
                                       1


Frank A. Gerbode, M.D.


Type = 2
iDate=30/8/50
Volnum=0
Issue=0
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

LECT Preventive Dianetics




5008C30 LECT Preventive Dianetics

     Schizophrenia is caused by a superabundance of control circuitry.  It is
contained in the phrase, "I'm all alone." Paranoia has the phrase, "they're
all against me."

     The repeater phrase, "I love you," gets the PC into a sympathy engram.

     Prevent aberration by keeping calm around a child.  Don't quarrel, Pull
attention units to PT by creating a necessity level, even if it has to be an
artificial one.  E.g. a person who is drowning and seeing his whole life
flashing before him is coming up to PT  If you can do this to a kid in early
life, nothing will bother him later.  Cultural patterns such as an extended
period of mourning are just cultural patterns; in the absence of engrams you
don't get long term misemotion.

     It should be made part of the social mores not to talk or even say,
"Shh!" around injured or anaten persons.

     In industry, you get the situation where an individual who has worked in
one place gets a chain of injuries with the same perceptics and lots of
words.  Therefore, he is out of PT at work and may cause industrial
accidents. 100% of auto accidents are caused by engramic restimulation
(whether of the driver, mechanic, or manufacturers).

     Accident proneness is telepathic.  One finds that engrams are the best
telepathic broadcasters.  This is analogous to an alarm system for the herd.
Thus, of two persons who have never met, one will act out the other valence in
the other's engram.

     At high tones, affinity is raw cohesiveness; at lower tones, it is as if
there is a herd that must be alerted and needs shock (e.g. fear, grief, anger)
to be broadcast to cohere the herd into fight or flight.  You can notice this
telepathic alarm system when you enter a room where people have been
quarreling.  So when you are in the society of others, you run into this all
the time.  Similarly, in the vicinity of accidents, other accidents occur.
Engrams are keyed in and then acted out.  Thus "accidents come in threes".  If
you took driver's licenses away from the 8% of people who have been involved
in car accidents involving injury, you could eliminate 90% of the accidents.

     If you audit grief charges in pregnant women, with sobbing or
self-beating, etc., you may get transmission of engrams to the child.  Then,
when later you try to audit the child, you may get oddities, or restimulation,
from dianetic patter, which is part of the child's incident.  Therefore,
probably dianetic patter will have to be changed in 15 to 20 years.  So
auditing a pregnant woman has to be adjudicated.  You should go ahead if there
is a threat of attempted abortion or difficult birth.  Also, you should
observe how the mother behaves during auditing.  By the way, girdles, etc.,
cause more or less continuous engrams for the child, so watch out for young
kids or unwed mothers, or anyone who would try to hide pregnancy.

     Social aberrations are fragments of old morals whose practical origin is
forgotten.  Morals, in their turn, are a socially agreed upon attempt to
handle a problem for which no rational answer exists.  It's a jury-rigged
solution.  [Thus some morals may be unethical].



                                       2


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=23/9/50
Volnum=0
Issue=1
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

LECT General Dianetics, Part 1




5009C23-1 LECT General Dianetics, Part 1

     Mental therapy is at least as old as the Aesculepian School, who used
hellebore to cause chemically convulsive therapy.

     Perception during surgical anesthesia -- old reference:  American Journal
of Neurology? 1914.

     The reactive mind and the analytical one are biochemically independent.
Thus it is possible to inhibit one or the other independently by chemical
means.

     The reactive mind is the sole source of error.  [Cf.  Freud, The
Psychopathology of Everyday Life]

     Society, as a kind of organism, can have engrams.

     When a cell divides, it gives all its progeny its memory.  This can be
proven by conditioning cells.  So the cell brings hair color, instinctive
behavior patterns, and the genetic personality, but along with this comes any
moment of injury.  The cells have held back full power from the analytical
mind in moments of danger, to enforce fight, flight, etc.  There is also a
somatic mind containing training patterns that can easily be changed by the
analytical mind, and organic responses, which can also be controlled
analytically [Cf.  Yogis] But the engram bank can bypass the analytical mind
and seize control of the somatic mind.

     The common cold comes from the birth engram.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=23/9/50
Volnum=0
Issue=2
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

LECT General Dianetics, Part 2




5009C23-2 LECT General Dianetics, Part 2

     If you want to test unconscious recall, use a subject with full sonic
recall and inflict a little pain to give an anchor point.  Use pentothal and
nonsense syllables.

     The best dianetic auditors are writers.

     You can do straightwire from age 3 on, and perhaps run grief engrams, but
nothing heavier.

     Generally, a person can run standard auditing from age 8 on.

     [In this tape, Hubbard gives a lot of information on early attempts at
objective validation of dianetics by means of psychological testing.]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=3/3/52
Volnum=0
Issue=1
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

HCL-1 HPC-1 Introduction to Scientology: Milestone One Wichita




5203C03 HCL-1 Introduction to Scientology: Milestone One Wichita
        HPC-1

     "Science" has gotten to the point where it is just a study of piles of
data.  It has drawn away from being a body of knowledge and consists now of
unevaluated facts.  The "natural history" of science is:

          1. A push out into the unknown.

          2. Collecting data.

          3. Align data around a few theories.

          4. At the end, it becomes stultified.  It is capable of producing an
             effect in the physical universe, but that's about all.

     Dianetics was mainly interested in aberration.  It was not intended to be
all-embracive.  Scientology is a study of knowledge, not therapy.  However, we
must now get back into the mind again.  Although the goal is not a therapy,
how can you teach knowledge to an imperfect computer?



                                       3

     The mind would come close to perfection except for certain things which
prevent perfection.  The mind can know without letting itself know.  The task
of the processor is to get better working methods for others, then let them
help him.  The blind leading the blind, however, may fail when the blind are
too blind.  Therefore, scientology could only be applied by the very sane; it
is concerned with the able.  Sanity is an absolute perfection in reason that
would resolve problems to the optimum good of all those concerned.  Absolutes
are not obtainable.  Even if you were absolutely sane, you would still lack
data.  Milestone 1 is complete ability.  This is a necessary condition to
handling the world.  Rehabilitation of the insane will be accomplished as an
automatic spinoff from self-improvement and improving the able.

     Scientology could be defined as knowledge and its application in
conquering the physical universe.

     The iron cover is off what we already know; we have the complete anatomy
of the iron cover: Fac One.  Everything else is a lock.  You can start any
processes off this first engram, using the E-meter.  We have a very careful
map of Target One.  It is booby-trapped, but when you know the booby trap, you
can walk right through it.

     Scientology is exact; there are no maybe's up to the point of thought
creating physical motion.

     There is very little self-determinism up to the point of milestone one.
When you do get there you will be free of LRH and scientology too.  Even what
we call a clear is not there yet.

     When you have arguments with yourself, you have different personalities
in yourself arguing.  These may exist in different areas, e.g. the stomach
area.  Anyone will show up on the meter as having at least three different
personalities.  If you see two arguing, there is a third which is kind of
noble; it's adjudicating or it's sound asleep.  Then there may be a fourth
one.  These are circuits, but they are personalities; they are always in the
same place in the same people.  If you shift from the left side to the right
to the center, you get a somatic in the center of the forehead.  Could this be
the third eye?  You as an individual?  An engram?  The proper thing to do is
to run it.  The point is to become one person.  You have to run this thing
before you can be you.  It was done by supersonic waves.  The engram thus
created says not to know.

     A basic problem with anyone's understanding of scientology is not knowing
the words.  A word is just a code.  The semanticists ran off the road by
saying that there was such a thing as an undefinable.  This is not the case in
the realm of the knowable.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=3/3/52
Volnum=0
Issue=2
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

HCL-2 Introduction to Scientology: Outline of Therapy
HPC-2




5203C03 HCL-2 Introduction to Scientology: Outline of Therapy
        HPC-2

     Use light tech to get to a heavy incident, then run it out using thought,
emotion, and effort processing.  The goal is to be able to run Fac One.

     The mind is an entity.  So is the physical universe.  Thought is
beingness.  It has no wavelength; it is a true static.  There is no limit of
capacity; no limit of time.  It can record the physical universe and use it
against itself.  It can animate and control the physical universe.  It is not
in the physical universe since it has not the properties of the physical
universe.  It is



                                       4

like a mirror in which a room is reflected: there is no real room there.
Thought can pick up energy and matter in space and time and mobilize it.
Thought takes the laws it has learned and turns it against the physical
universe, like a mirror.  The brain is to translate thought into action.  The
mind looks at this.  The brain does not contain purpose.  Thus the mind is
necessary.  It stores past recordings of the physical universe.  It is the
purpose or beingness that can exist without a body to handle the physical
universe.  It is hard to accomplish things in the physical universe without a
body.  The mind stores pictures of energy.  It can project an image into the
physical universe and cause an effect.  Pictures have effort in them in
addition to perceptions.  The mind continuously makes conclusions from old
pictures to estimate the future, according to its purposes.  It tells answers
and puts them into action.  It also stores conclusions -- another bundle of
old pictures.  On top of this is the purpose and beingness of the person that
is making him do this.

     Steps the mind takes:

          1. It has a thought to be.

          2. Takes pictures.

          3. Combines these.

          4. Records efforts.

          5. It takes pieces of the physical universe and combines these to
             make a body.

          6. The body can then do things in the physical universe.

     The mind's purposes:

          1. to be

          2. to conquer the physical universe.

     Thus we have three echelons:

          1. The physical universe

          2. Thought

          3. Who told you to survive?

     The physical universe is characterized by motion, which is matter
changing in space, this being the definition of time.  This gives you MEST.
Physics has a problem with a circular definition of space and time, in that
these are defined against each other.  Physics' view of the universe is that
it consists mainly of motion.  This is an incomplete view.

     Thought is a static of unlimited capabilities that has no wavelength, no
space or time.  It is impinged upon a physical universe that has matter,
energy, space, and time.  The mission of thought is survival in the physical
universe, and in order to do this, it is effecting a conquest of the physical
universe.  Mysticism is in the second echelon.  The fundamental of physics is
not complex, but the use of it can be complex.  Similarly with the human
mind.  The mind is neither in nor out of the MEST universe.  At any rate, it
is not in the physical universe.  The mind has an effect on the body: one
reason the body is sub-optimal is because of the mind's considerations about
it.  The E-meter, while it does not measure the mind, measures the
physiological effect of the mind's operation.

     The third echelon is anything and everything that might lie north of the
above.  It would answer the question, "Who told you to survive?  You get into
questions like, "Why is nothing nothing?  If nothing is nothing, then it's
motion."

     In handling these echelons, one must go on a gradient, getting to the top
of one problem before starting on the next one.  We must finish one before two
and two before we get into three.  People effectively commit suicide by
starting on echelon three from the bottom of one.  You have to handle your
aberrations first; otherwise you lose your marbles.



                                       5

     In scientology, we try to find an effective way to handle facsimiles and
memory.  You can eliminate them or you can file them accurately.  A truly
self-determined person is unlikely to be affected by facsimiles.  In fact,
only one incident was strong enough to do this: Fac One.  A person is as sane
as he can handle memories and plan for the future.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 4
iDate=1/12/52
Volnum=0
Issue=1
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

PDC-1 Scientology -- How to Understand and Study It




5212C01 PDC-1 Scientology -- How to Understand and Study It

     Homo sapiens is a four part entity:

         1. thetan

         2. body

         3. thetan machinery

         4. reactive/somatic mind

The PC is what you are working with, and he is a non-dimensional point in
space who is an energy production unit.

     Definition: Spacation is a process having to do with the rehabilitation
of the creation of space.  A second meaning is that spacation is the subject
of space.  This is above the subject of energy.

     It is a dirty trick to make a person into a theta clear without giving
him data about it.  He knows this data potentially, but is not aware of it.
If he knew about it, he wouldn't be in the MEST universe.  This subject is the
anatomy of universes:  the construction, maintenance, and destruction of
universes of different kinds and dimensions.  The study of the basic structure
and experience called the MEST universe is a basic one.  The laws of the MEST
universe, or "natural laws", are the inevitable average of agreement.
Starting with the study of natural law, we get to the study of that which made
natural law: that thing capable of making agreements which become natural
law.  In auditing a PC, you are undoing the agreement that makes him a part of
the natural law.  E=Mc squared probably wasn't true 30 or 40 trillion years
ago in Arslycus, where the PC spent 10,000 lives working at the same job.
Arslycus got bigger and bigger.  It was just built out in space.  One day,
people got the idea of mass, agreed to it, and got careful about it.  Arslycus
blew up and everybody was glad to see it go.  At this point, the law of
gravity was widely agreed upon.

     There is a natural tendency to push out of the group those individuals
who don't agree with the group.  Thus a person who thinks that the MEST
universe is his universe gets sent to the spin bin.  In scientology, we are
not trying to disagree with the MEST universe; we are just taking it and
making it appear and disappear at will for any individual.  Every now and then
a PC in processing gets an uneasy feeling that there's some thought he doesn't
dare think.  He's coming up against agreement and doesn't want the
responsibility of undoing it because he can't handle that much energy.  If you
could get him to where he could handle the energy, he'll face the thought.
Probably all that would happen is that the MEST universe would momentarily
disappear for him.  Then he'd fish around to get an orientation point to get
back into it.  You just have to know how to handle space to get into and out
of the MEST universe.

     People use the old energy of the MEST universe instead of creating stuff
from scratch.  They hang onto being identities, using bodies like ID cards,
instead of being individuals.  This does furnish randomity and provides
emotions that one can pretend to be the effect and not the cause of.  The
identification card permits the individual to make a living so he can feed the
ID card!



                                       6

     The Tarot is a philosophical machine, preserved as playing cards.  These
cards represent concepts of human experience.  Thus, for instance, the Fool
could represent a person at 45 on the tone scale.  Such a person would have
passed out of agreement by knowing all agreement.

     The sequence of events relating to agreement with the MEST universe is:

          1. Agreement.

          2. Agree or else

          3. We don't care if you agree; we are going to punish you anyway.

          4. Below agreement: a not-is of agreement.

MEST is in complete confusion of having agreed to everything, owning and
controlling nothing.

     Society builds into people a conditioned social tone.  One has the tone
level of one's society as a being + body combination.  That's the tone level a
PC's bank will have, the tone of his facsimiles and ridges.  As a being one
has a different tone level.

     One cannot study scientology from the point of view of any other system.
One can only study it by looking at you or the other people you know, applying
the definitions and seeing what is or isn't there.

     scientology consists in the study of:

          1. Progressive examination of the agreements that came to bring
             about the MEST universe.

          2. The science of how agreements are made.

          3. What are the beings that make these agreements?


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=4/6/54
Volnum=0
Issue=6
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

6ACC-37 The Know-to-Sex Scale -- The Mind and the Tone Scale




5406C04 6ACC-37 The Know-to-Sex Scale -- The Mind and the Tone Scale

     There's a line breaking existence in half, above and below which is a
know to sex scale.  The upper of the two scales has something good about each
level; the lower one has something bad about each level [See Fig. 1].  E:g. a
person who knows sex is bad is at the bottom.  Next they will know eating,
then symbols, etc. is bad.  The tone scale is a [logarithmically] dwindling
scale; it has wide spaces at the top and narrow ones at the bottom.  The know
to sex scale has a distance factor to it.  The particles are progressively
further apart as you ascend the scale, until you reach know, where you don't
have any particles.  For instance, at emotion, the particles are twice as many
and half as far apart as at look.  Thus, according to this gradient scale, you
can't go straight from bad sex to good sex, so you have to go some to convince
a person who thinks sex is bad, that it's good, or vice versa.  Suppress =
condense.  That's why auditing appears to produce gradual results.  A PC is
fixed or dispersed about life, and life is divisible into these factors.
Before you can get an individual to change his mind about some subject, you
have to get him to change across a lot of categories.  Also, all parts of the
scale except the knowingness band contain particles.  As long as the
individual is allergic to space and particles he'll tend to cross-connect the
different bands of the scale [as per restimulation] whenever he runs into
space or particles.  So our procedure is to get him to change his mind about
various kinds of particles (gradiently) until we can get him to change his
mind about all particles.



