is actually
created, at which point it becomes an isness, and remains an isness for
whatever period of time it endures.

     Part of the thought of reality is the adjudication of whether it is good,
bad, or whatever.  Thought is not separate from reality.  It is woven solidly
into reality and is part of the isness of reality.  One can establish the
isness of a reality at time by asking about it.  Some people can't even
confront that.  [Here, LRH recounts an anecdote about the CIA or the police
following students and PCs around for weeks, as they ran "Union Station", an
outdoor objective process. (Command was, "You invent a way of destroying that
(indicated person)." See HCOB 6Feb58 "HGC Clear Procedure Outline of February
6".  The process was done to take over destructive automaticities.) They were
trying to find out what the scientologists were doing without ever taking the
trouble to ask.] "It never occurred to them to establish an isness....  They
couldn't even view the thought in the isness." This is even worse than only
being able to view the thought in the isness.  So there is a descending
gradient of ability to confront an isness:

     1. Able to confront or view an isness.

     2. Able to confront or view only the thought in an isness.

     3. Unable to confront or view the thought in an isness, or even to ask
        about it.

     Opinions are.  There are thoughts and opinions abroad in the world that
we may not agree with, but which are part of the isness.  A wrought iron fence
is a thought woven into the physical universe, as, to some degree, is all
else.  When someone creates something in the physical universe, part of its
isness is the expression of his thought.  Thought is expressed by the
formation of the MEST.  So thought is, to some degree, part of the physical
universe.  Likewise, the time track is composed of matter, energy, space,
time, and thought.  So both the physical universe and the time track are
composed of MEST and thought.  Added onto these are many complexities such as
suppositional isnesses, befores and afters, purposes, and aesthetics.



                                      391

     "The degree that [an individual] is on a suppositional kick measures
directly his confrontingness." How much suppositional isness is added to
actual isness? A critic says, "The artist should have...." The "should have"
measures the amount of non-confront the critic is doing.  This is also true of
PCs, who typically say, "Well, it looks as if there might have been...  there
could possibly have been ... a wreck of some kind here at one time or
another.  Maybe.  I think it was an airplane." (It turns out that it was a
building.)  The PC is very suppositional.  He doesn't give the isness of it.

     Someone who criticizes anything is doing a supposition about how
something should be.  They are not confronting the isness.  "The time track
straightens out and erases in direct ratio to the amount of isness confronted
by the PC, and that is how sane and capable [he] gets.  [It is] measured
directly by the amount of isness the individual is [able to] confront."

     In view of the fact that he PC's track is in terrible condition, there
are two factors at work:

     1. The PC's own feelings of incompetence.

     2. The unrecognizableness of the track.

These combine to give you a cat's breakfast.  An extreme form of this problem
is seen in the PC who supposes all sorts of horrible things, who thinks it is
so uncomfortable that he doesn't even show up for session.

     A thetan's state is not really pinned mechanically by anything.  He is
not made less of a thetan or more by MEST.  But when you surround him as
intimately as the time track does with a tremendous amount of suppositional
unconfrontability, he is enforced into a state of low morale, where he doesn't
think that he can do anything.  And the isness, then, is that he can't.  The
PC supposes that the time track is not confrontable, that the auditor is not
going to be able to do anything for it, that he won't be able to handle it,
etc.  "All the time he's supposing, he's not confronting." He knows what will
happen.  He has had all these unconfrontable experiences, and his attention is
still fixed on something, and he knows he mustn't take his attention off of
it.  He also knows that if he doesn't take his attention off of it, he will go
to pieces.  Then he has forgotten that he has his attention on it.  He feels
degraded by all this.  In addition, the state of his track is horrible.  It is
scrambled, shredded, snarled up.  The thetan, in the middle of it all, is
convinced that if he moves or looks at any of it, something horrible will
happen.  All of it has command value over him.  Yet, at the same time, it is
valuable to him.  It has become his havingness.  "It's all the old tin cans
he's got.  It's all his knowingness....  He's like somebody who has become
totally dependent on the record department, and then the record department has
been bombed.  He can't even find out his own name, rank, and serial number
without [it]." That dependency and the why of it is also in the record
department.

     The great savants who have remained ignorant of the time track have just
Q and A'd with its unconsciousness by remaining unconscious of it and
unwilling to approach its pain.  The time track is unavailable to the being,
so the savant supposes that it is unavailable to him.  But the auditor mustn't
do this Q and A.



                                      392

     "The only real tragedy of life, I suppose, is that absolute
unconsciousness and absolute unknowingness are unobtainable." The fact that a
thetan can't remember, at first, what happened in an engram doesn't mean that
he was unconscious at the time.  If absolute unconsciousness and unknowingness
were possible, we would probably be all right.

     Don't underestimate the violence that is there on the time track, and
don't force the PC into it.  But if you get the earliest moment of the
earliest GPM, it runs like hot butter, even though there's as much charge on
it as there is on a later one.  The difficulty you hit with the later one is
that it has the charge of all the earlier ones, in addition to its own, so it
is far harder for the PC to confront.

     It is important not to give the PC loses, early on.  You should know the
mechanics of engrams and the time track.  Be sure your commands mean what you
intend them to mean.  "Through the incident" does not mean "through the
incident to the end," and if you just say, "Move to the end," the PC won't go
through the incident.  The bank follows the "You think you are there, so you
are there" mechanism of the thetan, so the difference between "to" and
"through" is very important.  Use "to" in scouting and "through" in running
engrams, and don't mix them up.

     LRH found that some PCs can't run GPM's until they have run an early
engram.  Also, if you can run the overt engram that relates to these GPM's, as
an engram, a fantastic amount of charge will come off the implants themselves,
and they will run like hot butter.

     Here is a datum:  That particular implanting outfit was located down
towards the center of this galaxy and was founded 52,863,010, 654,079 years
ago.  It was destroyed 38,932,690,862,933 years ago by the 79th wing of the
43rd Battle Squadron of the Galactic Fleet.  It was a wildcat activity.  They
used to drag Magellanic clouds out of the center hub of the galaxy, let them
follow lines of force and come over a system, and then send planes in with
speakers. The place would be caved in for thousands of years as a result of
radioactive clouds.  You are not likely to find any implant earlier then or
even near 52 trillion years ago, or closer to PT than 35.9 trillion years
ago.  Any other kind of implant is a different kind or a dramatization of it
someplace else.  The Helatrobus implanter had the dream of everyone in the
universe being good.  They used the Ice Cube.  [See A History of Man, pp.
64-5.] This is the implant that really keyed in the time track.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=23/5/63
Volnum=1
Issue=268
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-268 State of OT




6305C23 SHSpec-268 State of OT

     There isn't a government on earth that has the right to "permit" our
survival as an organization.

    [Cognition: The only reason you have a present time problem is that you
don't have enough time.]

     The Helatrobus implants -- you can call them the "heaven" implants -- had
a big effect on thetans, with their cold energy, or frozen energy.  The
Helatrobus government had gold crosses on their aircraft.  No one could find
out who "they" were.  They couldn't find out who was behind and actually doing
the implanting.  The implants were based on cold energy with significance
placed in it.  The implants tended to talk.  The Helatrobites had figured out
something that looked to everyone else like a natural phenomenon:  the
Magellanic (radioactive) clouds, with which they surrounded planetary
systems.



                                      393

     The stars in a galaxy tend to be collected towards the center of the
galactic wheel.  When you look at the Milky Way, you are looking towards the
center of this galaxy.  In the opposite direction, you see other galaxies.  We
are awfully far out from the center of this galaxy.  Our sun is a "rim star".
Galaxies are condensations of radioactive clouds into suns and planets.
Planets sometimes shatter, to become a belt of asteroids.  Suns range from
"dead" suns, to red, yellow, white, and blue suns, as they get hotter and
brighter.  Bodies could exist that are suited for conditions on other
planets.

     Some science fiction writers have very good memories but have fallen
victim to the implants that reverse time, such that the past equals the
future.  The "boogie man" is a standard mechanism for keeping people from
going places and looking at things, confronting.  For instance, the
Phoenicians spread sea-monster rumors to prevent competition with England in
the tin trade.  Scare stories about terrible beings are quite standard.  They
are used to keep people out of things that others want to keep hidden.  Most
planets run by animal forms have classifiable types of forms, similar from
system to system, depending on the environment.  Someone built for
Jupiter-type conditions would look, perhaps, Eskimo-ish.

     You could become very disheartened and caved in about this universe and
see it as a trap, until you recognize that the thetan is helped all the time
by MEST.  It gives him location, consecutive scenery, and persistent structure
of matter.  This universe has solved a lot of problems for the thetan.  When
he gets too far down on the tone scale, therefore, he gets on a stuck one-way
help flow, with respect to the physical universe.  The thetan doesn't help the
universe.  You could run him on, "How could you help the physical universe?",
and he would feel better about it.

     Degraded beings come to the conclusion, because of the above situation,
that the trouble with this universe is that it has free beings in it.  They
feel that the universe is too good for free beings, so every now and then,
someone decides to make it evil.  If a thetan is that degraded, what he sees
as wrong with the physical universe is that it has free beings in it, so he
tries to make them unfree.

     The origin of the physical universe in the first place is probably a
collision of home universes.  The problem of why everybody stays in a single
present time was one of the more fantastic problems.  The "why" is a response
to a vibration.  There is one underlying vibration that the universe, your
bank, and you are vibrating at.  The only variation in that vibration relates
to the progression of time.  Therefore, you can move someone on the time
track.  One overwhelmed others with vibration, a very minute vibration the
size of the vibration of a light particle.

     The time track is formed by an involuntary intention.  In studying the
power of an operating thetan, LRH has had pauses in thinking, although
intellectually such power is conceivable.  Recently, LRH has been exploring
the actual potentialities of an OT.  The problem of an OT may be analogous to
the problem that one encounters if one tries to pick up the cellophane wrapper
from a pack of cigarettes, without denting it at all.  You could



                                      394

only do this if you could estimate or measure the exact force necessary to
pick it up without denting it.  This is probably the basic problem of an OT,
and it may give him his time track.

     The power of a thetan is such that if he were to pick up a steel cylinder
capable of resisting a pressure of several thousand pounds per square inch, it
would be like you with the cellophane wrapper.  The problem is -- how to touch
something without crushing it.  The thetan is "being careful" in handling
MEST.  He seeks another method of handling.  He feels that he is quite
destructive.  People who have lost their OT abilities and strength will try,
and did try on the time track, to convince free thetans that they were
dangerous.  People who haven't that level of action would believe that a free
thetan was destructive and would trap him with the idea by causing him to use
a new trick:  doing things by intention, instead of directly.  We have always
thought of intention as primary, but it is secondary.  The postulate, and
action through postulates, is secondary to action through energy.  You should
be able to do both, but it is more natural for a thetan to just pick something
up, than to pick it up by an intention or postulate that it be up.  It is a
great downgrade.  Intention is unnatural.  It would be natural to just move
things.  However, this is hard to do if the thetan is afraid that he will
destroy the thing in the process.  Instead, he develops the safer method of
operation by intention alone.  He can do this, but it enforces a great
restraint on him.  It is like putting yourself on a terrific withhold of
self.