                                       6a

                                    FIGURE 1

                           THE KNOW-TO-MYSTERY SCALE

     __
     | KNOW
     |
     | LOOK
     |
     | EMOTE
     |
GOOD | EFFORT
     |
     | THINK
     |
     | SYMBOLS
     |
     | EAT
     |
     | SEX
     --

_____________________________________________________________

     __
     | MYSTERY (Lower level "know")
     |
     | EFFORT
     |
     | LOOK
     |
     | EMOTE
     |
BAD  | EFFORT
     |
     | THINK
     |
     | SYMBOLS
     |
     | EAT
     |
     | SEX
     --



                                       7

     Below sex is mystery, which is like a lower level knowingness.  In his
study of dreams, Freud started with mystery, then proceeded to sex.  If you
could reveal to a patient that a mystery was not unsolvable, he would improve,
but sometimes Freud would take too many mysteries from someone who had a
scarcity, And he'd go down to lower level looking.  With most people, Freud
would get them through sex up to eat.  Theorists got stuck trying to figure
whether eat or sex was the basis of everything.  None of them was up to effort
themselves; they were in awe of anyone who could indulge in sports.
Psychologists with their intelligence tests were at the level of symbols.  At
thinkingness, a man figure-figures to avoid effort.  Engineering is the study
of how to make effort use effort.  This is very covert and is not a confront
of effort.  Psychoanalysis never got above the area of stimulus-response, with
their theory of association.  They didn't believe in independent thinking.

     A person who reacts to Op Pro by Dup is way down the know-sex scale.  He
will, in the course of processing, go up and down the scale, only hitting
prominent points on his way up.  This is crossing barriers which the
individual has put up to protect himself in the business of livingness.  The
names of these barriers are Looking, emoting, etc.  The barrier of looking is
space.  Next comes a barrier of a barrage of emotional states, for instance of
serenity or enthusiasm.  Each lower emotion could be considered a protection
against the upper ones.  He uses boredom to protect himself from enthusiasm.
Antagonism is a barrage of particles used to fend something off; anger is a
ridge.  Fear is a defense: who wants to close terminals with someone who is in
fear?  E.g. animals in fear taste bad.  People in fear smell bad.  Grief goes
like this:  "I'm solid here; I can't move: take care of me." It's a barrier
you mustn't do certain things to a person in grief.  The upper edge of apathy
is the barrier, "I don't care"; the lower edge is, "Eat me." Being sick to
one's stomach is an apathy of eating:  vomiting.  This is evidence that below
the band of emoting you get increasingly deeper emotions connected with each
step down.  Hence the apathy of eating = vomiting; the apathy of effort would
be wanting to be less than inert.  This is what people experience who are
having a rough time with the mind.

     Efforting is observably a barrier: force used to protect.  Thinkingness
is figuring out where he will be when something else is elsewhere or where he
will put something when he himself is not there.  He's placing things in terms
of force.  So at this level, you can't carry a revolver; you have to figure
out where money is safe, how to keep people from tripping you up, predict
their intentions, etc.  If you had a weapon, you could protect yourself at the
efforting band and you wouldn't have to think.

     At symbols we get, "Don't look in here -- it might be dangerous.  I'm
really not here; I'm elsewhere.  Attack this symbol if you like, because it
isn't I." Eating is a way of getting attention [and admiration] from what one
eats and as such may be very satisfying.  Sex protects one from the present by
providing an escape into the future.  A symbol that can't be in the present
can appear on the future track.  You could process someone with, "Get the idea
of putting something there; now [get the idea of] moving out; now [get the
idea of] coming back and finding what you have put there." That is the action
of sex; it is very satisfying to the PC.  Sex also says, "Don't eat me." It's
something else to do.

     The individual felt unsafe without these barriers.  When he put something
out as a barrier to protect him, he made it senior to him.  Hence it's a
dwindling spiral.



                                       7a

                                    FIGURE 2

                          KNOW-TO-MYSTERY SCALE CYCLES

                                      KNOW
                                       |
     NO                                |
     EMPHASIS                          |
                                       V
                                      SEX

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      KNOW
                                       |
     EMPHASIZES                        |
     LOOKING                           |
                                       V
                                      SEX

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      KNOW
                                       |
     EMPHASIZES                        |
     EMOTING                           |
                                       V
                                      SEX

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      KNOW
                                       |
     EMPHASIZES                        |
     EFFORTING                         |
                                       V
                                      SEX

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      KNOW
                                       |
     EMPHASIZES                        |
     THINKING                          |
                                       V
                                      SEX

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      KNOW
                                       |
     EMPHASIZES                        |
     SYMBOLIZING                       |
                                       V
                                      SEX

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      KNOW
                                       |
     EMPHASIZES                        |
     EATING                            |
                                       V
                                      SEX

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      KNOW
                                       |
     EMPHASIZES                        | 
     SEXING                            |
                                       V
                                      SEX

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Everything
     UNDIFFERENTIATED                 Identified
                                      with
                                      Everything

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     NUTS



                                       8

     So far, we have discussed each of these levels as a defense against
motivators.  But we can also use each of these barriers as an overt level.
Here, we get dispersal manifestations down the line.  Tears, as a defense, are
a flow.  But there is an unnamed dispersal at grief that is offensive.
Similarly, there is an unnamed dispersal at apathy.

     Actually, what you have is a series of know to sex scales (Fig. 2).  You
can see this in running Op Pro by Dup.  Someone might start at effort, then go
to emotion, to knowing it's silly, to a sex impulse, then a figure-figure,
then a new know, then eat, emote, a new look, etc.  He is hitting high points
going upscale through ridges.  He will linger in the upper ones longer, with
more manifestations as he differentiates better and better.  At the bottom,
everything identifies with everything: effort = sex = the way you look, etc.

     One could draw the scale to indicate a dropping dominance.

     At the highest level, each band has about the same emphasis.  At the
first harmonic down, the emphasis will be on knowingness; at the next harmonic
down, what you do with all the levels is look (a high-tones thetan loves to do
this); at the next harmonic down, the whole scale is colored by emotion; at
the next lower, it is colored by effort (as in German society, as opposed to

     Italian society, which is colored by emotion); next we get the
figure-figure that is characteristic of Latin American societies, southern
California, or universities; next we get the whole scale colored by symbols
(here you get erudition, e.g. the idea that mathematicians have done it all for
you; there's no need to think); similarly with eating, then sex.  Below that
level, it gets undifferentiated into an identification of everything with
everything.

     It all gets very compressed -- effort is sex.  If he is below this level,
he is nuts.  This scale provides a method of predicting how long it will take
the PC to recover and how long it will take him to differentiate.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=20/10/54
Volnum=0
Issue=14
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

8ACC-14 The Parts of Man




5410C20 8ACC-14 The Parts of Man

     This is a discussion of the parts of Man as understood through

     R2-61 and R2-62.  The parts of Man are related to overts and motivators.
[This is be cause a thetan as such cannot be harmed and therefore cannot
receive a motivator.  So he would have to have a confusion of identity to
receive a motivator.]

     Man consists of four distinct, separate, though related, parts:

               1. Thetan

               2. Body

               3. Thetan machinery

               4. Reactive/somatic mind.

     Dianetics covers the first four dynamics.  Even the first dynamic can be
split into these four parts.  When you thought you were treating the first
dynamic, you were actually treating the third.  The absolute Book 1 clear
would be the awareness of awareness unit.

     Around the end of 1951, LRH mentions that erasure of all facsimiles would
result in demolishment of the body (See Advanced Procedures and Axioms).  In
Book 1, we were talking about engrams of this lifetime.  Erasing these would
give a relative clear.  The only trouble was that the awareness of awareness
unit, after a few years of this research, kept insisting on exteriorizing, and
it turned out to be the person himself.  If he felt bad when he was out --
sort of with no character -- he is not stabilized.



                                       9

     So the first dynamic is the awareness of awareness unit, as modified by
various things.  Pieces of thetan machinery are his creations, hidden and
forgotten by him.  All the energy used by the machines really comes from the
thetan, though, for randomity, he may consider that he needs to eat to keep on
going.  He can also understand something from someone else, add it to his own
machinery, and blame someone for giving him a machine.

     The thetan invests the body with characteristics, then he is afraid of
losing these characteristics.  But this is really no problem.  He can invest
himself with these characteristics.

     The thetan can also duplicate himself.  He can create a new, different
life unit with full determinism, power, personality, etc.  It could have more
power than he if it is set up that way.  Sex is the super-condensed,
many-times-via'd activity of creating other life forms.  It is only more
complex because it is considered to be.  The Thetan actually needs no system
to create a living being.

     Thetan machinery is not intended to have a life of its own, but sometimes
the thetan endows machinery with life.  In DMSMH, LRH talks of the possibility
of setting the mind alongside the body.  This was misinterpreted worst in
E-therapy.  One can do this and get himself haunted by living beings.  He can
create them, then go off and leave them.  This is basic life multiplication --
a 1D creating a 3D through a 2D.  So mankind could have one common ancestor.
It would not make that one superior, however, since the offspring could just
as well be the superior ones.  Furthermore, an individual could just
repostulate himself back into his creative unit and thus disappear, especially
since, in reality, there is no time.  All one could lose would be the
knowingness that he had done it.  One would have to shut that off for
oneself.  Now do you think you understand valence a little better?

     Having multiplied himself often, an individual had laid aside this
ability, begun to hang on to the "only one" computation, and is holding his
ability to be himself closely to himself.  He tries hard to maintain an
identity as a 1D.  He becomes too involved in his own agreements and thinks he
needs sex to create a being, but even that creates only a body, which is the
granted beingness of many individualities, based upon one individuality that
started that genetic line.  The thetan got so complex, with all his machinery,
and so interlocked with so many other individualities; he granted so much
beingness in all directions that he forgot who and what he was and just knew
he was supposed to be this identity and repeat the manufactured creation of
this identity.  This would make him solid, and his machinery would have
composited.  At this point, he would be a body, and his machinery would become
the reactive/somatic mind.  The thetan gets so solid as a body that he can be
taken over and controlled by another thetan and his machines.  The reactive
mind that goes along with a body cannot be controlled unless another thetan
comes along and takes over the body.  However, the body can control the
reactive mind.  There is no difference between the reactive and the somatic
mind.

     A thetan can create another thetan.  From this, we can get a species,
which implies other species, hence a 5th dynamic.  Thetans are generally not
as anxious to control animal bodies as human bodies, since men's affairs are
complex enough to be interesting to control.  So animals are generally body +
reactive mind: a condensed thetan + machinery.

     By addressing the alter-ised complexity, as in psychotherapy, we would
never get an as-is-ness, but just more mass.  The auditor thus must address
the right part: the thetan.  Otherwise he might



                                       10

as well try to process a rock as a body: the rock is more complex, being
denser (therefore it has more vias on the comm lines).  The distance from
cause to effect in a rock has so many vias and complexities in it that it
loses both cause and effect for the rock.  The impulse towards religion in
most people is to discover basic cause; however, it leads them to go through
vias, which gets them lost.  The way to find cause is to find the highest
level of freedom, assume it, and then know, because you will be cause and will
therefore be capable of being an effect.

     As processing improves, we find that the better we understand something,
the better we can control it, and the less need to process it so that it can
be controlled.  So, in modern scientology and dianetics, it is only necessary
to knock out the factors you don't want to process because you understand them
well enough to control them.  The first of these is the reactive mind.  There
is no sense in processing it since we know how to control it.  Also, there's
no use in processing the body -- medicine will take care of that.  Machinery
is interesting, but it's not necessary.  So we're left with only the thetan to
process, and we process the thetan just enough so that he can take control of
his other parts, having recognized them.  "Right thought", as in Christian
Science, would work fine if you had a clear to begin with.  The Christian
Scientists have limits on what "right thought" is.  But actually, right
thought is optimum survival on all dynamics.

     So, in processing, we can start with "Be three feet back of your head."
For those who don't respond to that, the overt-motivator sequence is a good
place to start; it's the mechanical process by which a thetan becomes solid
enough to be a body, surrounded by his machinery, which has become the bank.
Behind the overt-motivator sequence lies the consideration that matches the
overt and motivator.  You must be downstairs from pan-determinism to
self-determinism for this to happen.

     A justifier is the mockup or overt act demanded by a person guilty of an
unmotivated act.  It is something nonexistent, as an effort to justify the
unmotivated act.  It's a false motivator.  There's nothing really wrong with
the motivator-overt sequence; it balances out; no one gets insane or even
hurt by it.  But the unmotivated act - justifier sequence is the villain! thus
the thetan is doomed, because he can never really receive a motivator.  That's
the whole reason for the dwindling spiral.  A thetan can never be harmed, but
he can consider he's been harmed, act harmed, and dwindle.  Everything the PC
tells you is a search for a justifier.  His search through his bank quickly
as-is-es his few true motivators.  So he has too many overts and must get
himself sick, downtrodden and betrayed [motivator hunger].  He gives
justifiers and pretends they're motivators.

     The way you could get him into this dwindling spiral is to define harm
for him.  This gets into good and evil: R2-61 and R2-62.  It only requires the
consideration that harm can take place to set off the unmotivated
act/justifier sequence.  You just get this consideration from yourself.  A
person must have intended harmful destruction and succeeded to define the
concept, "harmful" for himself.  Only when someone destroys something he's
created does he define harm for the other fellow.  He had to do it first
himself, because he had to communicate first to be communicated to, since
otherwise he couldn't have been located.

     Any solidity or departure from the static is a lie.  The way we depart
from the absolute truth of static is via the lies of justifiers.  This is the
source of all inabilities and deficiencies.

     The thetan also has an anxiety about creating an effect.  Another thetan
can never get a motivator; a thetan knows he can



                                       11

never receive an effect except as he considers it and agrees, so he knows he
can never create an effect on another thetan.  So he must consider life units
as solids.  He gets upset when he considers them thetans.  Hence people turn
away from scientology because they are afraid of exterior beings.  The thetan
wants to create an effect but can't without being guilty of an unmotivated
act.  All he had to do to get messed up was to discover he could harm others;
he then tried to justify his unmotivated acts and got solid, and his whole
past track would be nearly all hallucination.  The insane pack along an
enormous number of mocked up facsimiles = justifiers = pictures of things that
never occurred.

     A good violent fast way to handle this state of affairs is to have the PC
mock up things that anything on the seventh dynamic could do to him.  This
remedies his havingness [motivator hunger].  You can actually use all
dynamics.  Another process: the PC spots all the spots where he or anyone
considered that harm could be or had been done.  [R2-61 and R2-62, in Creation
of Human Ability, pp. 153-154].


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=3/6/55
Volnum=0
Issue=3
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

ASMC-3 History of Research and Investigation




5506C03 ASMC-3 History of Research and Investigation

     One good thing about a hellfire and brimstone type of religion is that it
at least acknowledges the existence of the spirit.  The Scopes trial was a
turning point, in which the theory that man is merely a machine became
fashionable.

     In past years, there was great spiritual awareness and perception Even as
recently as the sixteenth century, duellists used to have an embarrassing
thing happen: when they killed the opponent, he'd exteriorize and zap them and
pester them afterwards.  As mechanical knowledge increased, spiritual
awareness decreased; people thought this was progress, despite the increase in
amount of madness.  If there's no spiritual liability to destroying other
people and their possessions, one would expect crime to become more prevalent,
and so it does.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=6/6/55
Volnum=0
Issue=15
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

ASMC-15 What Scientology is Doing




5506C06 ASMC-15 What Scientology is Doing

     We need a better social order.  When an organization says it's above
reproach or an individual claims he's untouchable, chaos ensues.  The control
and direction of man depends upon the good will and good state of man, not
upon iron bars, cells, shock machines.  A society is as sick as it has sick
members.  The way to make a society well, however, isn't just to cure the sick
only.  If the members of the society were sufficiently well, they'd have no
problem pulling the fallen out of the mud.  This depends on the condition of
man, not on a few specialists.  When it becomes a specialty, man is dead,
because the best of man comes into being when he can aid his needy fellows.
When men are made to feel they have no right to assist their fellows, the
society is sick.

     In creating an organization, LRH doesn't want to merely replace one
despotic system with another one, using the existing comm lines: This is what
happens in a revolution.  No nation is ever overthrown; they are just
substituted for.  If scientology did this, they could probably create an
organization powerful enough to overrun all in its path.  But then this would
just have to be overthrown.

     Scientology possesses great potential for good or evil, depending on how
it is relayed.  Poorly relayed, used just for gain, it could be very
destructive.  LRH has already had three offers



                                       12

by persons in places of power to hand over a great deal of information and
stop talking.

     Helping the insane is usually an effort to reverse whatever
self-determinism they have left.  A person who is psychotic has at one time
decided to die; he has not subsequently decided to live.  They abandon the
body, unable to let go and unwilling to reassume responsibility.  The longer
you stop a being that wants to die from dying, the worse off he gets.  The
truly insane should not have therapy, but space, sunlight, minimal restraints,
quiet, food.  This gives the individual a chance to change his mind and decide
to live again.  Exhaustion and insanity are almost synonymous.  A person who
is sane, who wants to live, who is willing to take responsibility for doing
something about his condition, can be in much worse shape than an insane
person, but he will be auditable and will get better because he wants to
live.  Insanity is a death wish of great magnitude; sanity returns when a
person decides to live.

     Psychosomatic illness is overrated, being universally present as unwanted
sensation or absence of sensation; it's not illness.  It comes about when
someone is called upon to prove something and fails.  Some processes for
this:

           1. What have you got that would prove it? (not about anything
              specific)

        or 1.a What will (disability) get you into?

             b What will (disability) get you out of?

then, when flat:

           2. What can you prove with it?  [the disability].

     Here we run into the computation that any sensation is better than no
sensation and that he should have something to get sympathy and avoid guilt.
But the thetan is to be able to invent a whole new category of ills before
he'll give up one he's got.  [Hence, "Invent something worse than
(illness)."]

     Death was invented on the whole track as a substitute for insanity, which
was being so irresponsible that punishment was pointless.  You could get
anyone to change his mind about wanting to die if you could get into comm with
him.

     "I want you to come into possession of all that you know, and I want you
to use that knowledge with security.  And any mission I have here on this
planet at this time will be successful at that time when what I have just said
has been accomplished."


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=3/10/55
Volnum=0
Issue=1
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

4LACC-1 The Fundamentals of Scientology.  The Rudiments of Auditing
(Part One)




5510C03 4LACC-1 The Fundamentals of Scientology.  The Rudiments of Auditing
                (Part One)

     While Book One has a place close to the top in scientology, the most
fundamental fundamental was invented later.  It appears on page 23 of the
Ability issue called The HCA Manual:

     The rudiments:

           1. Awareness of the auditor, that an auditing room is present, and
              that a session is in progress.

           2. Two way comm on a casual basis.

           3. Delivery of the question

           4. The comm lag

           5. The acknowledgement

           6. Duplication of the exact question by the auditor.

In order to make any auditing work, these fundamentals must be observed.  If
the session is not precisely conducted, the processes can fail to work.  This
even explains why one might not



                                       13

have a practice: if the public couldn't find the auditor, there would be no
practice.  This also explains one difficulty in auditing one's parents: you
need awareness of an auditor, not a child.  To start the session, the PC must
first find out he's a PC, and he must find the auditor.  In the auditing
situation, students must learn to assume the beingness of auditors and pcs,
not students.  If you exist as a auditor, there will be PC's; this depends
upon an ability to be.  The relationship between auditor and PC is not so much
one of altitude as one of ARC; you must keep the R in.  When you are auditing
an auditor, for instance, it doesn't inspire confidence to have to stop and
look up the process.

     (There's a process that makes a PC into a PC:

     "What are you doing?"

     run until he cognites he's being audited.)

     A PC goes out of comm with an auditor before he observes that there's
something wrong with the session, like a code break.  An auditor's code break
only occurs when the PC thinks the auditor has bad intentions, and where the
auditor does not repair the out comm with a little two way comm.  The auditor
may, if the out ARC is severe, have to use another process on a lower gradient
until ARC is restored.

     A gradient scale in auditing need not take a long time for each type of
processing.  For instance, to get the PC to remedy havingness need not take 5
hours; if you stay in two way comm and see what is really happening when the
PC throws away mockups so as to really get rid of them, this could take only 6
to 8 minutes, if you've actually got an auditor and a PC.

     You must continually be aware of these rudiments, since the PC can stop
being a PC at any time.  Then two way comm gives out.  Whenever two way comm
gives out, the session stops, as far as the PC is concerned.  What starts this
is too little two way comm and too little acknowledgement in the first place.
The PC will get stuck on the time track at the point where he has not been
acknowledged, and the session at that point is in fact over; it's all now in
the past for the PC.  When he gets restuck later on in session, he'll blow, or
threaten to.  Sometimes this can be handled merely by the auditor's starting
all over with the session, thus subtly calling the PC's attention to the fact
that he's in a session.  A PC may blow 28 minutes after failure to ack.

     The auditor must learn to differentiate between a PC's dropped
willingness and an increased comm lag.  Where willingness is not there, no
auditing can occur.  The only thing there in the first place is a willingness
to play the game.  Nations topple if they forget this fact.  Willingness to
work, if taxed too heavily, can become a willingness to succumb.  A whip
extracts the last atoms of willingness, but this can easily be turned around.

     "The only thing that any nation can tax, that any group can exist on, is
the willingness to play the game: to do, to survive, to continue."

If you decrease a PC's willingness to play the game of auditing, you can
hardly expect to increase his willingness to play the game of life.  He must
always audit better than he can live, or he'll never live better than he can
be audited.  In session he should observably be getting brighter and more
alert.  Pc's always sag a bit when session is over, so don't be disappointed
when life seems harder than the session.



                                       14

     Helpful hints: You must duplicate the question time and time again,
without killing the PC's willingness to answer it.  This can be done by adding
some dunnage, but don't vary the question.  The dunnage consists of casual
two-way communication before and after the question.

     "Two-way comm is light, ... airy.... It has life in it and can be
terribly casual and fantastically therapeutic."

     "To remedy havingness is to remedy the need to have."

     Regret is running the time track backwards.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=3/10/55
Volnum=0
Issue=2
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

4LACC-2 The Fundamentals of Scientology -- The Rudiments of Auditing
(Part 2)




5510C03 4LACC-2 The Fundamentals of Scientology -- The Rudiments of Auditing
                (Part 2)

     Here are the reasons why the human mind has not been solved:

           1. I don't know.

           2. No idea.

     To know about something, is is necessary to not-know it first.  This was
an incomprehensibility to philosophers of all ages.  To understand the source
of ideas, you had to understand "no idea".  One has to be able to not-know
something in order to know something about it.  Dialectical Materialism is a
dramatization of "no idea".  "No idea" is a workable concept, but as long as
the Dialectical Materialists are only dramatizing it and don't know it, it is
unworkable.  Dialectical Materialism says that all new ideas are the result of
two old forces.  Hence no idea can bs really new.  So there is no possibility
of getting a new idea.  If someone dramatizes something, as with the
Dialectical Materialists, it must have existed earlier as a postulate that
went solid.  Things begin with a consideration and end with a solidity, e.g. a
dramatization or a solid reality.  So an idea is senior to all matter and
conditions.  Above that is the thetan in his native state.  If a thetan wishes
to return to his native state, he often bungles it by assuming that hs is in
native state, when he is actually in very bad shape.  This leads to the idiocy
that everything that is true of a thetan's native state is what continues to
be dramatized, clear down to the bottom of the barrel, and that every
aberration is a reflection of native state and the first and second postulate
theory [Axioms 36 and 37].

     Native state is having no idea.  The thetan knows all about all.  He has
no ideas, because he has all the ideas there are.  Now he says that he will
have an idea.  Here, we get Axiom 36: the first postulate gives the second
postulate power.  So the thetan in native state knows all.  He then makes a
first postulate: that he has no idea.  From here, as per Axiom 36, he can make
the second postulate: that he can have an idea.  This is an harmonic on native
state, but it is alter-ised, so it persists and we get time.  The force of
having an idea is the statement that he didn't have an idea before.  An idea
is a barrier, a stop on the track.  Even a manic idea or a win can be a stop.
So we get:

           0. Native State: The thetan knows all but has no specific idea.

           1. First Postulate: No idea.  I don't know.

           2. Second postulate: A specific idea.  This is an harmonic on
              Native State: "I know something."

           3. Third Postulate: Forget.

           4. Fourth Postulate: Remember.



                                       15

     For the first time in the history of mankind it has become safe for man
to know something.  It was not safe before because you'd stick to it, because
every mystery could then pull you into it.  The more you knew about it, the
more you were enveloped by it.  This gives the manifestations of a thetan's
blackness, dropped havingness, illness, etc.  Things known on a second
postulate basis are solid and persist.  Studying anything will produce this
phenomenon.  Scientology has been a safe subject because it has progressed
toward simplicity and has never pretended to contain all knowledge.  There's a
limited amount of knowingness and unknowingness available.  What gets scarce is
unknowingness.  We let "unknow" go on an automatic basis; we don't take
responsibility for it [so it gets pulled in on an unknowing basis.] You'd
never get into trouble in processing if you kept on supplying lots of no-idea
instead of using old no-ideas.  When you keep on using old no-ideas to get new
ideas, [eventually] the new ideas jam into the existing no-ideas which have
become so precious that we interiorize into them.  Here, we've ignored the
first postulate which provided the power for the second postulate.  One gets
stuck in dramatizing no-idea and loses the volitional ability to postulate an
idea into existence.  People who get stuck in "know about" are in the second
postulate.  If they exteriorize, it's into the blackness of the third
postulate, which is the harmonic of the first, not-is-ing the knowingness;
thus: "I've forgotten it.  " The fourth postulate is "remember": an
alter-isness of a not-isness.  This is getting to be very persistent stuff.
From this sequence, we get most solidities and spaces, except for directly
postulated solids and spaces.  [Perhaps the fifth postulate would be
"occlude".]

     All you need to get space is lookingness, which is a dramatization of
knowing.  In lookingness, space is on an automaticity.  That's why space
continues to exist.  This automatic space, because it's automatic, tends to
fold up on people, producing condensed spaces and figure-figure at lower
levels.

     The above was discovered by the fact of the relative effectiveness of
running "something you wouldn't mind forgetting" compared with the bogginess
of "Something you wouldn't mind remembering." Not-knowingness evidently is the
only solution to prevent interiorization into bodies of knowledge or solid
objects.  Per Axiom 36, if you take out the first postulate, you can knock out
the second one.  For instance, "You realize that over there there's a bus
running." It doesn't affect you, does it?  Until you knew there was a bus over
there, and then you probably got a picture of it or something.  Get the
trick?  Probably a counter-trick would be saying, "I don't know what's
standing right here," inventing something to stand here, then remembering you
said you didn't know what was there.  So there's automatic "I don't know"
before the knowingness.  Running an "I don't know" process for two hours gives
more gain than 50 hours of "I know".

     The unworkability of "remember" processes shows that psychoanalysis never
gave stable gains.  It gives solid ridges if you keep remembering.  You can
as-is it by having him recall all the times he remembered, or better still,
use forgetting to dissolve the ridge.

     Take any troublesome engram, ask the PC what he doesn't know about it,
and it will blow in minutes.  It upsets the PC to have him make a perfect
duplicate.  But this way only causes fogginess if you don't acknowledge well
and stay in two way comm.  This also solves the case with the stuck picture.
It's also safe to use

     "What don't you know about it?"

on chronic somatics.

     Not-knowingness is not the goal of humanity or scientology; it's just the
barrier that has to be crossed.



                                       16


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=8/10/55
Volnum=0
Issue=1
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

LPLS-1 The Goals of Dianetics and Scientology




5510C08 LPLS-1 The Goals of Dianetics and Scientology

     Hubbard concluded that the problem of the mind was soluble in 1938. At
this time, the USSR offered him $100,000 and a lab outside of Moscow, for his
manuscripts.  [Later, the Russians stole the manuscript for DMSMH.]

     Structure can only modify the mind, but the mind monitors structure.

     Sometimes one decides to die, then changes his mind without unmaking the
first decision.  This can produce chronic somatics if the person's decision to
die gets restimulated.  He won't be conscious of the first decision at this
point; he thinks he wants to live, but has to do some irrational thing, like
bo a professional invalid.  [Succumb postulate?] The basic datum is the Q and
A of survive/destroy, neither fully decided.  When one gets audited and
decides to survive, his IQ can go up and he can become happy and able.

     It's mathematically impossible that accidents could account for
evolution.  Darwinian theory suggests that there is reincarnation, although it
doesn't state this.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=28/2/57
Volnum=0
Issue=4
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

17ACC-4 The Parts of Man




5702C28 17ACC-4 The Parts of Man

     One can get so wound up in the significance of the study of man that one
gets an idea that the subject has a breadth exceeding human understanding --
which it did for 50,000 years, because people couldn't tolerate that much
simplicity.

     The thetan can't be perceived or measured because it's the source of
perception and measuring.  But an individual can exteriorize and experience
being a thetan.  Not being able to perceive other thetans, it's easy to feel
like the only one.  Now, for the first time, by various manifestations and by
reason of what we know, we can observe this in others.  There are many ways of
experiencing the idea of someone else exteriorizing: in the first place, voice
tones change.  Another thing he's liable to do is to pull his head back into
his neck.  He's liable to do various things, all of which manifest
exteriorization.  He's liable to say a lot of things, none of which manifest
exteriorization but a sort of mystic, buttered-all-over-the-universe.  The
thetan who is over there, ain't.

     Exteriorization is not a stable fact.  It is the phenomenon of being in a
position or space dependent only on one's consideration, able to view from
that space the body and the room as it is.  One can view or control the body
from a distance.  If one has trouble controlling the body from close up, he
won't get out of his head, because he for sure can't control it at a
distance.  "Therefore, it's only necessary for you to assume the abilities of
controlling something from a distance to be able to exteriorize willingly,
since all willingness to exteriorize is merely suppressed by this factor of
control.  "One of the early methods of exteriorizing someone was getting him
to change his considerations by running him on, "I can control this body.  I
cannot control this body." People who have never been out of their heads will
go out on that one.