     The thetan trains intention to become involuntary.  It is not imaginary.
It is like involuntary nerves or muscles that work automatically.  MEST is
fragile.  Recently, in New York or Melbourne, when they started running the
goal "to forget" in a co-audit, the E-meter got fused.  The PC melted the
lines.  Some involuntary intention was triggered in him, and "Zap!"

     Unless you understand this as too great power, within the ethical limits
of the individual, you won't understand the problems of an OT.  A thetan is
stronger than the fragility with which he is surrounded, and he compensates by
reducing his power.  This was the wrong solution.  He developed an automatic
action.  E.g.  the phone rings.  He doesn't touch it.  It springs into the
air, and he talks.  The postulate does things without his having to intend
them.  There is "no difference between an involuntary intention to act and an
involuntary intention to duplicate and an involuntary intention to create, and
that's where the time track comes from." This is an hypothesis to account for
the time track.

     Then someone gives the thetan things for the automatic machinery to mock
up which would be bad for the thetan.  Or someone jams the machinery and makes
the thetan fight his own automatic intention.  The next thing you know, he has
a messed-up time track.  He goes solid.  He picks up a meat body.  The
withhold begins with the steel cellophane.

     A rational solution would have been not to make everything so damned
fragile.  Withholding all the time has all sorts of ill effects, including
putting engrams on your track.

     These matters have a lot to do with scientology organizations.  Seeing
the character of an OT, we see that these matters could be upsetting in
various directions.  We have some responsibilities to start things out right,
if we are going to make OT's.

     Early on, conceiving that free thetans were very dangerous and should be
shot down, people like the Helatrobites started laying in implants and
weakening people, working with great



                                      395

industry.  Before these implants, planets were suddenly surrounded with
radioactive cloud masses from the center of the galaxy.  Waves of black and
grey clouds would sweep over the planet, engulfing it in radioactivity.  The
dark horse nebula in Orion is one huge radioactive cloud like this.  This
could go on for a million years.  Universes have lines of force -- vectors,
like spokes -- which were used by the Helatrobus group, to move Magellanic
clouds.  They just set them loose.  No one found out that it was being done by
someone.  It was all explained as a natural phenomenon.  Because of these
theories, no one thought to look for anyone doing it.

     At least a hundred years after a system had been engulfed, Helatrobus
would send capturing troops in ships with little orange-colored electronic
bombs that would talk.  Speech was frozen into electronic capsules.  The
clouds would talk, "Hark! Hark!  Look out!", etc.  It sounded like a fun
house.  Its unbelievability made detection of its origin all but impossible.
It confused the thetans all to Hell.  For some reason, the symbol of airplanes
goes through this.  This symbol goes earlier, to implants at 80 trillion years
ago, where aircraft symbolized needing a machine to get you off a planet.

     So for some years, after years of radioactivity, the clouds were there
with speech in them, containing contradictory commands, like "come here --
can't come", "go -- mustn't go".  It was doubletalk.  The Helatrobites put
traction beams on thetans.  Eventually, after many incidents of resisting it,
the thetan got sucked up into small capsules via bubbles and thence into
spaceships.  "All of this assaulted his credulity.  He couldn't understand
what was going on." This had never happened before.

     Then, in one to six months, the Helatrobites would get him into an
"implant area, fix him on a post, wobbled him around, ran him through an
implant of goals on a little mono-wheel pole trap with the effigy of a body on
it." He had no body at that time.  Eventually he would get home.  Then he
would get picked up again and put through more series of implants.  Probably
the Helatrobites Knew who had been implanted already, because we find implants
in pairs of two and four, never three or one.  Once this started, the planet
would be in turmoil and revolt, and things got very insane.  The heaven
implants, then, were preceded by tremendous periods of unrest, with
radioactive clouds, orange bombs, warfare, wild anarchy, etc.  It was chaos --
rather like twentieth century earth.  It was Hitler-like stuff.  It got more
and more crazy and out of control.  They were very worried thetans.

     Before the clouds came, there would be occasional theta-trapping, etc.,
but things were generally pretty peaceful.  It was only when the free thetans
were threatened that they became restive and ungovernable.  Free thetans in
themselves are easy to put up with.  In PI, radioactive fallout is a key
restimulator of this whole scene.  But how does a partly-freed thetan feel,
when he sees the old situation seeming to repeat itself, with all the symbols
from the track?  It makes him mad at fallout, government, wars, etc.

     Earth is in for a period of chaos, which scientology can render less
extreme than it would otherwise be.  But we can't entirely eliminate the
chaos, since some earlier chaos will be restimulated.  But the planet is
doomed if we don't operate.  LRH's attention is, therefore, on organizational
concerns.  How do we move through such a period? The scientology organization
is set up to handle this period of chaos.



                                      396

     As long as thetans have rage in their hearts about the situation, their
power is curtailed.  This is a safety factor.  If we just let chaos happen, we
will slow our forward progress.  Sooner or later, there will be the rest of
the galaxy to deal with.  Earth has already blasted off into meat-body space
opera, which may not be appreciated by someone out there.  Earth people get
hysterical when they think that there is an invasion from space, so it
represents a real threat, not something people think is unreal or impossible.
Orson Wells' radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds resulted, in Ecuador, in
the radio station that broadcast it being torn down by enraged Ecuadorians.
They knew about space opera, even though they didn't have science fiction to
educate them.

     With things as they are, several factors confront us.  If we handle
things as they are, we may be able to have things as we would like to have
them.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=25/5/63
Volnum=1
Issue=269
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-269 Handling ARC Breaks




6305C25 SHSpec-269 Handling ARC Breaks

     [Some of the data in this tape is contained in HCOB 27May63 " ... Cause
of ARC Breaks".]

     LRH has discovered the common denominator to all ARC breaks:  by-passed
charge.  An ARC break is defined as "the PC's transfer of attention from the
bank to the auditor and a dramatization of the bank directed at the auditor."
Charge that has been restimulated in session may provide a background booster
for a session upset.  When you drag the PC's attention to the auditor, the
charge that has been deliberately restimulated in the session doesn't get
as-ised, and the PC ARC breaks.  Thus, something that, outside the session,
could not cause an ARC break, may and will cause an ARC break if it happens in
session.  The ARC break is not caused by a social faux pas.  It is caused by
the sudden shift of attention, the unleashing of charge that was held back by
the fact that the PC's attention was on it.  As long as the PC has his
attention on the bank, he is cause over its charge.  "The moment his attention
is flicked off of it he is ... the effect of that charge ... and the PC then
dramatizes [it]."

     Any tone level or know-to-mystery scale level that is higher than the
chronic tone of the PC, being higher than the PC, is cause over the PC and is
therefore dramatized.  It should be noted that apathy is a high tone for a
PC.  The tone level contained in the incident is what the PC, unintentionally,
dramatizes.  He could dramatize anything, e.g. boredom, effort (e.g. breaking
a chair), or a manic.  And the auditor is a good target.  The PC himself is
helpless to restrain himself from dramatizing.  He will be surprised at
himself, amazed to react that way, etc.

     An ARC break comes about whenever charge is bypassed that then puts the
PC at its effect point.  The PC dramatizes the charge that has been bypassed.
[This charge is unknown to him and can therefore affect him adversely.] The
remedy is to locate and indicate the exact bypassed charge, at which point the
ARC break ceases.  That is the mechanics of it.  You don't have to go into a
"do" and run the ARC break and run all engrams connected with it, etc.  No.
You only have to indicate bypassed charge.  The remedy is not continuous
auditing.



                                      397

     You know now how to turn off someone's anger by saying that someone
missed his withholds.  That often works, but when it doesn't, it is because
you indicated the wrong bypassed charge.  You could assess a number of
possibilities, e.g. "missed GPM", "missed goal", "missed RI".  He will stop
being ARC broken when you get the right one.  In session, only a few charges
can be missed: goals, RI's.  engrams, refutation of reality, rejection of
affinity, more basic incident, failure to acknowledge.  That pretty well
covers it.

     These things occur in life also.  "Rage is an automaticity...  in such a
delicate balance that almost anything can make it slip." A neurosis is
actually hard to maintain.  That explains the simple effectiveness of
correctly locating and indicating bypassed charge.  The psychiatrist's failure
comes about from two sources:

     1. Lack of technology.

     2. An interest in insanity's being very hard to solve.

     ARC breaks are not hard to handle if you know the cause and handling of
them.  Don't back off or fear them.  Just develop the skill to find and
indicate the right BPC, or you will get loses in auditing and eventually give
up.  "Temporary or permanent conditions of misemotional stress are something
that you have to face up to as an auditor, ... 0r just get out of the auditing
chair.  [So] I want you to get confidence that ... you can find the BPC, ...
and then, by indicating it to the PC, realize the tool that is in your power!"
That a PC ARC breaks is no guarantee that the PC is in poor case shape or
difficult to get gains on.  Just indicating the correct BPC turns off the ARC
break.

     You may find that the charge was bypassed two sessions ago, or the ARC
break doesn't get handled because you can't find what it was until somewhat
later.  Then, when you indicate it, the PC calms down.  But "you shouldn't let
an ARC break last more than two or three minutes," because ARC breaks multiply
on a steep curve.

     Governments these days are run by riot, because they are so scared of ARC
breaks.  England's matter-of-fact handling of the "ban the bomb" movement is
an exception to this rule, like an auditor who doesn't get thrown by or
governed by ARC breaks.  Governments have also been run by fear of
assassination.  This is just a dramatization of the Helatrobus implants.  You,
as an auditor, could be governed by ARC breaks if you can't handle them.  "You
are never governed by that which you can handle with ease." So learn to handle
ARC breaks until ARC breaks become just another phenomenon, like a runny
nose.  "Your attitude on ... ARC breaks must never be one whereby you are
driven by the ARC break, because you will be driven, then, into not getting
the items clean, ... into taking the PC's orders, ... [which] are the direct
result of dramatizations.  The orders are the significance contained in what
you just put him at the effect of:" the BPC.

     Don't, for instance as a registrar, get reasonable in the face of
dramatization.  Hunt and peck around for bypassed charge.  The rage is an
automaticity.  Psychosis is very tenuous and easy to break.

     Number of ARC breaks is not correlated with the success of auditing.  ARC
breaks multiply as the square of time.  The greater the facility with which
you handle ARC breaks, the less you are governed by them.