     "The task in scientology today, however, is not getting people out of
their heads.  You could exteriorize yourself simply by grabbing your head with
your two hands and keeping your head from going away." Or you could grab your
head and your knees and keep each alternatively from going away, shifting
attention so you won't get too fixated.  How good your perception would be is
another question -- it's a matter of your willingness too.  If you can't



                                       17

see your body, there is a scarcity of bodies.  If you can't see the universe,
there is a scarcity of universes.  "Any phenomenon which occurs beyond the
point of willingness to be out of the head or control the body from a distance
is regulated by the scarcity and abundance of bodies and universes." The
earliest trick still works: "Try not to be three feet back of your head."
About 50% will go out on, "Be three feet back of your head," because they have
been other-determined a lot.

     Vision depends on scarcity and abundance.  Experience depends on
willingness to experience, which is monitored by the amount of things
available to experience.  A culture is a composite of things of which there is
neither too much nor too little.  E.g. we have a lot (but not too many)
automobiles because they can be real.  Mow this country is approaching an
India-like idea of human beings: the idea that there are too many of them.  In
a frontier society there are too few.  As you get too many people, they tend
to become invisible.  On a frontier, until there are almost enough people,
they dramatize getting rid of people.  In between, you can have a progressive
society, and the U.S. was such a society with 25 to 100 million people.  Now
there are too many people to observe them all.  Even important people get
overlooked.

     A person could just go out of his head without outside help if he has
space and universe to get out into.  He must not have a scarcity of spaces as
a result of being out of comm with them.  His idea of scarcity of spaces
depends on his willingness to view them.  The auditor must get him to
recognize the is-ness of the room around him.  His idea that rooms are scarce
or too numerous gives him the idea that he can't see this room.  Likewise, if
he has too few bodies, he will be unwilling to get out of the one he's in.  It
is the same with an overabundance of bodies.  So remedying his havingness on
the body he is in is necessary for stable exteriorization.

     A scarcity of experience brings about a retention of the mental image
pictures.  So the mind gets overcrowded or goes black.  The pictures can even
penetrate the blackness, producing the wide-open case where the mind is in
control of the thetan.  This is a condition of overwhelm, not health.  When
the thetan obeys the records of the mind, we have behavior patterns, etc.  The
mind is the record, but the thetan is the needle.  A scarcity of experience
causes a manufacture of pictures.  People that play their minds closer in
haven't been living an exciting enough life.

     The workings of this mechanism depend on association and differentiation,
or identification and differentiation.  When the reactive mind can exert its
influence on a person better than the thetan himself, he has become too
associative to conceive differences He can disassociate on an inverted level,
where he differentiates incorrectly.  He gets misidentification and
disassociation when insane.  When the mind is working optimally, it never
identifies, but only conceives a similarity.  Lack of objects, incidents, and
experience causes the mind to identify, rather than associating.  It is not
stress or overwork that causes this.  That is why problems of comparable
magnitude or "Mock up something to confront," will work, relieve somatics,
etc.

     Things that happen to you are automatic, in that you all too of ten have
no say in their occurrence.  When you run problems of comparable magnitude,
you not only measure up incident and add incident to the bank, but you also
take over the automaticity of shocking incidents that occurred to you.  When
you have gone all the way up the line, the idea of "too few" becomes the idea
of, "I didn't do it." Then this runs out, and it all becomes a pan-determinism
of incidents, where you become convinced you can create incidents and lose
scarcity of incidents.  In a TV screen world, you're apt



                                       18

to be in trouble.  The TV pictures are patterns of light and shadows, a
restimulative mechanism to shove your bank around and give you again some
segment of that which you've already experienced.

     It can only give you experience you've already (if distantly) had.
People will refuse to read about certain periods in history because of
experience in those periods.  A thetan will refuse to look at certain parts of
his past and the bank, but they can be gotten at if necessary.  Only people
who have had heavy problems in a past life refuse to look at it, but if they
had no scarcity of horrible incidents, they could confront them better.

     The restimulated incident is held in place for two reasons.  It was
automatic, i.e. the PC left large sections of it done by somebody else, plus
there wasn't enough of it.  Those incidents that are most scarce tend to stick
hardest.  Anything that stands by itself doesn't get a terminal against which
to discharge and fly apart.

     Any old incident could react physiologically against the PC if the
auditor wanted to restimulate it fully, not letting the PC ever be a cause on
it, evaluating it, invalidating, etc.  You should know how to do this, as long
as doing something bad to pcs doesn't become a habit with you.  [Cf.  Gestalt,
encounter, and primal scream therapies that cause an effect.]

     So the mind is a mechanism for overcoming the lack of incident and
experience in present time by storing pictures of the past.  If you restore
the PC's ability to make the pictures solid, you've really done something.  He
has some optimum randomity that would be the right amount of pictures.  So you
have to change his idea of how much motion he needs before you can change the
PC.  This is done with scarcity and abundance, i.e. havingness.

     The body is a solid appendage that makes a person recognizable.  The mind
modifies the body, which is a mockup.  To change a body, you have to change
mental structure and also the thetan's willingness to have it in its present
condition.  The body surrenders first to its own electronic structure, i.e.
the anchor points.  It is solid only within these spaces and will aberrate its
shape in their absence.  So the easiest way to modify the body is to put the
thetan into a willingness to handle anchor points, then remedy scarcity and
abundance of anchor points, and put the actual anchor points in optimal
position.  Mental image pictures also influence the body by influencing the
anchor points.  A facsimile imposes itself by magnetic fields and currents
upon the anchor point system, causing the body to change shape and size.  The
anchor points are golden balls.  If a person is in good shape, he'll have his
wing anchor points out about 75 feet.  You can hold one -- pull it out of
line, and the person will walk in a circle.  To fix a broken arm, you have to
remedy the havingness of the messed up anchor points.  You could band an arm
in the wrong place by moving its anchor points.

     To influence the mind by influencing the body is only possible by
influencing the havingness of a thetan.  You can only influence a thetan in
this way tc the degree that it influences abundances and scarcities of
bodies.  If you keep on taking things away from people, they'll eventually die
of loss of havingness.  The being lives in a universe which is another
monitoring influence on the mind and body -- not necessarily on the being.
When an incident happens to a person's body, he makes a picture of it and uses
it when a similar situation occurs.  He also uses it when he has a scarcity of
incidents.  The thetan's ability doesn't change;



                                       19

only his willingness to live increases or decreases in direct ratio to the
scarcity or abundance of things in which they are interested.  These
scarcities and abundances influence them and their culture.  The cure for it
is to put the individual in communication with the isness of a situation or
object and let him reacquaint himself with that.  He is then able to conceive
himself able to experience new experiences, viewing something directly, etc.,
and so his life can be righted.

     We can adjust a person's havingness, his ability to conceive of an isness
and communicate with it, by adjusting the number or scarcity of things.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=15/7/57
Volnum=0
Issue=1
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

18ACC-1 What is Scientology




5707C15 18ACC-1 What is Scientology

     Scientology is aimed at a total know.  Since no other "know" is total, it
is hard to describe scientology, since there is no other datum of comparable
magnitude.  Only one other organization of knowledge on earth has had a
similar goal: Buddhism.  It squirreled when it went into Tibet as Lamaism.
But there was no faith in Buddhism.  It was analytical.  The best refuge to
take, when asked what scientology is, would be a refuge into
incomprehensibility, by saying that it is epistemology.  Buddhism and
scientology both try to select out the importances of life and fill Man's void
of knowledge with accurate observation.  Buddha could be called the first
scientist.  "Authority has nothing to do with knowledge.  Those things I tell
you are true, are not true because I tell you they are true.  And if anything
I tell you, or have ever told you, is discovered to differ from the individual
observation, be it a good observation, then it isn't true."

     We have certain positive procedures.  As valuable as they are, if they
incline us to lock at them, not at what they help us to look at; if they lead
us to believe that they are a thing, not a means to doing another thing, we
will be in the same blind condition as present-day religions and social
sciences, and we will have to rediscover our blindness on the way up.
Wherever we develop an area of special knowledge, such as TR's and processes,
we must understand that they are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
Someone who forgot what TR's were could, in theory, do them all beautifully
but be unable to use them in session, because he had forgotten what they were
for: to create the proper communication atmosphere for the session.

     There is an enormous wonderland below blindness.  This keeps people from
seeing their blindness.  Using Alice in Wonderland in TR's is a joke based on
this imagined knowledge.  The wonderland is the dispersal that results from
the individual's reaction to being kicked in the teeth when he looks at
something.  He won't look again.  Eventually he decides not to look at
anything.  But if he catches sight of something, he will go on a via and look
at something else instead.  This is how the wonderland of the social sciences
was created.  Someone couldn't confront Man, so he turned around and created a
myth about Man.  He must have been blind never to have noticed exteriorization
or to have recorded the existence of the phenomenon somewhere.  A thetan has
the ability to create form, to create universes.  When the ability dims out,
when he is not doing it very intelligently, he begins to see things in the
universe that he doesn't want to look at.  Then he disperses and combines his
ability to create and to not-is.  The universe he then builds is below the
level of the universe he is in.  You have to bring him up North for him to
discover that he is in a trap.



                                       20


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=17/7/57
Volnum=0
Issue=3
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

18ACC-3  Theory and Definitions of Auditing




5707C17 18ACC-3  Theory and Definitions of Auditing

     The PC is less than or equal to the bank and the auditor is less than or
equal to the bank, but the PC + auditor is greater than the bank.  A person
cannot audit himself because the basic ingredient of all auditing is
communication, and a person cannot really talk to himself, especially in P.T.,
because talking to oneself puts half the cycle out of PT.  Someone could mock
up a circuit that talks back or assume a valence that feeds the past back to
him, where he thinks something is feeding him an effect from the past or
talking to him.  When a person self-audits, he uses these circuits to feed
stuff back to him; it gets him nowhere.  The best he could do would be to
handle a mental image picture which was seeking to handle him, or to handle
the environment.

     The only things in the bank that give the PC trouble are the moments he
didn't handle, the worst moments.  When he gets pictures of these moments, he
tends to go out of control and backs off or boils off.  An auditor would
acknowledge; get him to confront it.  Only communication got him into his
mess; only communication can get him out.  Therefore, there has to be another
terminal for him to communicate to.

     In 1952, we got scientology, a different approach to the problem of the
bank.  Instead of erasing the bank, we put the person himself in good enough
condition, so that he can handle anything.  That's a real clear, not someone
with a blank bank.  The things that are right with a person are the things
that are wrong with the person.  What is wrong with a being is what the being
can do, and what the being is.  Any scale in scientology could be drawn as a
"V"-actually as a flare [exponential, perhaps?]:

                                   FIGURE 3

                        THE FLARE IN SCIENTOLOGY SCALES

                                                       40.0

                    [GRAPHICS INSERTED -- LOGARITHMIC FLARE]

                                                        0.0

Distance tolerance is the key to the affinity scales.  Distance narrows as a
person gets into worse condition.  He has to ba closer and closer to things to
know they are real.  High on the scale, tremendous distances can be tolerated;
here there is also lots of trust.  At the bottom, no distance is tolerable.  A
person's ability to handle things depends on his ability to handle distance;
he interiorizes into those things that he can't trust, until he is the thing
he distrusts.  A person can control at a distance with comm; as control
diminishes, he loses reach, can't project intention, can't trust, etc.  Tone
goes down with competence going down.  Auditing is an expansion of distance.
A PC starts with inverted distance (trying to escape), or with close distance
(solid comm line, as in CCH-1).  However, running away from things tends to
make them stay with them.  A body of soldiers running away from the enemy goes
to pieces.  They don't reform, regroup; can't sustain discipline.  When you
run away, part of you stays there.  Also, when running away, or being unable
to tolerate proximity, a being has no concept of distance: there's "no place
to hide.  "Anyhow, the part that stay there is the M.I.P.  If



                                       21

one can't occupy some part of the universe, the only recourse is dispersal,
which closes actual distance.  [The thetan never gives up.] Running, "What
part of that incident could you confront?" loosens it up; unsticks the person
from it.  People never have trouble with situations they have confronted, only
with those from which they ran away.  This is an example of "That which you
resist, you become." The sub-zero tone scale shows the distance going inverted
as one tries to run.

     One thing establishes distance: communication.  But it has to be real
communication, not inval and eval.  It has to be to the person.  Space is a
viewpoint of dimension, i.e. lookingness, i.e.  communication.  Communication
can have a closure factor if it is just looking; but two thetans in real two
way communication can hold their distance and go upscale.  If you find that
when two people talk, the longer they talk, the closer they get smashed
together, then one of them isn't communicating.

     When people don't know what something is, they have trouble communicating
with it.

     When someone tries to communicate with the bank, it kicks back and thus
gives the thetan the idea that he is punished for communicating.  But his
facsimiles aren't real.  In dianetics, we thought a person somehow took and
stored all these pictures.  But there is not really a mechanism, like the file
clerk, of taking and storing these pictures.  No.  The object is still there,
grown thin.  That's a picture!  Every consecutive moment of the universe from
its beginning until now is potentially as solid as it was then.  The only
reason it isn't as solid is that you don't to confront it, so you thinned it
down.  The only serious reactive pictures are the "thinnies" one made before
or as one way from something unconfrontable.  This sounds complex, but it's
only a problem in change of space.  You don't carry the pictures.  You left a
viewpoint there when you didn't totally confront something, and it is still
looking.  All you need to do is to get someone to be willing to confront old
universes he wouldn't confront before, and you will have a clear.

     Summary: Auditing is to raise the ability of another person so that he
can handle the bank, the body, others, etc.  It is a communication process.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=22/1/59
Volnum=0
Issue=1
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

21ACC-1 How a Process Works




5901C22 21ACC-1 How a Process Works

     "[The auditor] has to find out what the PC did with the auditing command
and what he did when he executed the command.

     In the absence of communication, nothing ever happens, which is why
people who are out the bottom don't communicate, hoping to be safe.  This
doesn't work if you are trying to do other things.  You must get the process
communicated across to the PC and you must get the PC to communicate.

     The first thing to know about pictures is that anything the PC is looking
at is a picture.  A bank doesn't do anything except be there, and whatever
strange thing is happening in the bank is a picture of whatever strange thing
is happening in the bank.  That's all you have to know to unocclude an
occluded case.  Black fives look sane sometimes, because they haven't got
anything to dramatize except looking at blackness -- not that they wouldn't
dramatize if they were looking at something else.

     When a PC is stuck in too heavy a picture, it is impossible to turn on
other pictures on the track.  The basic process for occlusion is, "Come up to
present time." If that doesn't work, there are seven other processes.



                                       22

     1. There are several things a person can do with pictures.  He may use
not-isness to make them disappear as soon as they show up.  Other obsessive
doingnesses can be used to get rid of one's pictures (a "solution" to
pictures).  This case can be approached using O/W Selected people, because if
he's not-ising pictures, he's not-ising people too.  In so doing, he finds
himself surrounded by "ghosts".  First run, "What have you done to [withheld
from?] _______ ?", using the person you've selected.

     2. Then run general O/W to catch some more of the automaticity of this
outflow.

     3. ARC break straightwire is used to knock out the cause of not-isness.
"All locks on the Rock are ARC breaks."

     4. Next, we would use not-is straightwire (Recall a time you thought
something was unimportant; Recall a time someone else thought something was
important).  If you run it reverse-wise, it takes away the PC's havingness and
spins him in.  This works on not-ising other's importances.  [I.e. it as-ises
times he did this.]

     5.  Factual havingness (also called "third rail"), the "vanish" command
of this.  This also handles not-isness.

     6.  "What can you confront?": This because at this stage, the person
doesn't wipe something out before he looks at it.

     7. "You make a mockup for which you can be totally responsible." This is
a top of the line process.  Any of these processes turn on pictures.  These
processes, plus CCH's handle all occluded cases.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=26/11/59
Volnum=0
Issue=27
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

1MACC-27 The Constancy and Fundamentals of Dianetics and Scientology




5911C26 1MACC-27 The Constancy and Fundamentals of Dianetics and Scientology

     "What could you confront?" is one of the first principles of dianetics,
as expounded in 1938.  Foreshadowing of the 1952 principle of dichotomies is
in the 1950 treatment of survive-succumb.  As far as the thetan is concerned,
surviving is bound up with confronting, in that "if something is surviving, he
can confront it; if it doesn't survive, he can't confront it.  And sometimes
something survives too damn well, and he sits there confronting it for
thousands of years saying, 'I am a black case.'"

     You're right in the middle of the cycle of action.  The dynamic principle
of existence of scientology is Create!  This is the common denominator of all
thetans, even if they don't know it.  Create + counter-creation = destruction.
Survive is a continuous confronting.  "Your license to survive is a license to
confront.  You have the right to look at the environment in which you are, and
if you don't survive, you don't have the right, and if someone destroys your
possessions, so you can't confront them, so they're not surviving, so you feel
you're not surviving."

     The word, "survive" can't be translated smoothly into several languages.
"Suicidal races" like the Russians and the Japanese have such languages.  They
do confront, however.  Confronting is the action; survive is the state of
mind, so confront gives an action process.  You can run confront on small
children as, "What would you like to look at?" It's better to run the action.

     "Kids are always trying to make people confront things -- showing you
things." You can run the process nonverbally.  Just point questioningly.  This
lets you out of the symbol band nicely.

     The communication process kicks in Axiom 10; it vividly takes in cause
and effect.  It's best to run an assist with "From where could you communicate
to a _______ ?"  If mass is present in the room, that helps his havingness.
If he's too injured, you could



                                       23

have him look at (confront) the injured part, using a touch assist.  You could
also run, "What (body part) could you confront / would you dislike
confronting?"  You could also use, "From where could you confront _______ ?"

                    Confront - not confront

                  = Reach - withdraw

                  = Make comm lines - break comm lines.

     The confront process produces a different engram chain than the
communication process.  Communication intends to produce an effect; confront
lets anything happen.

     To finish off a person's victim button, use "What victim could you
confront / would you rather not confront?" Use "rather not" instead of
"dislike" because, for instance, the phrase, "dislike confronting" could
implant the person with a dislike of confronting.  You could also use "What
part of a victim could you confront?" for a further-south case.  These victim
processes tend to put a person continually in a winning valence.  It may throw
him out of his normal valence if he is stuck aberratedly in a losing valence,
but then it eases him back into his own valence.  "What could you confront?"
runs the PC into valence.

     Probably the lowest level thinkingness process there is is "Recall a
communication," or "Recall communicating.,

     On a psychotic, it is best to mimic his orderly actions only, not his
disorderly ones.  Anyone who can successfully do a thinkingness process is not
a psychotic.  If a person can at least be responsible for himself and his own
environment, he is not crazy.  These people are out of the realm of
psychiatry.  "Normal people" are not sane on all dynamics and cannot be
trusted with all of them.

     The idea of total responsibility, as expounded in Advanced Procedures and
Axioms, was not and is not a popular one, although it formed the basis of many
axioms.  The idea of being irresponsible, as in Book 1, where people were all
victims, was what was popular.  A person who is not responsible on a dynamic
has no choice but to be a victim on that dynamic.  Absolute irresponsibility
-- and absolute insanity -- could be defined as inability to take
responsibility on any dynamic.  Such a person would be a victim on all
dynamics.

     Survive -- succumb = willing to look at -- not willing to look at.  It
you had someone who was willing to look at anything on all the dynamics, who
could escape from looking at them if he didn't want to, you'd have a sane
man.  It would have nothing to do with whether he was intelligent about it.
He's helping to put the dynamics there, so he has some control over them.
Since he is willing to look, he would be intelligent about them as well.
Intelligence is non-restimulated stupidity.  One can restimulate
not-knowingness by educating kids to only look at things and never to take
their attention off them.  Thus you get mystery restimulated.  It's an
unbalanced thing; it makes them wonder and go into mystery.  For instance,
"Keep your shirt clean," repeated at him, is the same as, "Confront your shirt
so as to prevent something." This locks him into confronting his shirt.
Fixed and unfixed attention, as mentioned in Elizabeth, New Jersey, can be run
with, "What would you like to confront / rather not confront?" This is not as
good as, "What could you confront?" etc.

     So the fundamentals of dianetics and scientology do not change.  The only
thing that changes is relative importances.

     People believe they are obsessively separate, so they believe that if
they ran this out, they would be obsessively the same person, and we'd get
obsessive togetherness, as in Communism.



                                       24

But actually, obsessive togetherness comes about from a terror of the
separateness that comes about from committing overts and becoming more and
more individuated.  A person becomes more and more individuated until he finds
himself doing a flip and getting drawn into a mass which for him doesn't
exist.  So you get a back and forth movements between these two points.  Thus
obsessive individuation and obsessive togetherness are much the same thing.
The world is in these conditions so much that it's become [almost] impossible
to prove that everyone is a separate individual.  This is scientology's
unsolved question: Is everyone separate or all one?  We suspect that people
are separate, but there's no proof.  Experimental attempts to prove this are
obscured by the obsessive states people are in.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=31/12/60
Volnum=0
Issue=1
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

AHMC-1 The Genus of Dianetics and Scientology




6012C31 AHMC-1 The Genus of Dianetics and Scientology

     The genus of scientology and dianetics was in the 20's, when LRH was a
kid in the orient, seeing all kinds of oddities.  While a George Washington
University, he conducted tests and found that poetry gives the same
wavelengths in all languages.  He went to the psychology department with this
discovery, got rebuffed, and found that none of them understood the mind.  He
calculated that there cannot be enough bits of information carried on the
protein molecules in the brain to store all the memories that men have.  In
Austria this got published as "This is how man remembers." LRH was well known
at the Explorers Club for his ethnological studies.  In 1938, he got to
"survival" as the common denominator to all races and possibly all life.  At
this point in his studies, he met Commissar Golinski from Amtorg (a diplomatic
trade channel with Russia).  He offered LRH a job in Pavlov's lab, $200,000,
plus expenses for research. etc.  LRH refused.  "About two years later they
broke into my quarters -- or some unknown people did -- and stole the original
manuscripts.  I have a flimsy copy of the research, but it's not complete."

     In 1946 and 1947, LRH did the research that culminated in DMSMH. At this
time, a high-ranking naval officer offered him a job with the Office of Naval
Research.  He was to find ways to use his knowledge of the mind to make people
more suggestible.  When he was refused, he was threatened with being pulled
back into military service.  He figured out a way to resign from the service.
This was the end of a beautiful friendship with the American government.  They
didn't make up their minds that we were con men until LRH said no.  Any
government is interested in how the mind works, but against anyone that knows
more about it than they do.

     This has left us the only free organization on the earth.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=31/12/60
Volnum=0
Issue=2
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

AHMC-2 The Things of Scientology




6012C31 AHMC-2 The Things of Scientology

     Scientology has succeeded in bringing the predictability of the natural
sciences into the humanities.  Practically every natural scientist before LRH
has attempted this, but none has succeeded before now.  "There are 20 separate
items in scientology and dianetics that are as solid as one of these test
tubes." This has nothing to do with ivory tower figure figure.  Scientology is
a practical subject that has nothing to do with anyone's beliefs.



                                       25

     Policing of behavior is the rule today.  It is based on what no one knows
about.  People become slaves to their ignorance of right and wrong.  In such a
time, one needs a practical wisdom.  Whole countries have gone by the boards
because their wisdom wasn't practical.  For instance, India and China.  Their
"wisdom" always went with poverty and degradation.  People's woes,
difficulties, and failures stem from their ignorance, their darkness about the
mind.  They had no knowledge of the rules.  The world needs a practical
science, the parts of which are clearly visible.  Having this, one can see
into men's hearts, know them, and live.

     One of the twenty things is the brain.  It is a shock absorber which
prevents electronic currents from injuring the beingness of the person.  It
has less to do with controlling motor actions than commonly believed.  People
with brain damage have had function restored with dianetics.  Another of the
"things" is the human nervous system.  The nervous system also serves for
warning, control, and arrest of pain, or absorbtion of pain.  Another couple
of things are the human body and the physical universe.  Also, lock,
secondary, and engram.  Real things.

     Another thing is the overt-motivator sequence.  It is a very low-order
sequence.  This falls out when a person ceases to be reactive, because it is
based on and is a Q and A with Newton's law of interaction (Second Law of
Motion).  It is more serious than, "If you do something to Joe, he will do
something to you." It is used by people who are into a big Q and A with MEST.
It justifies stockpiling A-bombs, etc.  There's more to the overt-motivator
sequence than Newton's law.  If Joe hits Bill, he will believe he should be or
has been hit by Bill and gets a somatic to prove it.  So if someone does an
overt, he will get or believe he has already gotten the motivator.

     The scales and cycles of dianetics and scientology are things, not
figure-figure.  There's the cycle of action (create, survive, and destroy, in
its most crude form).  It is an apparency, but demonstrable.

     "The human mind is the bag of tricks the thetan invented to keep himself
from getting bored to death in this universe and has then considered too
complex to understand and has gotten himself into serious trouble with."


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=14/2/61
Volnum=0
Issue=14
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

3SAACC-14  Fundamentals of Auditing (Jo'burg)




6102C14 3SAACC-14  Fundamentals of Auditing (Jo'burg)

     The fundamentals of auditing are designed to handle fixations and changes
of attention.  Attention is fixated or in a constant state of flux to the
degree that a person is creating and counter-creating.  That's what a thetan's
attention gets fixed on: the creates or the counter-creates.  All other things
(ruds, havingness processes, etc.) fall into line on that understanding.  The
case is fixed on or fluctuating amongst the masses and energies it has
created.  the things that put them out of existence or make them unreal are of
course created by the case.  The person is at war with himself.  That's why an
"attack" process works.  It's a counter-create.  Most cases, especially
downscale, are more dedicated to counter-creation than creation.  The case is
in a state of unreality about the fact that he's doing it (mocking up things
on which he is then fixing his attention).  Sometimes a person may know he's
doing it or not doing it.  But often thetans don't know that they are creating
what they are fighting.  So you could have a level of processing of doingness
on creating, e.g.  "What wouldn't you mind creating / would you rather not
create?"



                                       26

     We're dealing strongly with havingness these days, with success.  The
axiom of aberration is, "All doingness harms self." Doingness processes
address this fact.  You could ask, "What liability would there be to doing
something?" or "What could you do which wouldn't be harmful to you?" This
could fall flat because the person is doing so many more complicated things
that he has to come up to these basics.  This process is too high for most
cases.

     Beingness processes are relatively easy to run.  You could run an engram
with, "What, in that incident would you be willing to be?" The PC must have
the ability to be something before this would be a workable process.  Some
people can't be anything, so you have to test for this with, "Look around here
and find something you could be."

     You could develop the whole rationale of processing at the level of
beingness or doingness or havingness, though they must eventually merge; all
three are needed.

     If a PC doesn't move just with elementary rudiments: no TA; no change of
case, it's probable that the PC is withholding some big recent overt.  Or the
PC may have some unusual or secret goal not imparted to the auditor, or the
trouble may be a big PTP.   So in going over a case on the basis of rudiments,
one takes it easy until one finds out that the havingness scale, as you have
been taught to use it, doesn't move the TA.  Why ask for trouble before you've
got it?  You go over the ruds pretty well -- no wild drops, go on in search of
the prehav level, find where the PC lives, get one of his principal goals
aligned, convert it into a terminal which drops as well as the goal dropped,
assess the prehav scale with that terminal, then run anything that fits that
level.  The commands are, "What was _______ ?" for positive and, "What _______
failed?" for negative.  For a terminal it's, e.g., "What (terminal) was
_______ ?" and "What (terminal) failed to _______ ?" or "What (terminal) was
not?"  These are the all-bracket commands.  They could be repeated for each
level.  You could run 15 brackets against the prehav scale "When has
(terminal)(action)(terminal)?" There are possibilities of 32-way brackets, but
five-way is enough.

                        [More details on prehav running]

     If a PC isn't interested in the process, the ruds are out, as it's an
interesting process.  So beat the ruds to death.  If you can't solve it with
ruds, run CCH's.  The PC needs this when he can't control attention and your
command isn't reaching him, a no-effect case on whom no command has anything
to do with him, etc.: totally on automatic, etc.  So use CCH's to give them an
example that control and duplication can exist, and to increase their
alertness, havingness, and effectiveness.  Ten to twenty-five hours of CCH's
must be done, with good auditor control and presence.  If the auditor can't
impinge on the PC, however, and has no auditor presence, even CCH's won't
work, since they depend on impingement.  LRH impinges more than most auditors
because of his certainty that something will happen and his not being scared
to confront the PC.  To LRH, it's a personal affront if the PC isn't moving.
He can even get bad research results because even when using a process that
shouldn't work, his postulate that the case should change and his wanting to
do something for the PC will cause the process to work.  So he depends on HGC
results, etc., to test processes.  Just asking the PC questions can do a
tremendous amount for the PC.  Don't underestimate what auditor presence,
confidence, and interest can do.



                                       27

     CCH's depend on auditor presence more than any other process.  Maybe 6
percent won't get gains, because of needing CCH's.  The rest have ruds out, if
they don't win on goals and prehav.

                    [More data on goals and prehav running]

     The havingness processes are arranged in order of their frequency of
effectiveness.  A command that works on cases that have relatively
uncontrolled banks and can't run engrams is, "Where is _______ ?" Frequently a
person with low havingness is in a universe of objects that are mad at him,
etc.  As you run, "What is the emotion of that (object)?", the object goes
downscale and the PC cuts in across the bottom and goes upscale.  When he's
upscale about the object, the process is flat.  This havingness process can
change, when emotion disappears out of the physical universe, to "What is the
condition of that (object)?" If the havingness process stops loosening the
needle, first check to see if there is an ARCB about the command, and then, if
not, find a new havingness process.

     Other processes: are TR-10: "Notice that (indicated object).  What aren't
you putting into it?" A good outside process is, "What is the condition of
that person?"

     When you get a rise on a can squeeze, the PC may have heavy withholds,
maybe inverted interest, and won't lie-check.  Perhaps the havingness test
would be how much less does the needle rise in this case.

     If the case ARCB's all the time, you can run, "Who would I have to be to
audit you?"

     The prehav scale running runs subjective havingness; the hav processes
run objective havingness.  The objective havingness determines his havingness
of the physical universe; the prehav scale determines his havingness of the
subjective universe.  You only run enough objective havingness to keep the PC
in PT and loosen his needle.

                             End of Pre-SHSBC Tapes



                                       28

                  The Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Tapes


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=7/5/61
Volnum=1
Issue=1
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-1  E-meter Talk and Demo




6105C07 SHSpec-1  E-meter Talk and Demo

SOP Goals running: Assess for all the goals the PC ever had.  When all are out
and no longer give a fall on the meter, the list is complete.  When the list
is complete, the meter no longer registers.  Reassess the list until only one
goal continues to read.  Now list all the terminals for the goal -- all the
terminals which would represent that goal -- until the meter goes flat.  Null
the list until only one terminal reads (falls) on the meter.