                                      398

     PC's who are continually ARC broken in session can be run on the
three-way ARC break process.  This process, however, is not for use every time
the PC ARC breaks.  For instance, for an auditor messed up with ARC breaky
PCs, you could run the following:

                      _
                     |what attitude has been refused?"
                     |
     "In auditing,   |what reality has been rejected?"
                     |
                     |what communication has not been acknowledged?"
                      -

This works better than mid-ruds.  It is the successor to ARC break
straightwire, which, in 1958, could go into engrams and even implants.  It
works, because what it does is directly to locate and indicate BPC.

     If you let the ARC broken PC control you, you will be taking his orders,
because he is dramatizing not only the emotion but also the significance
contained in the BPC.  This is dangerous to the PC.  So you should:

     1. Learn to handle ARC breaks.

     2. Be good enough as an auditor never to bypass charge.

     You can bypass charge by not finding any.  You press on with the session
in the teeth of a PC who is dramatizing apathy.  Then the PC gives you a wrong
goal and you take it, thereby bypassing more charge.  "The harder you are
driven [by ARC breaks] into doing a bad job, the more charge you bypass." It
won't run well.

     Bypassed charge is always prior to the charge on what you are doing.  So
the ARC break is a blessing in disguise, since it tells you that there is more
charge, which you have bypassed.  It is more accurate than the meter, in this
case.  ARC breaks are cumulative in their effects.  You do still have to peel
enough charge from later incidents to get to the earlier ones, but the PC
won't ARC break if you indicate to the PC, as an R-factor, what you are
doing.  If you tell the PC that there is a basic on the chain, he won't ARC
break, even if you don't run the basic, because you have indicated the earlier
charge.  Indicating that there is earlier charge also makes it possible for
the PC to run the later stuff.

     The PC can ARC break in the rudiments because he has out-ruds in the
incident.  That is just BPC, and you can indicate it.  So when you chicken out
of cleaning an Rl because the PC is protesty and ARC broken, you have set
yourself up for more ARC breaks on subsequent items.  Don't buy an RI that
doesn't rocket read a full dial.  If it won't, there is BPC to clean up.

     Bypass the charge? ... Keep it a secret? ... You will get an ARC break.
Don't bypass charge!


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=29/5/63
Volnum=1
Issue=270
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-270 Programming Cases [Part 1]




6305C29 SHSpec-270 Programming Cases [Part 1]

     The subject of programming cases is almost as old as the discovery of the
engram.  "Programming is the overall action taken to resolve the case,
regulated by the state of the case and the necessary steps." If a guy stubs
his toe and you decide to give him an assist, that is programming.  The assist
is auditing.  The two are not the same.

     These are the things to be adjudicated in programming:

     1. Time.  How much is available?

     2. What will the case accept, stand for, or tolerate as auditing?

     3. What will the case progress on as auditing?

     4. Order of actions.  This comes back to time, (1).

     5. When you will start auditing.

     You can't leave out any of these adjudications.



                                      399

     You need a good grip on programming before you can actually make clears,
even if you have a technique that works on everybody.  Because programming is
easy to do, LRH has never put it out as itself, so it has been missed as a
factor in getting all cases to run well.  Programming is easy, unless you
don't do it.

     Programming is based on some fundamental principles.  It is based on:

     1. The behavior of the time track.

     2. The abilities and disabilities of the PC, related to the time track.

     The time track is the world's longest movie, in 3D.  Included in the
movie are things which apparently destroy some of the movie.  So between, say,
reel 16 and reel 80, everything is missing.  With improper programming, you
will never find that section.  And you can audit reel 80 and reel 16 and
everything beyond reel 80, and though the PC gets lots of auditing, nothing
happens to his case, because what is wrong with him is what is between reel 16
and reel 80.

     This film has a total effect on the PC.  He lives it as you run it.  You
can only be effective if you run the parts that are personal to the PC.  That
is running the reality of the PC.  There are things you can run that are
unreal to him, but that nevertheless affect him, e.g. the Helatrobus implant.
But don't exceed the PC's reality by too much.  The program is not monitored
by what the PC has a reality on before you audit him.  It is monitored by what
the PC can obtain reality on during auditing.  After all, you want to increase
his reality.  Don't omit PC change and volition in your calculations.  And
remember: his reality might exceed yours!  If you don't try to increase the
PC's reality, you neglect his capacity to change.  It does the PC no good to
audit him no farther than where he is at.  Yesterday's mental sciences made
this mistake continually.  They treated patients only from and on the
viewpoint of their own reality, then denied the patient's capacity to change.

     Programming is based 100% on the following:

     1. The capability of the auditor.

     2. The capability of the PC to receive auditing.

     3. The amount of time available.

     4. The maximum result to be obtained, given these limits,
        in terms of increase of A, R, and C.

Affinity

     The increase in affinity can be seen in the person's change in position
on the know-to-mystery scale, of which the tone scale is the middle guts.  A
person has no personal reality, except for a possible intellectual reality, on
those tones that lie above his position on this scale.  He only has reality on
those tones that lie below his chronic tone.  His chronic tone can be the tone
of the body plus thetan or a chronic tone as a thetan.  The body plus thetan
tone can be considerably higher than his tone as a thetan.  The chronic tone
of the body plus thetan combination can be at 4.0, while the level of the
thetan is at "unconscious".  "Any level above the chronic tone is susceptible
[of] being dramatized....  Dramatization is a thetan -- or thetan plus body --
performing evolutions not under the thetan -- or thetan plus body's --
control:  non-volitional actions." Old mental studies fixated on these and
believed that there is nothing else, but there are volitional actions.  "They
lie below the chronic tone of the individual on the tone scale."



                                      400

     There are two chronic tones: that of the thetan and that of the thetan
plus body combination.  The body plus thetan can dramatize any tone above the
chronic tone, but most likely it will be the half tone above the chronic
tone.

     The above is A, of ARC.  Therefore, increasing affinity is making the PC
less susceptible to dramatization, and gives the PC reality on more tones that
are now below him.  You have added levels on which he has reality and
subtracted levels which he may dramatize.  Previously, as a certain tone was
above him, he was the effect of it.  Now, being above that tone, he has
reality on it and he is no longer the effect of it.

     The body plus thetan tone is an apparent tone, and it never goes above
4.0.  So you could have a PC flying along at 4.0, enthusiastic, and the next
day you will get the thetan alone, and he drops from 4.0 to zilch.  He has
come up to degradation as a thetan!  He feels awful for no apparent reason,
because you are now seeing the thetan, who has come up above unconsciousness
to degradation as a thetan for the first time.  This is case gain, in terms of
affinity.  To go somewhere by Route One, you have to get the thetan's chronic
tone level upscale enough to do it.

Reality

     You can measure a person's reality by measuring significance, since
reality is matter, energy, space, time, and significance, the five parts of a
universe.  Psychological testing measures reality on significances.  You can
test reality by solution of problems.  If a person's conversation is full of
"can't understand" and he gets very reasonable about unreasonable things and
he can assume no viewpoint but his own?, while he doesn't really have one, his
reality level is low.  He may demonstrate this by the fact that, as the PC
comes to others' viewpoints, he begins to recognize his own overts and to
suffer on that account.  That is a big reality increase and occurs because
understanding more, and being more able to take other viewpoints, the PC
becomes more responsible.  He cognites.  "Cognition is actually the process of
a changing reality of significance." It is necessary to case gain.  Cognition
= more understanding = case gain.

     A PC saying that the session was wonderful has not necessarily had any
case gain.  He may have been beaten into propitiation.  But if he says, "You
know ... My Mom must have had quite a hard time!." That is a cognition.  If
the PC is able to assume a new viewpoint (in this case, that of his mother),
he has had case gain.  Getting the PC's goals and gains at the end of the
session is a little psychometric test, a measure of case gain.  Communication

     There is obvious gain when the PC is more willing to talk to people, but
his increased perception of walls, etc., isn't really changed reality so much
as it is increased communication.  Reach and withdraw, willingness to receive,
etc., is what is involved, here.  Even if the case is delusory and sees the
room as full of polar bears, it would be case gain at the end of the session
if he could see the polar bears better.  If you are operating from the
platform of the reality that the room is not full of polar bears and that you
must therefore get rid of the polar bears, you will have dropped the PC's
communication.  This was one of Freud's errors.  "He can't communicate with
you, but he can communicate with these polar bears.  If he could communicate
with the polar bears well enough, he wouldn't have to communicate with them,
and they would depart.  That's the way to get rid of polar bears!"



                                      401

     Psychiatrists try to convince the patient that he doesn't have any bugs
crawling on him.  This is the same as saying, "There must only be this one
reality, and unless we can hold the status quo of this reality, we have lost."
This "has been the criterion in all mental activities for the many trillenia,
and an auditor may be holding onto it with both fists and not realize it."
This consideration is that our only gain would be from the platform of where
we are.  If we could continue the alteration to making things more like they
are here and now, we we would get case gain.  This consideration is a way to
clobber people by holding them on the time track.

     These are the technical data underlying programming.  Auditing is done
by:

     1. Unburdening basics.

     2. Discovering what basics there are.

     3. Disentangling them so as to erase basics.

This includes CCH's.  It includes all processing.  Discovery of basics end
eradication of basics is done by discovering what basics can be found before
the basic that disentangles the basic that you are trying to untangle.  A
basic will almost blow by inspection, unless there is a more basic one holding
it in.  However, "basic" on a chain contains elements that are not basic to
the basic.  Say you have the basic on the chain of some somatic.  It is basic
on the chain you are running, but it has something in it that comes from a
more basic chain on another subject.  When this happens, you can slip the
basic out from under the earlier basics by finding the basics of remaining
elements in the basic of the original chain.  Frequently this can be done by
dating.  By the time you are through, you have practically cleared somebody.
If you can keep track of what you are doing, you will be very successful.  If
not, the whole track collapses, and the PC goes under.

     The first action you should undertake on a case is the most advanced
action that can be undertaken, in your estimation.  Always enter a case more
boldly than you think is wise and you will usually be right.  If you don't,
you will never find the ceiling at which the PC can operate.  If you get away
with it, you are all set.  You have saved time.  That is what you are doing
with the Helatrobus implants.  If the PC can't manage it, pull back.

     So all there is to auditing is "unburdening, finding a chain, finding the
basic on the chain, and taking apart the basic.  I don't care what process you
are using." Running a chain back is unburdening it.  "It's taking off charge
... so that you can lay your paws on basic." You are after the first GPM, and
if the PC can't recall what he had for breakfast this morning, you have to
unburden the case.  How long should you continue unburdening the case?  "Until
you can get your hands on an implant; not one second longer.  That you run the
charge off of, at least one dial-wide disintegrating rocket read per item.  If
and when you get stuck, you probably have too early an implant, one that is
too close to Basic.  Remember:  you are trying to unburden.  Pick up the last
incident in the second chain, if you know what it is, and run that one with a
fast pass.  Or lets use straightwire to give him some locks, or find overts on
this.  Let's see if we can chase him earlier and find the first.  It is all
unburdening, you see.  Let's run the three-command process for awhile.  We are
just trying to get our hands on an implant so we can run some charge off of it
and find an earlier implant so that we can get to the basic implant.



                                      402

     You have to go later and unburden the basic implant, because you are
asking the PC to walk through a wall of fire.  Between PT and basic, there is
a wall of fire.  You can't push the PC through the wall of fire.  You have to
get him through.  To get the PC through it, you have to put some fire out on a
gradient.  That is done by programming.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=30/5/63
Volnum=1
Issue=271
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-271 Programming Cases (Part II)




6305C30 SHSpec-271 Programming Cases (Part II)

     [Some of the data in this tape is contained in HCOB 8Jun63 "The Time
Track and Engram Running by Chains -- Bulletin 2: Handling the Time Track".
In particular, p.3 of this bulletin contains a Scale of Case States that is
relevant to this tape.]

     There is a gradient scale of cases.  It is not complete.  There are
interim points that are not shown on this scale.  The lowest level on the
scale, Level 8, is that of total unconsciousness.  The next one up, Level 7,
is awareness of own evaluations.  This is where the "mental sciences" are at.
A psychiatrist listens to someone chatter and becomes aware of his own?
evaluation of the person as crazy.  What he perceives is his own evaluation of
what he perceives, or of what is there to be perceived.  "It's an incapability
of observation, because it's an observation of own evaluation....  You see it
most flagrantly in the fields of arts and aesthetics....  The less that is
known of a subject, the more [it] has authority or evaluation as its sole
reality or adjudication." This is where most anti-scientology wogs lie.  "I
had an uncle who said you shouldn't mess with the mind." That uncle is
perceiving, not scientology, but his evaluation or another's evaluation of
it.

     The next level up, Level 6, is dub-in of dub-in.  Here, a person has
dub-in of his own? nightmares.  That is all he sees.  It is someone forming
his opinion on newspaper articles.  Actually, that is dub-in (the reader's) of
dub-in (the reporter's) of dub-in (the source's).  This level is below, but
approaching, unconsciousness, as a thetan manifestation.  The body plus thetan
can go lower scale than a thetan, whose unconsciousness lies just above this
level of dub-in of dub-in.  Body plus thetan can apparently stay conscious
longer than the thetan can, as far as awareness of being a thetan is
concerned.  A lot of boil-off occurs above Level 6.

     Level 5 is dub-in of the time track.  The facsimile does exist, but what
the person or PC sees is a dub-in of the facsimile that is there: a second
facsimile.

     Above this, at Level 4, is non-perception, where the PC gets blackness,
invisibility, small rockets, etc.  It is a non-visibility.  What used to be
called the Black V is at this level.

     Above this, at Level 3, is spotty, partial-perceptic glimpses of the time
track, with only some visio, no sonic or tactile, etc.

     Then, at Level 2, there is a totally visible time track with no
interruptions.  There is no blackness in this track unless the blackness was
really there in an incident.  A fifty- or sixty-goal clear would be in this
condition; he could monitor the time track the way one monitors the physical
environment.

     Above this, at Level 1, there is no time track.  The lowest two levels
are gross lower scale harmonics of Level 1.



                                      403

     The above is "a Scale of Perception of the Time Track." It is what makes
cases different.  Auditing time estimates should be based on PCs' location on
this scale.  You could probably use the physical universe to test where a PC
is on this scale.  For instance you could have him look at a wall with a
picture on it, close his eyes, and tell you what he gets.  The result will be
about half a tone or a tone higher than where he really is.  E.g. if he can't
see it: "What wall?", he is at Level 4, above, though actually he will tend
towards Level 5 in running track.  There is a tendency to slip one level.

     The only levels that are fairly serious are Levels 7 and 8, because it is
very hard to get into communication with those cases.  But establishing
communication at one level moves the person up to the next level, and so on up
to the top, ultimately.  Don't expect this to be done swiftly and accurately,
however.

     Most of the cases that you will be dealing with will have invisibility
and sporadic track.  If you consider the amount of auditing necessary to audit
a sporadic track case as one unit of time, invisibility would take two units;
dub-in of track would take four units of time, etc.  I.e. the time required to
get a given auditing result doubles at each level, as you go down the scale.
For instance, if it took one hour to audit out one engram on a PC with
sporadic track, it would take thirty-two hours to audit out an engram in an
unconscious case.  Actually, that is optimistic at both ends.

     The case result that we are interested in is OT.  We already have the
fait accompli of clearing, so we are going beyond it.  Any effort to get an
ultimate result in processing leads to OT.  That upgrades the number of hours
to OT to, say, 500 hours to OT for the sporadic track case.

     Insanity, neurosis, or ability to respond to a communication play no part
in that scale of cases, because those conditions are found only at one level
of the scale, the "own evaluations" level: Level 7.

     Any "objective" test of case state that has a human observer adjudicating
pass or fail works out poorly where the observer is, himself, at Case Level
7.  Have you ever been flunked on TR-1 by a coach that couldn't coach?

     The concepts of "insanity" or "neurosis" are contained as goals in the
Helatrobus implants.  Therefore, they cannot be used to evaluate state of
case.  "Wisdom" based on the Helatrobus implants is nuts.  Other goals from
that implant include, "to die", "to be sick", "to move", "to escape", "to 'get
it' " (i.e. to get a sickness, etc.), etc.  Almost any one of these goals has
been the source of learned treatises dramatizing them, to "explain all of
Man's ills", e.g. treatises on "escapism".  The History of Man contains
references to a few implants.  It remains valid, though, and the engrams
described in it did exist.  They just got collected together during implants.

     What causes different people to be at different positions on this scale?
It could be the length of time that they have spent in this universe.  This
implies a universe that accumulated from the successive collisions of home
universes with it.  The MEST universe picks up different home universes at
different points on the track.  "Older" thetans are in worse shape.  State of
case, then, would be monitored by number of overts, different statuses of
thetans at the time of entry, etc.  The why doesn't need to be known? to solve
the situation.  How these thetans came to be there in this universe can be
stated easily: charge.  This is a



                                      404

quantitative matter.  You pump charge into a case when the eighteen
(prepcheck) buttons go out, i.e. inval, eval, etc.  If there were no thought
involved, you could probably short-circuit it all.  But there is also thought,
which includes volition.  As the universe pumps charge into a thetan, he pumps
it into other thetans and other things.  Then he inhibits himself from doing
so.  The result is overts and withholds.  The charge gets encysted as a
composite picture of the number of things done to the being, held in place by
the number of things done by the being.  This produces X amount of charge on
the case that, in the absence of auditing, just keeps on growing.  The thetan
gets a lot more or a little more in a given lifetime, but it is always
additive.  That is what makes the universe a trap.  If charge didn't keep
accumulating, the universe would be therapeutic instead of aberrative.  You
can have an attitude about the charge, too.  The attitude doesn't alter the
charge, but it can affect how you feel about it.

     In view of the fact that an OT has fantastic power, it is funny that
charge would bother him, until we figure out the basic overt of the thetan.
"Any overt a thetan commits is also mixed up with the energy a thetan is
emitting....  All of his overts have particles connected with [them].  So the
only way to really get him is to hit him with particles, [because that is] the
path of his overts.  So most implants are mainly connected with particle flows
of various types."

     People, therefore, have different amounts of charge.  One person has
quantity A of charge; another person has quantity B, etc.  The more charge a
person has, the more difficult it is to release it.  That is why it takes so
much longer to get results on the unconscious case.  This depends, to a
degree, on whether the case condition is chronic (i.e. lasting more than a
lifetime) or acute (temporary -- one lifetime or less).  E.g. the PC may be
spastic now as an acute condition relating to his body.  The question is
whether he is always going to be that way, no matter what body he picks up
(chronic).  If a condition is chronic, it will add a lot of time to auditing.
You could put a deaf man on a meter and ask him whether he was deaf last
lifetime and the one before that.  If he was, you have a deaf thetan on your
hands, not a deaf body, and it will take time to fix.

     Charge is what causes a case to be the way it is.  Just because a thetan
plus body is low on the state of case scale, the thetan itself is not
necessarily low on that scale.  Environmental factors can also make someone
look downscale when they are not.  [LRH relates an anecdote of a time when he
audited a girl who was acting very nutty and brought her through in a short
space of time.] You have to estimate this to program someone's case.  What you
are going to program is the person's case, so you have to estimate the case to
determine how to get the charge off the case.  "A case is programmed in
relation to the amount of charge on the case." That is what determines how you
are going to take the charge off the case.  Since auditing requires the
cooperation of the being, you have to estimate his cooperativeness, his
ability, etc.  This does affect the ease of auditing and the speed of
auditing.

     Sample program:  The case dubs in track.  Charge can be run off.  We get
dial-wide rocket reads on Helatrobus implants.  If the PC can run it, run it!
It is dicey, because the case can easily go to smithereens.  It is better to
pull overts on this lifetime and run any stretch of track on which the PC has
reality.  Be very sure



                                      405

that the case has no withholds from the auditor, especially this-lifetime
ones.  Muzzle the auditing.  Don't force this PC.  Run rocket reading implants
as long as they run easily.  "When things get difficult, fall back swiftly to
patching up roughed-up track.  Return to an ARC-type process if the going gets
too rough on RI's.  Tunning RI's is dangerous.  That would be a very extreme
and daring programming for this case.  It is quick, but dicey.  The safe way
is using straightwire, havingness, withholds, etc.  An alternate approach is:
if you got a goal, run all the charge off the goal.  Never look for earlier
goals when you have found one.  Don't try pushing the case to get all the
charge off of an implant.

     Take a case with sporadic track:  You can run it pretty hard.  You can
move around on the track from one GPM to another without messing things up
much.  This level of case (Level 3) could even stand leaving goals without
running them.  He may ARC break, but you can do it.  The case can be pushed
hard.

     The invisibility case (Level 4) can be pushed a bit, but not as hard as
the sporadic track case.

     With the dub-in case (Level 5), you need lots of track repair, O/W
running, havingness.  You must readily cut and run if implants get rough.

     With the dub-in of dub-in case, don't let him near implants.  This isn't
a common case (Level 6).  Use straightwire and ARC break processes.  Run the
case lightly for wins every session.  You are running the case too steep if
you are not getting session wins.  Unless this case is aware of having regular
wins in session, the case's reality is not coming up.