     SOP Goals is the entirety of data needed to clear all cases.  This is
unlike the situation earlier when LRH would develop a regimen to handle one
PC's case, then develop the theory which matched it.  Sometimes this was
picked up by others and a whole school of therapy was based on it, For
instance, the dianetic tech used to handle one individual -- Altman -- later
became Gestalt Therapy.

     The E-meter is a tension machine: the more tense the individual, the more
off-beat is the read.  Clearing is taking the tension off the meter.  At the
lowest level of tension, there's no point in doing anything about anything;
you've got a dead thetan, totally incapable of influencing the machine.  He
reads as a clear, but this kind of case can still be detected because the
needle is tense; it doesn't react favorably at all; the person cannot answer
to his satisfaction or yours any questions about help.  The needle also shows
no reaction to anything, even a kick.  The sensitivity has to be way up to get
a third of a dial drop on can squeeze.  The guy can be machine-motivated,
feels he had "bad luck", doesn't believe anything can be done, so he can get
no help, etc.  He's a very obvious "can't do" case.  Doingness is the common
denominator of the prehav scale.  Someone who can't do isn't even on the
scale.  The best case detector is the sensitivity knob, not the TA or needle.
The worst case is where a person is super tense but doesn't know it.  This guy
would be a long job to sec check.

     A rock slam is a stronger indication than a fall.  It shows that you are
on the chain of the first time the person ever decided to be another valence.
The theta bop is diagnostic; it has to do with leaving and death, the thetan
moving in and out like a yo-yo.  It can be dial wide or small.  It can be
repetitive or even, at an extreme, one cycle (this is not very useful).
"Returning" will also give you a theta bop.  The rise means the PC isn't
confronting.  We used to be concerned about what stopped the rise, which was
what was producing it, or rather the PC's non-confront of that thing caused
it.  Stage four needle is an indicator of a total no-effect case.  It can be
very tiny.  It always has a stick at the top of the rise, unlike the theta
bop.  The bottom of it is very relaxed.  It just means lousy case shape.
Sometimes, you see the needle vibrate.  This means that the PC has an
alternating current ridge.  4.5 means a crowd; if he's stuck there, he's
afraid of people or stuck with people.  Stuck at 2.5 means a robot, a
machine.  There's a seven on the TA dial that can't be read on the meter.  As
a person develops responsibility (say he's a dead thetan at 2.0), he'll go
down to 1.5, then "go out the bottom" through 7 to 6.5, 5, 4, etc., to in
range.



                                       29

     A PC can have a consistent pattern; he can even repeat the same fall.  In
this case, a change of characteristic is diagnostic.  When the PC has a
charged question in his level of reality, you get a change of pattern.

     The meter that would be used above clear would be an oscilloscope meter,
an O-meter or theta meter, which registers flows.  This is not comfortable to
audit with.  The meter has to be very sensitive.  Someone could be clear and
still have "bugs" -- because he's still using a body.  The E-meter measures
the games condition called the physical universe.  You need something which
shades the tiniest things from 20.0 up.

     We have theoretically transcended MEST weapons.  As someone goes theta
clear, his tolerance of motion is so great that he wouldn't be hurt by a
bullet.  He probably couldn't even be hit by it.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=12/5/61
Volnum=1
Issue=2
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-2  Assessment




6105C12 SHSpec-2  Assessment

     "You, in trying to equate a relatively simple fundamental in scientology,
are of course picking up a fundamental which sits right in the middle of
anyone's case.  And you tend to blow off a little confusion in trying to get
ahold of it.  It would be easy to teach you to run a Diesel engine, but the
data we're teaching goes straight into the middle of a reactive computation.
SOP Goals does this exact thing, exactly reversing how the mind got
aberrated." The most hidden factors of a mind were the things that aberrated a
mind, because no one's ever freed a mind before, so they must have been the
most concealed or they would have as-ised.  SOP goals undoes all the things
that plowed someone in; it consists of all the solutions a person adopted to
fix all the oddball circumstances he got into, ever, that no longer apply.
Who wouldn't want to have the kind of mind that could be happy doing something
simple?  Basically, what you're afraid of is getting bored.  This happens
because what you are doing is somehow inadequate to the demands of the
environment.  If one's simple game gets invalidated, one looks for a more
complicated one.  This could only happen if one had invalidated someone else
already.  To get kicked in the butt, you must have kicked someone in the butt
and postulated that it's bad to get kicked in the butt.

     If the way to do a perfect assessment were put on paper, there's a high
probability that it wouldn't be followed, because we're dealing with the basic
stuff of which the reactive mind is composed.  And on this subject more than
any other, you'll find more confusion, more silly questions.  The datum
restimulates the whole confounded bank.  What happens is that the guy does
something which eventually recoils on him in a way which gives him a new
problem.  He gets his motivator and gets a new beingness to have a new game.
But he's now not being himself, he's being a solution to the problem of
livingness.  The solution eventually ends him up with a new problem which he
solves with some new beingness, some new game.  Every time he gets overwhelmed
in some game, he shifts beingness to the new game which solves the old one.
If you clear someone without clearing up his be/do/have condition, he'll
realize he has no game and he'll recreate his old condition or be bored or
worried.  He'll go unclear.  He thinks it's less dangerous to be aberrated
than to have no game.  If you clear (erase) his games conditions, across the
boards, he'll do this.

     The essence of all games is beingness and doingness towards havingness.
The problem is that they get jammed into a can't have / must have situation.
In a games condition, the person "has to be something, but he can't be it.
There is something wrong with being



                                       30

what he is being, so he can't be it, and he dare not be it, and yet he must be
it, and this emerges when you are auditing SOP Goals.  A game or goal is
abandoned because it was invalidated too many times.  A guy goes into a new
game and valence and ends up not being himself.  In assessment, you are
backtracking these valences, expressed as goals.  Since by this time, the PC's
comm with the world is very poor, you have to handle what's real to the PC, so
that's what you handle.  What's odd is that there's only one valence that's
real to the PC at one time.  In life, as the valence goes up, the PC comes
down.  This ends up with a serene valence and the PC out the bottom.  So the
individual goes around acting psychotic in a serene valence.  This is the
theetie weetie case.  As you audit the person, the valence comes down and the
PC starts taking over handling the game and the environment on his own
determinism.  As the PC gets out of fixed games, he can look around and find
he's got more games.  If he's got more games, he'll go more clear; if less,
he'll go unclear.  The act of finishing off clearing (doing more and more SOP
Goals) is what stabilizes the clear.  Having to play the game is what prevents
one from playing the game; one can play the game as long as one doesn't have
to.

                       [Details on running of SOP Goals]

     Any goal which is to put up a mockup is liable to be a false one and is a
dangerous one to audit.  It is perishable, because the result of failure is to
create a mockup, so that you get into an arts goal.  Always be suspicious of
an arts goal, because there's always the thing you can do when all else fails,
and that's usually the arts.  When actual masses don't work to overwhelm the
opposition, they turn to aesthetic masses, which are closer to the thought
band.  If you go just a little further with assessment, the case will likely
get into a better goals channel.  You can ask, "What did you want to do before
you went into the arts?" This also applies to professions in the thought band,
like philosophy and law.  A featherweight goal denotes a hell of a failure
just ahead of it.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/5/61
Volnum=1
Issue=3
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-3  E-meter




6105C19 SHSpec-3  E-meter

     When the E-meter is reading sporadically on something, chances are what
you are talking about is quite close to what it's reading on.  When you ask
just the right question, it reads hard and consistently.  You must then get an
answer to every auditing question, or the read will persist forever.

     If you don't audit the hidden standard, the PC will seem to progress in
the session and then say he didn't make any of his goals for the session.
He'll be putting a via on every command answer to slant it through the hidden
standard.  You can ask the PC if there's some goal there he hasn't told you.
It's necessary to getting case progress to get it out of the way.  The E-meter
won't be reading well either, as it's not the question if you don't ask for
the hidden standard.

     A PC will not improve if he has withholds or undisclosed overts on his
auditor or scientology.  In fact, he'll pull in motivators and get no case
gain.  You can't accept help from quarters you have overts on because it seems
like betrayal, since you've betrayed and the overt motivator sequence is in
force.  A person who has specialized in teaching by implant dawn the track
will develop an identity which gives themselves implants.  They amount to
perhaps 5% of the human race.



                                       31


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=26/5/61
Volnum=1
Issue=4
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-4  On Auditing




6105C26 SHSpec-4  On Auditing

     Before you can change people, you have to increase their tolerance for
change.  Change is pain, because its fundamental is a shift of location in
space.  On a mechanical level, change is time.  Time is a temperature, the
hotter the faster.  This is a discovery in physics.  It goes along with the
discovery that the speed of light is not a constant but depends on the
velocity of emission, and that zero is a variable, not an absolute zero.  Time
is change on a mechanical level.  Rate of change is measured by rate of
change, not by time, but one pretends that it is measured by time.  If you
find the right temperature, you can speed time up or make something timeless.
For instance, after the atomic bomb exploded, nothing moved for twenty
minutes, not even the twenty minutes.  Temperature alteration caused this.
There is a zero.  There is nothing, but a nothing of what?  This is variable.

     Society at present doesn't know that it doesn't know.  This is
dangerous.  Scientology points this out to society, which is painful to
society.  The best approach to study is always to find out what you don't know
and then to remedy the situation.  One should not start out study by finding
out something new.  The gradient approach is:

          1.  Not knowing that one doesn't know.

          2.  Knowing one doesn't know, but not knowing what one doesn't
              know.

          3.  Finding out what one doesn't know.

          4.  Remedying the situation.

The only thing wrong with one's case is the vast area of one's beingness that
one doesn't know one doesn't know about.

     Things you do reactively produce the opposite result from what you
intend.

     Gradient of states of case:

          1.  Release.  A release is a person who knows he won't get any
              worse.  He has a low state of case, but he is better than a
              non-release, since he knows he isn't there yet.  On a meter, he
              would give a whole dial drop on a low-sensitivity can squeeze,
              and the TA would be fairly near clear read.  He would also have
              reality on scientology as a way to improve.  The communication,
              help, and control buttons are in good shape.  He can as-is
              certain things by inspection.

          2.  Stable release.  This is a tested release.  He has no adverse
              needle reactions on help, communication, or control.  Life can
              still mess him up, but he will come through better.

          3.  MEST clear.  This individual has an F/N at sensitivity One and
              doesn't react to routine questions.  He reads at the clear read
              for his sex.

          4.  Stable clear.  This is a MEST clear who has run lots more SOP
              goals, where they start blowing by inspection.  For this
              individual, engrams have no persistence.  He can erase engrams
              or mock them up at will.  His healing rate is fantastic.
              Thinkingness can have an effect on the bank before clear, but a
              clear has more effect on the bank.



                                       32

     In all case states up to clear, thinkingness has a varied effect on the
bank.  The lower the case state, the less effect one's thought has on the
bank.  A psycho is total effect of the bank and can produce no effect on the
bank.  Then we go up to more and more effect of person on the bank, up to no
bank.

     Memory trouble is withholdingness.  Withholding from people results in
withholding from self.  The PC lessens the overt and pushes it out of sight.
If you increase his responsibility, he becomes aware of more overts.  The
overts "unlessen" and one starts to feel bad, for instance when you discover
that you have been committing overts against the Org that has been so nice to
you.  This is what happens when you process a person towards greater
responsibility without pulling withholds: the person will cave in again.
Therefore you must pull these overts and withholds and get the charge off them
as they become available.  This is the rationale behind interspersing sec
checks with other auditing.  Otherwise the PC becomes unwilling to make case
gain and is likely to blow.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=1/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=5
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-5  Flattening Process and E-meter




6106C01 SHSpec-5  Flattening Process and E-meter

     On running a prehav level, be sure that you run the process long enough
to get it to bite.  When the PC needs a high sensitivity for a third of a dial
drop, you may not get much TA in the first three hours.  This can happen on a
sticky level at any time.  It is not flat, or it wouldn't read in the first
place.  So run the TA in, then out.  If it is getting a little TA and never
did get much, you are getting some TA, and you want to continue to increase
it.

     The goal becomes less intense when you find the terminal.  This is
because the goal is the significance that surrounds the terminal, and the PC's
attention has been yanked off the goal over to the terminal, where it was
fixed anyway.  So the goal, after you have found the terminal, will read less
than the terminal.  There's nothing in the goal for his attention to be fixed
on, since the goal is just something he achieved reactively to solve a problem
given him by a terminal that overwhelmed him.  The goal is the tag hanging out
from the bank and can be used to get in there and handle the bank.  This
phenomenon of tags was first noticed in 1949 with engrams.  For instance, with
a boy who is always worried about red caps, it turns out that red caps were in
an engram about which he knows nothing.  Goals work the same way.  The goal
that won't null is the toughest one, the one attached to the terminal that
most overwhelmed the PC -- that he can still confront.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=2/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=6
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-6  Flows, Prehav Scale, Primary Scale




6106C02 SHSpec-6  Flows, Prehav Scale, Primary Scale

     A person that has flowed in one direction too long, e.g. a writer who has
written too much, a shipping clerk who keeps shipping, etc.  One day he will
want to stop.  It is an electrical phenomenon.  People who are affected by
gravity are affected to a degree by Newton's Laws of Motion: action and
reaction.  When a thetan pushes a particle out, there's a recoil effect.  The
law really only applies



                                       33

to masses of comparable magnitude.  The stuck flow occurs when one neglects
the return flows one is in fact receiving; one fails to as-is it, and creates
a ridge from the resistance.  If there's been too much inflow, a ridge may be
formed from not-ised out-pushes.  Newton's second law is thus the reason for
solidification of flows.  The facsimiles of back pushes are neglected.
Therefore they stick.  The stuck flow is reacted to with unconsciousness,
which is dope-off.

     If you have someone run a flow in one direction (in mockup), he can
either get a field in front of his face going black, or an avalanche will be
triggered where all the "things" come at him at once, or a reverse flow
avalanche, an avalanche of resistance, an inversion.  A flow too long in one
direction produces a reverse flow, not just a stuck flow.  This reverse flow
is:

           1. Not as-ised, because not noticed.

           2. Resisted.  [Then you get a flow in the original direction, but
              on an inversion.]

     On running O/W, we can only do this when the PC is below the ability to
tolerate change.  O/W is reach and withdraw, but only from one terminal, and
it doesn't account for all the possible motions.  As long as the individual is
below change, O/W only runs well on F-2 (See "O/W -- a Limited Theory" HCOB
5Jan61).  O/W is 100% effective below change but not effective above it.  [Cf.
the later order of the grades.] Below the level of tolerating change, the
individual's inflow and outflow get locked up, and change produces ridges on
various flow lines.  Therefore, the person is individuated, can't change his
viewpoint.  Resisting change, he gets left on some individuated point of the
bracket.  [E.g.  he has a stuck outflow, so he can't relate to people.]  If he
was so bad off as to be psycho, he'd maybe get upset with flow three, and
maybe get up to obsessive cause.  If one is fluid on change, and doesn't
resist it, he won't resist the flows and therefore, he won't create the
ridge.  When he sets up Newton's Second Law of Motion, he knows there'll be a
consequence of every thing he does, so he knows better than to cause or
experience much.  The consequences of change is change; when he can't stand
change, he'll go into O/W.  That's why running brackets is a safety factor.
When a ridge is set up, it has to be taken apart on both sides alternately.
If a person goes unconscious on running a bracket, it may be that one flow is
overloaded, or maybe he isn't really doing one leg of the bracket.  So you
have to check and see about that by asking once on each leg, "Did you answer
that to your satisfaction?"  The flow three on brackets is to handle his
dispersal.