     The aware of own evaluations case (Level 7) is suited only for havingness
and CCH's -- room processes, contacting PT processes.  This case can't detect
an overt as such.  He has no responsibility.  He will tell things to you, but
not as overts.  To get daring with this case, run straightwire!

     With the unconscious case (Level 8), establish communication.  Animal
processing is the same sort of thing:  establish comm; get the animal to
reach.

     Always be a little optimistic in estimating where someone is on the
scale.  Then program to get as much charge off as you can, with the PC
winning.  How much charge is being gotten off is measured by the TA and needle
action.  Charge is important because "it's what restimulates when he tries to
outflow and ... prevents his outflow....  It's what educates him not to
reach." In getting off charge, processing lets him reach and do.

     Total self-determinism is only possible at the highest level given above
(Level 1).  There there are no automaticities, no time track, no charge on the
case.  The result is unlimited reach.



                                      406


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=11/6/63
Volnum=1
Issue=272
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-272 Engram Chain Running




6306C11 SHSpec-272 Engram Chain Running

     "I finally found out why you can't run engrams....  I found out you've
been trying to run engrams and you never run engrams.  You run chains of
engrams....  This is the way I ran engrams in 1949." This got crossed up with
repetitive processing.  "Flatten the process" became "Flatten the engram",
when it should have been "Flatten the chain." You flatten the chain by getting
the basic.  Engrams never exist all by themselves.  There is always a chain.

     An engram is only part of a chain of similar incidents, which, in turn,
is part of a time track.  You are essentially running a time track.  You never
handle an engram all by itself, because it is too closely related to the rest
of the track to be treated that way.

     If you are a skilled auditor, you can quickly pick up BPC when the PC ARC
breaks, indicate it, and have the ARC break disappear.  Until you can do this,
you will have rough sessions.  In engram running, the BPC is always the
earlier incident on the engram chain.

     Charge is able to make the PC feel worse or better, depending on whether
it gets restimulated and encysted or blows.  You can let the PC learn more by
entering a lot of engrams and not finding basic.  The result is that the PC
knows more but feels worse, because you haven't erased basic on the chain.
Running a chain of engrams is not the same as finding out about a lot of
incidents.

     Every time you run an engram, you open up a valve into the next earlier
engram, letting its charge get restimulated and partially leak into the one
you are running.  If you continue to run the later engram, it gets sticky, TA
ceases, and it gets solid and will eventually collapse on the PC.  The BPC
from the earlier engram causes the PC to ARC break.  Moving back to the
earlier one blows some of the charge.  Charge always flows later, from its
source, not earlier.  We can only find the earlier engram because the later
one was run.  As we go back on the chain, each incident seems to be the
earliest incident, when it is actually just the earliest available incident.

     If two engrams or any two pictures collapse, the cause is BPC, and the PC
will, very shortly, ARC break.  The converse is also true: if the PC has BPC
and is ARC breaky, you have two pictures collapsed.  Out-of-valenceness --
"that's me over there" -- is also a problem of BPC.  If an earlier engram is
tapped, it will bleed charge into the one you are running; the somatic will
strengthen.  But this phenomenon won't cause out-of-valenceness.  An
out-of-valenceness is caused by an earlier portion of the same engram that you
are working on, that hasn't been seen.  It is assisted by charge bleeding from
an earlier incident.  You could even run a dub-in case and get him earlier
than the dub-in.  However, it is safer to use straightwire or MEST processes.

     Suppose you are running an engram where the PC hit his head and, when the
PC goes through the incident, the part where he actually hits his head gets
skipped.  This indicates that the engram is part of a chain of "hit head".  So
we work our way back through earlier incidents.  As he gets back to basic, he
gets full perceptics.  When we get to basic, we run it over and over, and his
somatic blows.  If we came back up through the chain, you could send the PC
through each engram on the chain and now he would get the somatic each time.



                                      407

     The only way to flatten an engram is to flatten a chain of engrams.
Chains of overts follow the same principle, as was done in sec checking.
[This involved the withhold system, used in prepchecking, old style.  See HCOB
1Mar62 "Prepchecking (A Class II Skill)" and pp. 208-209, above.] These also go
much earlier than this life.  Chains of overts include overt engrams.  It
doesn't matter which you run, because the overt-motivator sequence is an
installed mechanism.  It is very old.  It is not as deeply laid in as
obsessive create, but it is equally implanted and engramic.  Either overt
chains or motivator chains can be run.  They rarely entwine.  Sometimes the PC
will jump chains from motivator to overt.  When that happens, you should
follow it down to the basic overt, but you should then also pick up and
complete the motivator chain.

     Running engrams is very simple.  Here is how LRH would do it:  Get a
crude date, e.g. 89 trillion years ago.  Get the PC to return to this
incident.  Ask him what he is looking at.  Ask, "How long is this incident?"
Get the duration by meter.  Get the PC to move on through the incident to the
end.  There will be a long pause.  The PC says, "I did." Ask him what it is
all about.  The PC tells you.  Ask for an earlier beginning.  Get when it
was.  Send the PC to the earlier beginning, then through the incident.  The PC
goes through the incident and tells you about it.  PC has a somatic.  LRH
dates, with the meter, an earlier incident with the same somatic.  He sends
the PC through that incident.  You go earlier; date it, etc.  If you don't
complete the chain in one session and the PC doesn't get the picture, run a
few commands of, "Since the last time I audited you, is there anything you
were unwilling to duplicate?" Run this to a clean needle.  The picture will
now be on.  Don't harass the PC to find all the unknowns in the incident.  It
is not necessary to do this.  When you have had a rough session, try "Since
(the day before that session occurred), what have you been unwilling/willing
to duplicate?" Alternate these commands.

     If the PC can't run engrams, it is because he is at the wrong place on
the scale of case levels to be able to confront it.  Even a dub-in case can
run earlier than the dub-in, but it is dangerous.

     Engram running is important, because you won't make OT's without it.  All
the fancy stuff was developed to handle cases that were too heavily charged to
run real track.  The least common denominator of the case scale is
no-duplicate, which is right in the middle of the communication formula.  "The
swan song of this universe [is] that that which you are unwilling to duplicate
tends to go on automatic." An ARC break is an unwillingness to duplicate.  If
you show students a bad TVD, they will flub the first five minutes of their
next session, because they were unwilling to duplicate the bad TVD and
therefore it went on automatic in their next session.  This is what happens
when you show a bad example.  You could clean up earlier bad auditing by
running, "Since (a few days before the bad auditing), what have you been
unwilling/willing to duplicate?" It will clean up.

     "Resistance to duplication can be caved in." One can become what one
resists or the effect of what one resists.  "A person's ability to duplicate
is what determines [his] ability to run engrams, because the engram itself is
a duplication of the actual event." The PC duplicates the event, but if the
picture he is running is an altered copy of the original, it is dub-in.  All
engrams have some dub-in in them and develop new material.  You can get some
surprising changes.  One is particularly unwilling to duplicate dangerous
things.  So one then gets lots of them.



                                      408

     The person who is totally unaware has tried to whip the mechanism of
obsessively duplicating everything.  The trouble with this strategy is that
his duplication goes on total automatic.  Some people have very heavy engrams
indeed, over which they have no control.  These engrams are very inaccurate.
They stub their toe and have a picture of being run over by a truck.  That is
all they run, if anything.  Since there are very incredible things on the
track anyway, such as the Helatrobus implants, it would be very inaccurate and
dangerous to determine whether or not a PC can run engrams by looking for
factualness.  For instance, basic on prenatals is an incident from the
Helatrobus implant, in which the thetan, on a pole, is tumbled through a
series of tubes, all curled up.

     One way to see if a guy can run engrams is to try him out.  If it is no
go, you can get out the ARC triangle in a hurry.  A better test is simple
duplication.  For instance, you can call off a series of numbers: "3, 6, 2, 9,
7" to a person and ask him what you said.  If the PC didn't duplicate you, you
can forget about running engrams.  Or you can go by the Chart of Attitudes, or
any test of duplication.  But you shouldn't go by the material he runs.

     You can use an ARC process to improve someone's reality.  All sorts of
other processes will also do this.  The duplication process [See p. 414,
below] also works well.  CCH's are effective, when rightly used to show the PC
that it is safe to duplicate.  If the case cannot run engrams, and if you are
running them correctly, engram running is probably too steep a gradient for
the PC.

     The reason these data on engrams is important is that the Helatrobus
implants are a long chain of engrams, each one with a basic, and they tend to
bunch the whole track.  On some cases, you can only run six GPM's before the
rocket read shuts off, and at this point, you have to start running engrams.

     When do you go earlier?  Whenever the PC recognizes that there is
something earlier, however he states it.  He may say so directly or he may say
something that shows that he is looking for something earlier.  If the PC sees
something earlier, you go earlier.  Never ignore this.  If you ignore the
indication that an earlier incident is available, the one you are running will
get harder to run.  Besides, you risk an ARC break.

     Charge is registered on the E-meter by needle and TA motion.  You must
get TA action, or you are just restimulating the case without blowing
anything.

     There is no absolute basic on engram chains.  When you get to basic on a
chain, there may be portions of it that, themselves, have earlier basics.  Go
ahead and run those out, too.  There is only one basic basic.  It contains
those impulses which eventually became aberration.

     There are two things you can do with dating:

     1. Relieve charge.

     2. Identify something.

If you do a total dating, it goes down to the second.  You get the exact
number of years, plus days, minutes, seconds ago.  Get the date accurately,
and the incident gets placed right where it should be on the track, thus
relieving charge.  Dating also contains identification.  You can use rough
dates for this purpose, e.g.  89 billion or 450 million, as long as you don't
have a bunch of incidents close together in a row.



                                      409

     "Blocking out" an incident has these steps:

     1. Get an approximate date.

     2. Move the time track to that date.

     3. Ask the PC what is there.  Accept whatever he gives you in every
        case.

     4. Find its duration fairly accurately.  If it is "days", get the
        number.

     5. Move the PC through it, not "to the end."

     6. Then establish what was there.

     7. Move the PC to the beginning and send him through again.

Don't vary the routine and don't Q and A with the PC's unknownness.  If the PC
keeps saying, "I'm stuck," forget about holders and denyers.  He has just
gotten in over his head.  Bail him out and revert to lighter processes.

     Always suspect that there is something a bit earlier.  Ask for it.
"Blocking it out" is done by going through it once.  After that, the PC may be
expected to tell you if there is something earlier.  Generally, run the PC
through the incident twice.  Once through is plenty if it is gummy.  Having to
go through an incident more than twice is suspect.  Don't try to keep getting
more out of it.  It is OK to keep running an incident, as long as we are
getting motion on the meter, but don't strain to get more perceptics out of
the incident.  More will turn up as you go earlier.  You can keep running an
engram as long as the PC is interested in it and finding out more, but the
instant he says there may be something earlier, go earlier, or you will stick
him in the later incident.  If you don't go for earlier incidents, you blunt
the PC's ability to go earlier and stick him where he is.  But don't force him
earlier.  If he is starting to bounce up to PT, let him, and run ARC
processes.