     In connection with stuck flows, the concept of God is interesting.  What
kind of shape would you think God would be in, if he'd just been creating
things and causing everything?  You could never reach him or say anything to
him.  What kind of duress must he be under to propitiate to us all that much?
He must be quite spun in.  Anyone who's on such an obsessive cause must be
practically nuts!  We should have a society for the resurrection of God.  He
ploughed himself in for us, so we should help him out.

     The Prehav Scale is a reactive bank scale.  When a person is eventually
able to have, he doesn't have to have a bank, so the bank disappears, at the
point of Have.  The bank wouldn't be there to measure on an analytical scale.
The best description of the analytical Have scale would be Axioms One and
Two.  All other truths are the result of postulates, agreements, and
considerations, so the scale would depend on what a bunch of thetans agreed
on.  It could change.



                                       34

     The Prehav scale is fixed, a "now-I'm-supposed-to," "This is it -- why
we're here" scale.  It's the order of the value of postulates that are fixed
and not changeable in the absence of

     scientology.  At some time early on the time track, this scale must have
been dreamed up.  Recovering it is quite a trick.  All levels may not be
there.  Also some levels repeat in changed wording, and there are harmonics.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=5/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=8
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-8  Routine One, Two and Three




6106C05 SHSpec-8  Routine One, Two and Three

     An auditing result is determined by:

          1. The adequacy of the tool being applied.

     Modified by:

          2. What auditor's will use.

     Which is modified by:

          3. What they can use.

A good process is one that can be widely applied.  A good procedure is to ask
an auditor what he's had gain on himself.  Let him run that until he gets
reality (with training) on something else.  He'll get a result where he
himself believes he can get a result.

     If you increase a person's potential responsibility without letting them
be responsible for what they've done, it is vicious.  The person will feel
miserable, which is better than being irresponsible, but they'll stop getting
case gain because they feel it's not deserved or safe.  As a PC gets
processed, his reality level on his life and overts comes up.  That's why sec
check reads change as the person gets new auditing.  The point of doing O/W is
to bring responsibility up, but this is only possible where there is some
responsibility.  The "dead thetan" case won't read on O/W.  He has total
irresponsibility.  But a person can't take responsibility for his acts unless
you let him do it and communicate them.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=6/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=7
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-7  Routine One, Two and Three




6106C06 SHSpec-7  Routine One, Two and Three

     Always check for what happened between sessions if the PC has a different
TA read from the end of one to the beginning of the next session, even after
just a break.  The definition of rudiments is what's needed to get the PC in
session.  They are nothing more than that.  Don't use ruds to waste auditing.
Ruds processes are weak.  Let the PC as-is it by telling you about it, but
don't two way comm it.  If the PC is still dramatizing something, it's too
deep-seated for ruds anyway.  If needed, you can ask in several ways fo find
what it is.  This is not the same as two way comm.  You can run a rudiments
process if it doesn't clean up when he spots it.

     With CCH's you are auditing out a valence end bringing the PC up.  The
valence will fight for survival, you will get comm lags, etc.  The CCH's are
not run in model session.  You don't pick up ARC breaks, etc., because the
person doesn't easily blow them and can get quite involved in them.

     Routine One:   CCH's and Sec checks

     Routine Two:   General run of the Prehav scale, Joburg, and
                    havingness -- all in model session.

     PTP's of LD are assessed for the terminal, which is run on the Prehav
     scale.

     Routine Three: SOP Goals assessment, assess for terminals, run flat on
                    Prehav, with Joburgs interspersed.



                                       35


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=7/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=9
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-9  Points in Assessing




6106C07 SHSpec-9  Points in Assessing

     The problem with communicating scientology is that there are no
agreed-upon realities ready-made in words.  If you give a person one of these
concepts and its name and definition, he will recognize the truth of it, but
it will take awhile for him to really grasp it.  and he has to get the concept
first.  This is almost like processing.  People read DMSMH and got an
understanding that changed their physical condition.  But the ideas of
dianetics and scientology haven't been familiar to Man, so it takes awhile, or
it takes familiarity with them, to grasp them.  You could teach someone the
principles of scientology by teaching him the vocabulary.

     You've got to get the PTP of long duration off the PC's case if he has
one, before you can go on with goals processing, because the PTP LD is more
real to the PC than anything else on his case.  His attention is fixed on it.
If the PC has his attention fixed on the hidden standard, you've practically
got a computation right there.  It has to be gotten out of the way to get case
gain.  It is always right on the goals chain, or it wouldn't be a PTP of long
duration, so when you get it out of the way, you've got the case flying.  It
has been a mistake not to assess the hidden standard, finding out who had it,
when, and what.  [This is Presession 38 -- a dianetic assist.  See HCOB
23Feb61 "PT Problem and Goals".] Or a more certain method would be to run the
hidden standard with a terminals assessment by elimination (Whose might it
be?  What might it be?, etc.) This line of questioning is interesting, both to
the PC and casewise, because the hidden standard is the primary source of
individuation for the PC.  It is what makes him different from everyone else.
It is the least well duplicated part of the bank, so it will fire off as an
automaticity, because it is the area that is most out of communication and
most out of control.  The PC could get lots of terminals from this.

     The hidden standard is a substitute for the case of the PC.  It is more
real to him than any case or life difficulties the PC may have.  It is a form
of individuation.  The PC is the one with the earache.  This distinguishes him
from others.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=8/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=10
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-10  Q and A Period and Ending an Intensive




6106C08 SHSpec-10  Q and A Period and Ending an Intensive

               [A lot of specific data about running SOP Goals.]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=9/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=11
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-11  Reading E-meter Reactions




6106C09 SHSpec-11  Reading E-meter Reactions

     Auditing latent reads is auditing the analytical mind.  It is the
reactive mind that we are interested in auditing.  The reactive mind is a mind
that acts without inspection on the basis of stimulus.  It puts into action
solutions to problems it fancies must exist, which may never have existed, or
which haven't existed for billions of years.  Put in any part of the problem,
and the reactive mind goes into forming the solution.  A thetan is trying to
survive, who has no necessity for trying to survive at all, which is the first
idiocy.  So the mind is trying to solve a nonexistent problem.  Then it
addresses itself to the survival of form, the perpetuation of an existing
state, which would take out all the MEST in a sensible state and "garbleize"
it.  The reactive mind is the individual's accumulated goals for the survival
of forms.  The reason it destroys is to get something to survive.  It creates
to get a form to survive.  The reactive mind is the part of the cycle of
action that will never move, because its keynote is survival of a form.  So it
is trying to make something survive that is already dead: old bodies,
identities, etc.



                                       36

     You could remember it if you weren't trying so hard to make it survive,
but because of the survival effort, when you try to remember it, you get a
restimulation as if you were still in the period, because all the impulse to
survive has been trapped and rides up to PT.  All of these forms have nothing
to do with PT, but here they are.  So the reactive mind has a starvation for
the other parts of his old games, e.g. the opponents, and it acts without
inspection and very fast.  To get a form to survive, you can't take time for
inspection.  This leads to such idiocies as people attacking their own planes
or ships in war when they'd gotten used to attacking enemy ones.  The "safe
thing to do" is not to inspect, under battle conditions.  The jam of the time,
not taking time to inspect, results in no-inspection.  When you speed up
things in the physical universe to too great a degree, on the false basis that
you are prone to non-survival, but in the interest of keeping something
surviving, you'll run into the timeless reactivity of action without
inspection.

     So therefore, what you are after is instant reads.  Your auditing target
is the reactive mind, not the PC.  The only thing wrong with the PC is the
reactive mind, and there is no inspection involved there, so he can't see what
is wrong with him.  If he could see it, it wouldn't be wrong.  This is also
why the reactive mind is more in control of the auditor than the PC: the
no-inspection factor.  He can't think on the reactive subjects; you can.  So
if you take his instructions on what to do or handle, you'll always do the
wrong things.  One of the PC's goals is to make his reactive mind survive, so
he won't let you near any part that should be audited.  It dictates to you
that it must survive; it throws you red herrings.  "When you turn around and
look; when you're running from a [battle that you're losing], you normally get
speared.  Therefore it's very very bad to look at the things that are pursuing
you ..., so you mustn't ... so you had better prevent the auditor from ...
looking at the things that are pursuing you.

     There is another obscuring element: withholdingness is the comm bridge
between the PC and the reactive mind.  When a withhold comes out of the
reactive mind, the PC will do what the reactive mind tells him to do, which is
to withhold it.  Withholdingness is part and parcel of survival; it is
protection of forms from attacks and destruction.  It's a non-duplication too:
you withhold your form from duplicating the form of someone you've killed.
This sets the mechanics going for survival: it's actually prior to the actual
idea of survival.  So the PC gets into withholding thought.  The withholding
of form is super-basic to all sorts of other things, e.g. individuating.  The
PC also withholds his body from destruction.

     When the PC gives up a withhold, he's conquered a dictate of the reactive
mind by being controlled by a being (the auditor), rather than by his bank.
This is the mechanics by which he feels better when he gets the withholds
off.  Because withholds add up to keeping him separated from the human race.
He can always be counted upon to dramatize the withhold when it comes up.  On
the meter, there's first a tick, then a fall as the PC spots it.  The
secondary action is not to get the withhold off the PC, but to keep the PC
from dramatizing his reactive bank.  So we say, "What was that?" When
withholding, the PC is reactive -- he is dramatizing -- otherwise, he's
talking to you analytically or at the dictates of the reactive mind.  Early in
the case, auditing the PC is like auditing the light bulb to fix the
generators in the power plant.  The E-meter helps you locate all the parts in
the generator.

     If the PC is left with a withhold in session, he'll ARC break half an
hour later.  What you're trying to do is to keep the PC from being fooled
about himself.  If you avoid the reactive mind, you're just doing a Q and A
with the PC.



                                       37


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=12/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=12
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-12  E-meter Actions, Errors in Auditing




6106C12 SHSpec-12  E-meter Actions, Errors in Auditing

     The E-meter only reacts on those things that the PC is aware of or
capable of becoming responsible for.  This responsibility factor becomes a
reality factor, so you can audit what appears on the meter.  Things that don't
appear are beyond the PC's zone of responsibility.  Getting new reads on sec
checks is thus a test of the PC's advance in responsibility.  If no change,
there is some gross outness countering the auditing.  Don't get trapped by all
the little minor errors.  These gross efforts come from the impulse to make
nothing out of something, which goes back to productivity.  The effort to
produce is one half of the dichotomy.  All strikes are on the other half: the
effort not to produce.  Many people are dedicated to non-production --
no-survival.  This comes about as a reaction to a stuck flow on "Must Survive"
Many operations would go better if just left alone.  Today's "planned balanced
economies", reminiscent of Markab, which specialized in this, generally result
in unbalanced messed up economics.  Produce and Non-Produce should be on the
Secondary Prehav scale.  The goal could also be "No Results".

     Here we are talking about continually recurring gross errors, not just
occasional errors.  Anyone will do that.  Don't attempt total perfection or
you'll never complete or accomplish anything.  People get so tense about doing
it right that they'll never get anything done.  A good exercise to cure
perfectionism is to deliberately decide something is finished without the
finishing touches.  When you can do perfect TR's, metering, etc., you can
relax and just audit with no anxiety communicating to the PC.  You must exude
confidence in order to give people hope, which is a fundamental necessity to
making someone well or better.  Mainly, it has to appear that you are trying
to do something for the PC, not that you are trying to be perfect.

     Using instant reads, one gets at all the held down fives in the bank;
using latent reads, one is handling all the PC's concerns about why the fives
were held down.  This is a longer road to clear.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=13/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=13
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-13  Seminar -- Q and A Period




6106C13 SHSpec-13  Seminar -- Q and A Period

     There are people with stuck valence serenity who aren't clear, like the
Buddhist definition -- no effect types.  Clears are in fact responsive and
active, volatile, alive, responsible and not that-all serene.  They want
things to happen and make them happen.

     Note that there is no single button one shot thought process which
produces a clear.  The fellow has to walk out of the labyrinth the same way he
got in, which is by overwhelming and being overwhelmed.  Scientology is the
first mechanism which allows someone to erase the effects of having
overwhelmed others.  If there were any such one-shot process, LRH would have
found it, but the fact that flows exist defeats the single button.  People
have thought that "What would you be pleased to accept?" would be a clearing
process.  It's been run to its ragged bottom in 1954, but didn't clear
anyone.  The flows at least would stick.  It could produce a rapid result for
a few minutes.  Another rapid result-getter is "Look around here and find
something you could go out of ARC with." It makes him feel great for awhile,
then spins him.  You could find a button for every cult.  They're formed on a
monomania on a single button, and if you make a reverse process on that
button, you could make that kind of person out of the PC.  You find what the
button is that a _______ would be monomanic about and run it as out of ARC
with a stuck flow and the guy will become that _______ .  [Cf. EST
processing.] This has been done on the whole track.  Universities



                                       38

do it.  For instance, they tell engineering students that engineers aren't
wanted anymore; then the student will try very hard to be a good engineer to
be wanted.  In churches they use the blasphemy button to make people feel
unsafe communicating with God.  This makes them religious fanatics.  You can
restimulate whole track fixations selectively and produce momentary
resurgences in certain goals directions.

     When a person can no longer be a beingness, he may introvert into and
permanently permeate some object or familiar thing around the old beingness.
(E.g. a headsman gets hanged, then becomes the headsman's axe) On a case that
has trouble with SOP Goals, trouble finding a terminal, be sure the listing
question is "Who or what..." to include 5th and 6th dynamic terminals.

     Repeater technique is repeated inspection.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=14/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=14
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-14  Seminar: Withholds




6106C14 SHSpec-14  Seminar: Withholds

     You don't destroy records when you are pulling withholds, and you don't
agree with the PC to do this.  If you do, it is as much as if you were telling
him you'll withhold for him, and he won't get much gain.

     The only liability to getting the PC to where he can't be influenced by
the reactive mind is that, in a sense, you are auditing him towards a state of
no-effect: total serenity, total no-effect, the way the Lamaist did it.  The
individual must be able to experience to live.  It is possible to plough
someone in on a level and make them look good, but not clear.  This is
education by fixation [see p. 37].  One should be able to do anything on the
Prehav scale.  Repairing his ethics will eradicate his impulse to do hasty
things and get action on a rational basis, as a result of inspection, not
based on inhibition.  This is a new thing on earth in human behavior.

     There's nothing wrong, in theory, with native state processing, as
practiced in 1957 and 1958 -- knowingness deteriorating by postulate to
not-know, to must know, to can't know (forget), to remember.  This processing
was too simple and of too much generality to be functional.  An OT process,
"Tell me an intention that failed," "Tell me an intention that succeeded,"
would be a one-button clear process if that could be run (since it's Axiom 10,
Factor 2).  But it's too simple to plumb the reactive mind with.  A certain
level of complexity is necessary to resolve cases.  The worse off a person is,
or the clearer they are, the more you need to run the secondary scale (greater
complexity).  How many buttons are there?  There are all the beingnesses ever,
all the doingnesses ever, all the things anyone ever had or could have.  You
can't force a person to grasp reactively things which are analytically obvious
because it's reactive and nutty.  A process must have some complexity to be
effective at a reactive level and some simplicity to make it easy to
administer.

     If one invalidates the basic agreements and identifications of the MEST
universe, MEST changes characteristics.  For instance, if you stop agreeing
that water runs downhill, and challenge that, it'll go all gelatinous and
globby.