     Basic isn't generally the more powerful incident.  It is just the first
incident.  It seems so unimportant to the PC, yet later incidents built up on
it, bigger and bigger.  Basic is the shorter, lighter incident.

     Theoretically, you could run back to basic-basic.  If you found and
erased this, the PC would then have no pictures and no track.

     If a PC seems to be trying to escape running engrams by going earlier, he
is over his head and needs more preparation.  If you get the PC fully
interiorized into the engram, say by putting his attention on a large object
in the incident, he will get it all fully charged up, in 3D.  This is not what
you want.  You will never get him out of the universe that you are packing
around him.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=12/6/63
Volnum=1
Issue=273
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-273 ARC Straightwire




6306C12 SHSpec-273 ARC Straightwire

     ARC straightwire is the oldest broad-nature repetitive process.  It is
possibly the first repetitive process.  The ARC triangle was originated in
July, 1950 in Elizabeth, N.J.  It was expanded in September or November of
1950 at the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in Los Angeles.  It was an
important tool for understanding the mind.  It is best described in Notes on
the Lectures [See pp. 9-16].

     The ARC triangle is the most fundamental statement of significance,
although it also embraces MEST.  When a prime postulate impinges on MEST, it
becomes involved with ARC.  The MEST can be in the physical universe or in the
time track.



     Affinity is so much itself and so relative that we get into difficulties
trying to interpret it in an auditing command.  "Affinity embraces everything
from the know-to-mystery scale." It is "feeling for", or "feeling with", or
lack of those.  It has connotations of "feeling about".  It is not enough to
say "emotional response".  Sympathy and empathy come into it.  It is a very
broad and new concept.  If you will substitute the know-to-mystery scale for
"affinity", and use the words "emotion" and "misemotion", PCs will respond to
it.  The emotions scale, being just a part of the know-to-mystery scale, is
included in "affinity".  The word "affinity" is really inadequate to embrace
the whole concept, because the concept has not been expressed in any
language.  How many words can be used in a command to express the concept of
affinity?  Lots!  Everything on the know-to-mystery scale can be used,
including the whole tone scale.  We find the PC chronically situated at one of
these levels, and that is the level to which he will respond in processing.

     "Reality" could pertain to significance alone, as in "His reality is
poor," or to actual chunks of matter.  Reality is normally considered to
consist of considerations about something or someone, on up to the more solid
concepts of matter, energy, space, and time.  In clearing this word, you will
have less trouble than in clearing "affinity", unless the PC is really in
"thought".  But if you bad to vary it, you would have a harder task on your
hands.  You would have to specify which part of MEST you meant, or which
consideration.

     Communication is anything that fits under the communication formula.  It
involves cause, effect, duplication, etc.  In clearing "communication", you
could specify which type or kind you meant.  You could use various parts of
the communication formula in the third ("C") command of ARC straightwire.

     Clearing commands doesn't just mean, "Can the PC define the word?" It is
a matter of substituting words in the command so that the PC's level of
reality is met by the command.  The question we should ask is, "which word
communicates to the PC what we are trying to communicate to him?"

     A, R, and C make understanding, when combined.  This was worked out
mathematically in the fall of 1950.  They actually compute mathematically.
When the PC cognites, he has reached a point of ARC, expressed as a new
understanding.  You won't get a cognition if you omit one of the legs of the
ARC triangle.  If you run only R and C and not A, you don't get cogs.  If you
wish to raise any one point that is low, you can and should work on the other
two points.  That is a terribly valuable datum that must be observed in any
ARC process.  Any point that is overrun or more difficult will give you
trouble, unless you preserve the balance amongst the three.  No one leg will
ever flatten by itself.  It is the three that you are trying to flatten.  So
flatten all three.

     In flattening a process, you can run it to:

     1. Three equal comm lags.

     2. A cognition.  Leave the process right there!  Don't ever overrun a
        cog.  For instance, don't put in the last mid-rud if the PC cognites
        on the next-to-last.  The ARC processes unflatten easily, so if you go
        past a cognition, the process will be unflat.

     3. TA motion runs out.  For ARC processes, this is the least reliable and
        the most desirable.  You can run by blowdown, but you can't depend on
        TA motion to run out at the same time on each leg.

The way to flatten one leg is to give equal time to the other legs, not to
beat the slow one to death.



                                      411

     The first thing that ARC straightwire was found to do was to break
neurosis.  If it is going to have that effect, it will work fairly fast.  The
only difficult cases on the 1950 positive process are the ones who ground down
to a finite number of answers and gave those over and over without ever
cogniting.  The reason for this is that their positive ARC moments are quite
few, and they run out quickly.  They are pleasure moments and won't flatten.
You have to run the reverse side of it.

     Around 1958, LRH started running a lot of reach and withdraw.  The way
1.(Q. was being raised was to run, "What could you withhold?" on someone, a
funny phenomenon.  Or you could plunge people into an engram and run it half
way.  That will also raise I.Q. scores, as a person who needs mass to think
gets more mass to think with.  The upsets you run into on a case are not the
case's pleasure moments.  They are times of separation and individuation.  The
most fundamental forms of ARC breaks are:

     1. Times when the PC was knocked away from being part of things.

     2. Times when the PC was forced to part of things that he wanted nothing
        to do with.

His power of choice to connect or disconnect was overthrown.  This gives an
ARC break.  He was there but didn't want to be there, or he wanted to be there
but couldn't be there.  An implant is the biggest kind of ARC break.  You can
run, "Recall an ARC break" on someone, and it will run him into implants, into
times when he was held in a place where he didn't want to be and told things
that he didn't want to hear, a fundamental overthrow of his power of choice.

     The ARC straightwire processes were revised to saw out pieces of
implants, in order to help handle the Helatrobus implants.  LRH discovered
that the big mid-ruds [See HCOB 8Mar63 "Use of the Big Middle Rudiments] or
the 18-button prepcheck mush an engram.  They mess it up, spoiling the
record.  The engram frays around the edges.  It turns into pure energy,
without giving the PC any memory of what happened in the incident.  This
showed that. if you were going to use big mid ruds and big prepchecks on PC's
stuck in engrams, you weren't going to unstick them.  You need a steam shovel,
not a hand shovel.  Thus the negative ARC processes were invented.  Negative
ARC processes do handle implants.

     LRH also discovered that a PC is operating on entanglements with the
physical universe.  It is one thing to bail him out of this and another thing
to get him to look at his considerations about being entangled.  It's not what
happens to a person that is important; it is his considerations about it that
count.  People, especially sociologists, get caught up in the idea that the
environment determines people's states of mind.  This is the philosophy on
which foreign aid is based.  Power of choice is senior to this by miles.  It
has to do intimately with A, R, and C.  Enforced R, or A, or C, will wreck the
triangle.  But given the same environment and predicament, two people can have
quite different reactions.  The goodness or badness of the surroundings
doesn't necessarily reflect in the happiness or unhappiness of the
inhabitants.  This messes up social planning because the happiness of the
individual involves his preferences and his considerations about his
surroundings -- whether or not he has ARC for them.  The PC has had all these
preferences and considerations present with regard to all his circumstances
all up and down the track.  That is an adequate statement of power of choice.



                                      412

     This raises the question of whether there is such a thing as an ideal
state or condition.  In scientology, the possibility of such a state exists as
it has never existed before in the universe.  An ideal state is a state that
someone wanted to be in, over which he had full power of choice.

     The attainment of happiness for a PC is parallel to attaining clear.  The
two factors are:

     1. The environmental conditions of the PC.

     2. The PC's A, R, and C with regard to the matter, energy, space, time,
        and postulates of his condition.  This is a channel that has remained
        fundamentally unknown to this universe.

These are born out of an interplay between the PC's postulates and the
experiences he has netted.  We are still on an interactive basis between
postulates and conditions of experience.  The person's power of choice is his
affinity, reality, and communication with regard to a set of circumstances,
existences, or environments.  We should give this fact more attention in
processing.

     We needed a process that could easily be ground out by the hour by any
old auditor, but which would give fantastic results.  ARC straightwire
approaches this ideal as a process, though it does require some skill, and it
can be done very wrong.  ARC straightwire does give fantastic results,
although unfortunately it does not go the whole route, because it doesn't
actually handle the conditions of existence.  It only handles a PC's
attitudes, reality, and power of communication, relative to these conditions.
But it handles enough to cut away lower levels of case, especially Levels 4,
5, and 6.  [See] p. 402-405, above for a description of the eight levels of
cases.] At Level 7, its usefulness is doubtful.  At Level 8 it is useless.  It
brings cases upscale to where they have their own time track to run and are
able to run it.  At that point, power of choice is less our concern, because
the PC believes now that his power of choice is alterable and that he can do
something about his conditions.  Now he can handle the real stuff that has
aberrated him.  Sooner or later, too, one has to actually handle the
conditions of existence.

     Auditors who don't understand ARC straightwire can dream up all sorts of
wrong ways to do it.  For instance, they skimp on one leg because the PC has
trouble with it.  Although cases at Level 3 can run the process commands in
the order: 1, 2, 3 / 1, 2, 3 /, you will get more TA with the order: 1, 1, 1,
1, 1 / 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 / 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 /.  That is the only way it will run on
lower level cases, so you might as well run it that way, with equal time on
each leg until flat.  Or, run an equal number of questions on each leg, to get
over the fact that the PC may have long comm lags on one leg.  You are after a
similar amount of run for each.  You depend on the other two legs to fix up
the tougher one.  Letting them get out of balance defeats the process.  How
long you should spend on each leg depends on the PC and how long he takes to
flatten something.  Listen for a cog to end off on.

     The number of variations that there could be is great.  Always try to get
the PC to run the simplest, most fundamental version -- the one that is
closest to pure A, R, and C.  The less you change the command, the happier the
PC will be, since this produces the minimal change of process.  If you find
the PC struggling with a wording, get it changed early, if you are going to
change it at all.  A good question for affinity is, "What attitude has been
rejected?" Don't change the question too much.  Settle down for the long run.
Make sure the PC has a question he can run.



                                      413

     Another keynote of ARC straightwire is that it is always run muzzled.
The auditor's sole concern is understanding and acknowledging what the PC
says.  It is true that sometimes the PC will ARC break if you don't talk with
him, but don't Q and A or change from an unflat process.  Only talk with the
PC to avoid ARC breaks, and don't violate the Auditor's Code.

     If you run into trouble, you can put big mid ruds in on the ARC process.
This won't mush an engram.  It takes chunks out of parts of the engram chain.
It picks up parts of the engram chain that belong to other chains anyhow.
Don't try to run ARC straightwire as a cyclic process, cycling to PT on every
leg.  He hasn't been in PT for trillenia!  You can get him to PT any time by
giving him the command, "Move to (PT date)." Theoretically, he will only get
to PT when the process is flat.  The process is flat when all ruds are in on
the process, and it produces no departure from the PC's clear read on any
leg.  You are not really after this flat point with the process.  You are only
trying to get part of the charge off, so that the PC can run engrams.
Remember that can unmoving tone arm early on in the process is meaningless.
TA has to be run in before it is run out.  During the course of running this
process, the TA may well go up and stick on each leg.

     Your main concern is, "Is the PC answering the auditing command?  Does he
understand it? Can we keep it balanced so that we can bring him through it?"
You can ask the PC, "Is there any question or command you haven't answered?"

     The process can be prefixed with any combination of words, e.g.  "In
auditing", "On your job", or "In marriage".  This makes it more powerful than
a Problems Intensive, especially if it is assessed against the problem areas
of the person's life, taking an area that reads well.

     The Helatrobus implants contain words like "remember" and "think", so you
avoid these in auditing commands as much as possible.

     Rougher cases will be happy to run this.  There are cases that cannot
recall or remember: Levels 7 and 8.  They need reach/ withdraw and CCH's.  You
can use these principles in discussing whether or not they wish to be here,
whether they like you, whether they wish to talk to you.  Using the above
prefixes, you can run ARC straightwire as a PT 2WC process.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=13/6/63
Volnum=1
Issue=274
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-274 Levels of Case




6306C13 SHSpec-274 Levels of Case

     Here is where we are at, technically:  We are developing dianometry to a
point where one can give a series of tests and decide what you need to do with
a case.  There are six types of processes that are learnable and workable.
Direct processing of postulates is not included, although rising scale
processes do sometimes work, especially on Level 1 cases.

     The scale of Case Levels is invaluable, and the six types of processes
handle all levels.  The six processes are the only ones that raise a case up
the levels.  The only problem lies in how well they are known? and how
reliably they are executed.  We are working on how you can tell where a PC is
so you can tell what to use on him.  Lacking this data, you can just process
the PC and go up or fall back to hit his level.



                                      414

     Here are the case levels:

     1. OT.  No track.  You can even go higher than Level 1.  For instance,
        you can tell the thetan how to handle a theta trap.  You can also
        teach him how to maintain a game, so he won't have to go downscale to
        have one.  What you can do with this level consists of education and
        practice only.

     2. This is a theoretical state.  Usually parts of the time track are
        missing, and those parts that are there are under handling, although
        the thetan at this case level is theoretically supposed to have total
        access to his time track with nothing aberrative on it.  The perfect
        time track is unobtainable.  It would fold up before it got there.  At
        this level, we work to get the person over the idea that he has to
        have a time track by handling engrams.  The thetan learns to block out
        facsimiles.  No special process is used here.

     3. At this level, the PC has a partly visible time track that is,
        however, very aberrative.  He has lots of engrams, but he can run
        them.  At this level, you would use engram running by chains --
        blocking that sort of thing out.

     4. This is an occluded case, with a black, invisible, and/or spotted
        field.  Lower levels can also have such fields, so be careful.  At
        this level, you can still run engrams, if you have made sure that you
        are not actually dealing with a Level 7 or 8.  You can run him on
        R3N.  [R3N is a stripped-down directive Routine 3 which uses line
        plots.  It has to do with Implant GPM's.  R3N2 is an abbreviated form
        of R3N.  See 6305C14 SHSpec-263 "Implant GPM's" and 6305C21
        SHSpec-266 "The Helatrobus Implants".  See also pp. 426; 456-457,
        below.]

     5. Dub-in case.  Easy to restimulate.  This case should be run on ARC
        break straightwire, Duplication ("What

There are processes that produce change in the PC, without necessarily giving
a change in case level.  Processes can be powerful enough to overwhelm the
PC's power of choice.  So you can change the case, but the PC may not
recognize it, so his reality and confront haven't improved.  That is what
occurs when you run a higher-level process on a lower-level case.  That is why
it is idiocy just to cure someone of an illness.  He will just get sick
again.  You have just worked directly against his hidden standard.  Your real
object is to advance the case up the reality scale, so you had better use the
process that corresponds to the PC's case or reality level.  You should see
improvement, both directly in terms of upgrade of case level, attitude towards
existence, etc., and indirectly by seeing TA motion.  If there is no TA, the
PC is not improving, with regard to his viewpoint of existence, level of
communication, etc.

     Level 4 or 3 cases can also be run on ARC break straightwire, fur repair
or a boost.



                                      415

     6. Dub-in of dub-in.  This case is distinguished from a Level 5 by the
        degree of franticness and the terrible automaticity of the bank.  It
        is not a common type of case, but it is a struggle to audit because
        the track won't hold still to be looked at.  Nothing bites because of
        this constant motion of the time track.  The Level 6 case no longer
        has the power of stopping motion.  You could call this type of case
        the grouped automatic time track or the moving time track case.  You
        can't run straightwire on him because of the constant motion of the
        track.  Such cases should be run on CCH's.  Repetitive processes work,
        as do sec checks and, to a lesser degree, prepchecks.  So does general
        O/W, done as an excuse for sec checks and prepchecks.  It is not done
        as a strictly repetitive process.  The overts you get are very light
        and feathery.  That is OK.  The bottom rung on Level 6 has passed
        beyond the ability to run bank.

     7. This case can only confront his own evaluations.  These cases can get
        enormously interested in CCH's, because that stuff is dangerous to
        them.  They can't run the bank.  It is not there to be run.  It is
        utterly unconfrontable.

     8. The unawareness case.  This case can only be run on reach and
        withdraw, being virtually or actually unconscious.  If you have
        someone who is in a coma, take his hand, and, with commands, have him
        touch the blanket, touch the sheet, etc.  The perpetual boil-off case
        needs reach and withdraw, just like the guy in the coma.  Reach and
        withdraw runs several levels above Level 8, for instance, it runs up
        to Levels 5 and 6.  But here, on Level 7, you must flatten CCH's, or
        you will leave the PC parked.  The PC at this level will run heavily
        on these processes.

     You can run processes at levels higher than the case level for which they
are primarily intended.  They don't do much damage if left unflat, if the case
level is several levels higher than that of the process.  But don't
overestimate the case level and get loses.

     The six types of processing are:

     1. Reach and withdraw.

     2. CCH's

     3. Sec check

     4. Repetitive processes

     5. R3N (implants).

     6. R3R.

Route 1 could be added as a way of handling a Level 7 case.

     Almost any case reacts to almost any of these processes, but what you
want to do is to improve the level of the case, with economy of time.  There
are certain processes that will do it fastest and a host of others that don't
fit the PC's case level.  The fastest process is the one that we are after.
For instance, we just run enough R3N to clear off implants so that we can get
at other parts of the track.  You can run someone on implants for a long time,
but what you are after is unburdening the track enough so that you can run
GPM's.



                                      416

     There are more implants per unit time in the PT area, i.e.  the last 5000
years then there were earlier but the only really thorough, workmanlike job
that was done was in the Helatrobus implant.  Darwin's theory of evolution
came from one implant.

     Case level improves to the degree that charge is removed.  Case level is
determined by the amount of encysted and unreleased charge, not by the
inherent power of the thetan concerned.  Different cases may have different
tolerance of charge, but the levels will still be determined by the amount of
charge.  The auditor's sole interest is to relieve charge in order to change
case manifestations.  The index of charge off is amount of TA, or dial-wide
rocket reads that start out like mad and turn into a fall.  If you are running
engrams without getting TA, watch it.  You are just stirring up the bank and
not discharging anything.  The PC will get unhappy with you.  Just give the PC
the R-factor that you are going to run more implants to get them out of the
road, so we can get this earlier material discharged.  Let the TA run into the
case on ARC break straightwire.  This may take two sessions.  If necessary,
you can drop back to CCH's and sec checking, or even reach and withdraw.

     It is better to start low and run high.  Underestimate the PC's ability,
so as to avoid giving the PC loses and keep his confidence and hope factor
up.  The variable is the ability of the case to rise up the scale.  Of course,
the lower the case level, the slower charge blows.  Level 5 and 6 cases will
get into rows about being under-run, but when the case is being run in the
direction of up, the case will forgive you almost anything.  The lower the
case, the more they estimate their ability to be. [They don't feel confident
enough to see their limits.] Such people do take social pride in their case
level.  There is a status-seeking in auditing, God forbid!  Let TA motion be
there instead, and we will all have won!.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=18/6/63
Volnum=1
Issue=275
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-275 Beingness




6306C18 SHSpec-275 Beingness

     The overt-motivator sequence is about a trillion trillion trillion [1036]
years old, minus a hundred thousand trillion.  It is a long track, but we have
the process to take it apart.  The main difficulty with the time track and its
use in auditing is that there are so many cases that can't confront a time
track or any part of it, so you get loses trying to run engrams.  We have been
accumulating processes that can bring someone upscale to where they can view
the time track.  A great number of processes have been accumulated and,
recently, codified, as we looked at the fundamental of what we are trying to
do with a case.

     The ultimate procedure is rote engram running, but not everybody could do
it.  So the subject has had to be wrapped up in such a way that it could be
done by all.  Current rote engram running is superior to and different from
earlier engram running.  We are running engrams by chains, to open up and
smooth out the time track.  The only reason we are doing anything about
engrams at all is that those are the parts of the time track that are least
confrontable.  If you get rid of those stretches, the PC has a time track.
The worst part of the time track denies anyone the best part.  Unless you get
rid of the engrams, you haven't got any time track, because the PC can't
confront it.



                                      417

     This sets up innumerable problems.  The more heavily charged the track
is, the less the PC can confront it, and there is a point where the PC moves
out of any confrontability of the engram, and now there is nothing to confront
at all.  This gives you the scale of cases: OT to unaware.  Awareness of the
physical universe also diminishes as you go downscale.

     If each case level were to be divided from the others, it would be
divided by layers of anaten.  Anyone at Level 8 would have to go through
layers of anaten to get to Level 7, awareness of own evaluations.  As one goes
upscale, the layers of anaten seem thinner and are thinner, because the more
aware one is, the less one minds unawareness.

     The lowest conscious level of unawareness would be catalepsy or amnesia.
But even a man thinking that he has only lived once has a lot of automatic
unawareness of the time track.  When you throw into his lap the idea of having
lived before, you will get a confrontation of his opinions about it, e.g.
"What would that do to old age pensions?", and this will make him pretty
groggy.  If you push him up the line, his suppositional actions will occur.
In the absence of processing, as he goes from Level 7 to Level 6, he will get
wild ideas, after going dopey.  He gets dub-in of dub-in lots of suppositional
reality.  For instance, he may think he is Tutankhamen.  If you could get him
to discuss it more intimately, he would get pictures of pictures.  Then, as
the PC reaches Level 4, it all goes black.  The blackness or invisibleness are
parts of real pictures.  The rest of the picture is just unconfrontable.  The
blackness of a Level 4 is on the time track.  It is actually there on the time
track.  It is a nice, dark, "safe" part of the incident that actually
happened.  Run him through, run him earlier, and pictures can turn on.  At
this point, he gets very groggy in the incident.  As he reaches Level 3 in
this way, he can see much more easily.

     As Level 2 moves into Level 1, the time track disappears, possibly
because "the time track itself is a method of not confronting something....
He doesn't want to confront it, and this overwhelms him to the point where,
without power of choice, he makes a picture of it, and you have the
involuntary picture-taking apparatus that is the time track." One can,
however, only be overwhelmed by that which one does not confront.

     So the Levels of Cases Scale is a scale of confronting, and we could
mistakenly think that confronting would solve the time track.  While
confronting does get results and is an interesting process, it is not the
common denominator of processes.  The common denominator of processes is
duplicate.  The common denominator of reaction is confront.  The time track is
duplication of an actual event, and each one of the case levels is a level of
willingness to duplicate, or unwillingness to duplicate.  So your breakdown
from OT towards clear is an individual lack of desire to duplicate what he has
to duplicate in order to be an OT, leading to an overwhelming automaticity of
making a time track.

     Duplication goes hand in glove with the idea of beingness.  As we study
beingness, we will see this with great clarity.  "To be or not to be" is not
the question, in this universe.  You are going to be something whether you
like it or not.  Your power of choice on this matter no longer exists.  You
can not-be a certain thing, but only in order to be something else.  You can
be or not-be a certain thing, but you will always be something.  "The question
is 'What to be?'!"



                                      418

     So this is the problem one picks up as one enters this universe.  It
doesn't matter if the universe is timeless, because you entered it somewhere.
As you examine people's time tracks, you find that their tolerance of time is
improving as you go back.  Since time is the single source of aberration, if
your time-tolerance improves as you go back on the track, you must be getting
into periods, not only when the PC was less aberrated, but also approaching
the beginning of the time track.  An individual's time track is not infinite
because:

     1. He entered the universe at some point.

     2. The earlier he gets on the time track, the less it is a constant,
        continual, and infinite thing.

The universe, on the other hand, continues at its own rate of vibration.  If
the individual's time track were of infinite duration, cases would be
unresolvable.

     Getting back to the question of beingness: once in this universe, you
can't absolutely not-be.  The question is "What to be?" That is the only
question in the universe that really bothers somebody.  You will drive a kid
up a wall by asking him, "What do you want to be?" If you want him to be
something and he "knows" it would be dangerous, you have a
postulate-counter-postulate situation, a continuing problem of beingness.
"There's a dwindling spiral of beingness" the moment one enters this
universe.  There are fewer and fewer "safe" things to be.  You can aberrate
someone by being after him to be something that is very dangerous.  You get a
problem with this.  The lesson of this universe is that everything you can be
is too dangerous to be.  But there is nothing to do but be in this universe.
The universe has a finite space that looks infinite.  The gains of R2-12 came
from the fact that the PC was making lists of beingnesses and the fact that a
real RI is a potential beingness.  Anything you might want to be is either too
dangerous or too discreditable.  A state's effort to dominate the individual
is out of jealousy of beingness. The press is dramatizing this by saying, "You
mustn't be a scientologist.  It is dangerous to be one."

     So if you want a guy to start sorting out his time track at almost any
level, where he is aware of it at all, you could start him at once on a
question that would get him into some interesting categories.  A time track is
"To duplicate or not to duplicate," but any duplication winds up in a
beingness.  Duplication and beingness are united. or gradients of one
another.  You will have cases that will not become OT until the beingness of
OT is demonstrated to them to be not quite as dangerous as it has been.  All
cases, or all PCs, have "assigned to all upper states dangerous or
discreditable beingness, and [the same] to all lower states, and to [their]
own state[s] impossibility to be." Well, that is the state of any case.

     If there is no program for the security of this planet that we can push
forward, people become loathe to advance their states of case or do anything
else.  They stay parked in an inertia, because there is no desirable future,
no hope factor.  This is why hope is a rudimentary therapy.  To some degree,
you would have to promise that an advanced state of case would not then bring
about further problems, complicated by the political or sociological problems
on this planet.  If there is nothing that one can do with an advanced state of
beingness, it is doubtful that people will try to attain it.  So one needs a
future, or else the problems one got into before, as a free thetan, make one
see no point in case advance. People will downgrade their own states if they
feel uncomfortable, lonely, or unsafe up there. Planning and organization



                                      419

to resolve that problem alone would bring about a case advance.  In the
absence of such planning, promise, and organization, you won't get as fast a
case advance.

     If you advance any Helatrobus goal, a lot of people will go on an
automatic not-is.  There are people who are on a prevented beingness.  They
make theta traps, implants, etc.  They can be tested for by offering them any
beingness.  They will not-is it.  For instance, you say, "A wise prime
minister would be nice." He says, "Oh, I don't know.  That would just give you
a more powerful government." They would degrade any more advanced beingness or
anything you wanted them to be.  They might even think that they were doing
people a favor.

     We have the idea that if we don't have success with a certain number of
cases, we haven't got enough people to form any strata of a civilization.  It
is OK to say, "All right.  You are making an officer cadre.  The rest can be
as they are." That presupposes that there is a future plan to take care of all
this.  We have a plan now for what to do with this planet.  Fine.  Now, what
about the boys from the next planet?  You inevitably progress into an
organizational future.

     So you have to solve the problem of beingness, not only at the level of
the individual case, but also on out into the future, through some
organization that ensures some safe future.  An OT can straighten things out
on the planet, but unless you mock up a plan to do so -- to solve the
beingness problem more broadly -- you won't make any OT's.  Unless you plan to
straighten things out, few people will go through to OT, because it has been
so unsafe.  In the past, the OT has had a blind spot.  His own power was so
great that he thought he could stand alone, but every time he went up against
an organized body, he lost, because the organization could furnish more
viewpoints than he could.  It is the plurality of viewpoints that confuses the
individual.  He can't sort it all out and eventually gets pulled down?.  The
individual could furnish only a limited number of viewpoints, to which he
could pay attention and which he could coordinate.  Communism advances because
it has a plurality of viewpoints, organized to confuse the individual
viewpoint.

     The individual OT has his problems because he is an individual and has
been convinced that he could do it all by himself.  And he could!  But the
little boys with the airplanes always show up some time in the future.  The
universe was ended by Magellanic clouds less than 500 trillion years ago.
Only space and rubble was left.  There were no suns and no planets.  A lot of
thetans got together to put it all back together.  You got planet builders and
sun-builders.  In spite of all this, the little men with the airplanes showed
up then, with their theta-traps.  Where did they come from? This has happened
repeatedly in this universe.

     This universe surrenders to co-operative action and not to individual
action.  But now we have a new breed of cat: the experienced being.  When you
get through auditing someone now, he is an experienced being who knows the
isness of the universe and who knows that no matter how tough you are, you can
get in a pole trap.  We have the technology to straighten someone out.  Unless
a powerful being learns that this is a universe of organization and
co-ordination, he will just be back on the pole trap again.  Any body of
beings operating with a coordinated program can beat him.  You have got a
situation where the individual is trying to operate in a universe of
co-operation, and of course that degrades the



                                      420

beingness of the individual to that degree.  The "more he fights to be an
individual, the less he co-operates.  The less he is willing to co-operate,
the more enforced is his co-operation, the more he fights against this sort of
thing, and the less freedom he has." That is a description of the dwindling
spiral that an individual goes through.  "No-confront" is the mechanical basis
of the spiral.  Discarded beingnesses are what bring him down.

     In a facsimile, the hardest problem the PC usually has is trying to
isolate what is him and who is he, and what is he.  This is usually the
biggest lie in the facsimile.  The PC has been running it as an overt, being
the executioner, and he finally turns out to have been the victim's wife.

     It is, in fact, dangerous not to be a scientologist.  But the rest of the
beingnesses are a matter of opinion, and the co-ordination of beingnesses is
one of the better solutions.

     A being at the bottom of the reality scale has gone down through a scale
of beingness.  To get him to be anything at the bottom is impossible, except
to be an unaware being.  There are deeper channels of unawareness, but there
is no absolute unawareness.  He goes into a coma, taking no responsibility for
any beingness of any kind whatsoever.  To move him up the line, he would have
to have some security in being able to be something at an upper level.  You
can have problems in processing if there is no future beingness.  Going out of
responsibility occurs, because one continually gets the lesson that being
responsible lands you in the soup.  The repetition of this lesson is what puts
the individual downscale in livingness.  The scale keeps going further south,
to deeper levels of unawareness.  It has to be made safe to be exterior, to be
a theta clear; without some guarantee that you won't just wind up in the soup
again, you won't become "skyscraper tall" again.

     Havingness is useless without purpose.  "Unless the game itself is an
expanding game, then processing cannot produce a stability." Future livingness
ties into a rise up the scale.

     Out-reality equals no responsibility.  "What to be?  To be an A or to be
a B?" That is the question.  If you can't be an A and can't be a B and there
aren't any other things to be, the answer is anaten.

     It is interesting what you can do simply by using the tool of secure
beingness.  Marital difficulties result from:

     1. A husband who won't be a husband.

     2. A wife who won't be a wife.

     3. A husband who won't let a wife be a wife.

     4. A wife who won't let a husband be a husband.

This is the average marriage.  "Marriage is not unhappy.  Marriage is a
difficult beingness." You could use beingness processing to remedy it.

     Bypassed charge that causes jealousy is bypassed charge in the other
person.  It is not knowing about the other person's past.  Therefore, there is
a criss-cross of BPC.  Because we are not bypassing charge in each other,
scientologists will be the first people who can be friends in this universe.
Because time alone builds up BPC in people who know nothing about the time
track.

     You have to handle the Helatrobus implant because it bolluxes up the time
track and debars an easy route to running engrams and to reaccustoming the
individual to different levels of beingness.  Only engram running will clear
somebody.



     Beingness, case state, hope, expectations, and confront are all tied up
in the case scale.  Now that we have the scale of cases and a knowledge of
what gets a case up to engram running, we can sort out the time track,
reaccustoming the person to various levels of beingness.  After you've got all
the engrams run out, you've got an OT.  Then you need an organization to
handle the problems of the OT in this universe.  Otherwise, he will just slump
again.


L. Ron Hubbard