     A security check is running all the not-know off the case that it has run
on everyone and everything for God knows how long.  You are actually running
the native state cycle of sequences, not withholds at all.  Overts consist of
putting not-knows into the third dynamic.  For instance, someone robs a store:
the storekeeper comes in and doesn't know who did it or when, or when it might
happen again.  [Also not-knowing where the stuff is that was taken.] Then the
storekeeper runs the not-know on the police.  Now the area



                                       39

has a not-know that accumulates in the society, until people can't trust each
other and can't produce and the society is aberrated.  Someone feels better
when he gets off the overt of creating ignorance.  Eventually he'll realize
that this overt worried people.  That's another overt.  Then, eventually, he
cognites on the not-know overt, and he'll notice his memory improving, his IQ
going up, as he runs out overts of making people not-know (or be stupid, in
other words).  Sometimes a case will recover totally by getting off one big
overt.  Auditors don't effectively run Presession 37 ("What question shouldn't
I ask you?", etc.  See HCOB 15Dec60) because they aren't imaginative enough
about all the evil in the world.  It also requires the auditor to create
not-knows about the PC.  It works better to give the auditor a list of mean,
nasty, vicious not-knows someone might have run on the world.  This doesn't
run a not-know on the auditor.  This is the sec check.  Different sec checks
should be devised for different routines.  Routine three cases need
whole-track lists, otherwise, their whole track memory will get occluded.
Whole track memory depends on some kind of whole track sec check.  This also
answers the question of why PC's feel better after giving up same withholds
but not others.  And what is a withhold?  It's running a don't know or can't
know on self or others.  When the overt is on someone else, it gives a big
resurge when it comes off.

     Messing up time [by lying?] is a different breed of cat.  It's creating,
for one thing.  All of life is an invented episode.  Writing fiction is done
with the intention to amuse and inform.  The only not-know in it is to keep
the reader from knowing the end before he gets there.  The only aberrating
thing about it, for the writer, is that it's a creative effort, which can wind
someone up in the soup [Cf. the effect on some people of Step six.] If you
tell a lie to obscure your own guilt, that's another not-know or false
knowingness, which eventually makes the person feel that all life is a
pretense [Cf. the sociopath.].  Auditing then becomes just a literary
criticism of life, as a romantic episode.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=15/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=15
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-15X  Not-Know




6106C15 SHSpec-15X  Not-Know

     There's a mechanical side and a thought side of boil-off.  one is prone
to worry when the PC boils off, but it is only a matter of concern if the
auditor ceases to audit because of it.  The mechanical definition of boil-off
is a stuck flow.  A lot of stuck flows got parked on the track, and when the
PC hits them, he boils off.  Most of the time, when the PC goes unconscious,
if you kept giving the auditing command, the PC would keep on doing it at
about the same speed or a bit slower as when he was awake, because the PC
isn't really unconscious.  If he didn't hear you, there's no harm done -- it s
not an implant situation.  He comes right through it.  The thought definition
of boil off is that it is the accumulated not-know the PC has run on
everybody.  Unconsciousness is merely the intensification of not-knowingness.
(You could even run a not-know in the course of being "kind" by not telling
people that they're upsetting or bugging people.  They will make enemies who
eventually hit them, surprising them because no one told them they were
messing people up.) Immanuel Kant introduced not-know into philosophy with his
transcendentalism.  This killed philosophy until scientology came around.  The
Greek philosophies amounted to this:  if you couldn't lick them, confuse them
with entertainment and philosophy.  This out-creation with philosophy and
entertainment was a very effective means of conquest.  Many philosophies have
been mere dramatizations of Prehav levels, relying for their force on bank
agreement.  By observing what people underline in books you can see that what
people go for is what agrees with their banks.



                                       40

     One gets into this frame of mind as a result of thinking, "Truth is
merely subjective; there is no broad truth." This is the philosophy of the
only one [solipsism] .  Also General Semantics.  Then there's Dale Carnegie's
"1.1-ism", which tries to communicate with an unreality.  They run a not-know
on people by being nice, and the people sense it, too.  Where a reality is not
present, a not-know is substituted for it.  An unreality is created whenever
you substitute an unknown for a known.  Communism does this well with the iron
curtain.  Or take someone who always says, "I'm fine," when you ask, "How are
you?" They're substituting a non-fact for an observable fact, giving you an
unreality that eventually makes then disappear.  Curious phenomena will occur
around someone who is doing this: they eventually do disappear.  But if
there's a terrific not-know about someone, he persists like mad.  For
instance, the monk, Dharma, who lived 10,000 years ago in India formed the
basis for most Indian religions, but nothing is known about him or what he
said.  The least-known philosopher is someone whose name we don't even know.
He's influential in the background of Lao-tse, Confucius, and Buddha.  He is
held in place by the not-know.  This is Dharma, who is not even thought of now
as a person, but as fate.

     On a personal level, not-know shows up as boil-off.  An extreme
manifestation is unconsciousness; at a lesser level, it's death.  Not-know, at
its most extreme, is when a person cannot go unconscious.  We call that
insanity.  Death is a state of beingness, not an action.  Unconsciousness is
lower, well below death.  One can get knocked off and go on knowing what is
happening.  Insanity is where a person cannot not-know the fifteenth
substitute for reality -- a delusory state.  They worry about these things
laying in wait for them.  They're in a state of combat with the unknowable.
This can go on the tone scale, on a level of not-know, from serenity about the
unknowable on down.  They may seem fairly sane at the top, but they don't know
what it is they don't know about and are looking for.  They get down to grief
about not having found out what it is they don't know about.  The guy will
also be utterly fixed on the track.  If you know what you are unhappy or
bugged about, you are not insane.  Merely wondering -- the fact that you can
wonder why -- demonstrates that you are not insane.  Knowing this, one won't
be baffled about insanity, for bafflement is just a Q and A with
not-knowingness.  The reason one gets worried about the insane case is a Q and
A of trying to find out what the case doesn't know.  What he doesn't know is a
not-know.  If you can speculate about what you don't know, you will be OK.
You can introduce some sanity into someone who is spinning by getting him to
think of one person who doesn't think he is insane, because you have
introduced a knowingness into his unknowingness.  Or you could use one
command, "Look around here and find something which is really real to you."


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=16/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=16
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-16X Confront and Havingness




6106C16 SHSpec-16X Confront and Havingness

     Havingness gets eaten up by valences and consumption circuits until the
PC is clear, or nearly so.  Then it orients him and stays with him stably.  As
long as he has a dominant valence or dominant machinery, havingness gets eaten
up.  Any gain it gives is in ten to twelve commands.  Any more than that is a
waste of time.  ARC straightwire does a lot [for havingness] at first also.
Havingness works by shifting attention but doesn't as-is the bank's masses; it
just moves them around.  It is the same with confront, which is just



                                       41

     [Details on running Routines One and Two, and havingness and confront
processes.]

     If a case with a lot of auditing hasn't had significant change, the
policy is that, regardless of graph, meter read, or anyone's opinion, you run
Routine One [CCH's and sec checks].  This is the most rapid way to make the
case change.  It's just the effective thing to do.  This prevents you from
making a mistake on the case.  The only reason someone gets upset about being
run on CCH's is that pride enters into processing, which is in itself a sign
of some nuttiness.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=15
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-15  Q and A Period: Auditing Slowdowns




6106C19 SHSpec-15  Q and A Period: Auditing Slowdowns

     Test for a release: The person should not be reading weirdly on a meter;
the sensitivity knob should be down -- you should get a good drop with
sensitivity zero.  You should get no reaction on the questions, "Do you think
you'll get any worse?  Does scientology work for you?  How do you feel about
help?  How do you feel about control?"

     Every time you find something in the PC struggling for survival, it isn't
the PC, because he can't do anything but survive.  It's a valence.  Every
valence fights for survival.  It can be such a clever valence that it can fool
the auditor.  The Auditor's Code is there so the valence won't feel
challenged, so it won't kick back before you can jump it.  The PC gets most
upset by the auditor's failure to handle his case.  The valence says, "See the
red herring?" If the auditor complies, the PC will get unmanageable because
he's lost confidence in the auditor's control.  The auditor needn't apologize
for positive, certain control.  That's how to make valences lose and PC's
win.  Kindness validates valences, not pcs.  Valences aren't hard to handle if
you are certain and let it come across.  Auditing weakly gives power to the
PC's circuits and valences; auditing with certainty validates the PC.

     Instant read is within a tenth of a second.

     [The "death of the Ego" is the death of the valence.]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=20/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=16
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-16  Sec Check Questions.  Mutual Rudiments




6106C20 SHSpec-16  Sec Check Questions.  Mutual Rudiments

     The perfect answer to any question is the exact question.  When it is
correctly asked, it is answered.  Say you are trying to lay out serving
equipment in a hotel kitchen.  When you finally spot exactly what you're
doing, you perceive that you are not arranging machinery but trying to
accomplish some exact result, like trying to get food from A to B.  In asking
the person who's going to use it what he needs, you are getting a more precise
phrasing of the real question you wanted to ask.  When you have all the data
to define the exact question, you will have the answer.

     The borderline between the Reactive Mind and the analytical mind is the
broad savannah of "I don't know." Things get foggy on it; the PC knows
something is there, but sees nothing very clearly.  The auditor's action in
compartmenting and clarifying the question helps to pinpoint the source of fog
for the PC.  [The exact answer to a problem is the exact problem, when
correctly phrased, or as-ised.  This is why a repetitive look at a problem and
rephrasing of it will cause a resolution.]

     We have made a recent discovery of magnitude.  We've known that co-audit
teams tended to make less progress than HGC Auditing, but not why.  The answer
is now known.  The first clue was the D of P's finding auditors' ruds on PC's
out even when the auditor found them in.  It turns out that the ruds weren't
out with the auditor.



                                       42

It was mutual ruds of the team that were out with others but not the team.
For instance, the pair agree the PC's family are swine, so it won't read on
ruds, but someone else who isn't in on the agreement will find the PC's out
ruds.  The meter registers on disagreements.  One way to solve it is Formula
13 [failed help and O/W on terminals, alternated.  See HCOB 1Dec60.], cleaning
up all the people who read, or on ruds, substituting "we" for "you".  Even CCH's
can do it.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=21/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=17
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-17  Seminar at Saint Hill




6106C21 SHSpec-17  Seminar at Saint Hill

     [Details on running Prehav 13.  It's a process which combines overt
running with prehav assessment and running of brackets, relative to a list of
charged terminals]

     At upper level strata, beingness is higher than doingness, and doingness
is higher than havingness.

     To do a can squeeze, get hands relaxedly in your lap, then squeeze them
gently with the hand itself, not clear on up to the shoulders.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=22/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=18
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-18  Running CCH's




6106C22 SHSpec-18  Running CCH's

     The way the CCH's are run is 1, 2, 3, 4 over and over and over.  It is a
breach of the auditor's code, clause 13, to run a process beyond the point
where it is producing change or to stop running one which is producing
change.  The words in the process have very little to do with the process;
they're run with meat and motion.  They are all done by compulsion if
necessary.  The PC never has an opportunity not to execute the command.  The
consequences of letting a PC out of doing the command are grave.  The CCH's
run out surgery, shock, etc., as the PC dramatizes.  You should run the
process flat, which means the PC has the same aspect for twenty minutes, no
matter what the aspect is, and no matter how nutty or unconscious (as long as
the PC is doing the command).  Change means such things as somatics, etc.  It
may be necessary to run CCH's for a few hours before they bite.  You don't pay
attention to what the PC says; it's what he does, though if he communicates to
you that something is happening, that's a change.  Running CCH's permissively
will also screw up the PC; you must apply control to get communication and
communication to get control.  Irresponsibility denies havingness, so sec
checks also raise havingness.  All O/W running, since it raises
responsibility, results in havingness.  "Prehav" really means "prevent
havingness" scale.  It consists of those things that prevent havingness.  This
is gotten off in Routine 2 [see p. 34 or HCOB 5Jun61]: the fixed reactive
buttons that prevent the PC from having things are gotten out of the road.  On
Routine 3, the PC gets out of the road all those unrealized goals, each of
which has been a defeat, hence a denial of havingness.  So havingness is the
end product of all this.

     O/W raises havingness because the individual individuates from things
because he can't have them.  So he develops overts only on those things he
can't have.  So when you get the overts off, he can have.  If you could have
the whole universe, it gives you no trouble.  It's only the things you can't
have that you have trouble with.  Next time you have a PTP, see what's in it
and what prevents you from having them.  Individuation from the thing, the
dynamic, the universe, is what brings trouble, because you get into an
obsessive games condition, which adds up to -- you can't have it and it can't
have anything to do with you.



                                       43

     The CCH's knock out individuation from the physical beingness which has
been caused from the PC to his body and (apparently) his body to him.  That's
why they run out electric shocks, etc.  And you have to let him take more
responsibility or he won't improve his havingness.  You have to maintain
control, or you'll show him the body can't be controlled, so it can continue
to overwhelm the PC.  Also, the PC will become practically unauditable.
Misguided kindness is all that could let you allow the PC to control the
session.  It's actually a vicious thing to do.  Even if the PC is right in his
advice, don't follow it.  He'll gain more from being run wrong, but under your
control, than right under his own.  If you're going to err, err on the side of
control and toughness, not sweetness and light.  It's better to end the
process wrongly on the auditor's determinism than to end it rightly on the
PC's.  If you let the PC take control, you're very liable to get an ARC break
a half hour later.  You may not notice that it's because you lost control,
because of the lag.  But the way to handle it is to spot the point where you
lost control and reassert it.  If the auditor is in control of the session,
auditing takes place; if the auditor is not in control of the session,
reactivity takes place.  If you flinch from auditing, it's from those times
when you didn't control the session and came under attack as a result.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=23/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=19
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-19  Q and A Period; CCH's; Auditing




6106C23 SHSpec-19  Q and A Period; CCH's; Auditing

     Many people don't see objects -- they've been looking at facsimiles of
the objects.  When the facsimile as-ises, the wall looks bright.  Such people
tend to have bad depth perception because they never see anything.  They are
easily invalidated because the reason he's making and looking at facsimiles is
that the physical universe isn't safe for him.  The auditor begins to be real
as the PC sees that he can duplicate him, so if the auditor indicates [e.g. on
CCH's 3 or 4] "You didn't do it," the auditor ceases to be real, and the PC
will put pictures of him up instead.  Overrunning the process tells the PC
that he was wrong to think he'd got it.  This makes auditing unsafe.  The
purpose of the CCH's is to make the auditor, the physical universe, and
present time real to the PC, to show him he can observe the auditor, the room,
And PT.  His havingness on other-determinism is very low.  The CCH's remedy
it; he sees somebody else exists and the universe is here.  You can run CCH's
wrong by making the PC aware that the auditor and the room are real but
dangerous.  When running a child, take account of the child's shorter
attention span.  If it's biting, run it at least an hour before you'd expect
it to flatten.

     Exteriorization, as done in 1952-5 was unstable.  LRH found that before a
thetan could get along without a body, he had to be able to have a body, and
people who exteriorize easily generally want nothing to do with one.

     Philosophies that strive for peace are a covert operation towards making
people succumb.  Spots of sudden change of pace are spots which brake a
person's life.  They've got upsets in them and advice to take it easy, and
from then on, it goes wrong.  They were asked to confront motionlessness,
which is most difficult to do.  Medicine and psychiatry gave drugs, etc, to
make a person be quiet.  Unless a person can confront motion, he's dead; he
can't confront life, can't work, and will become a criminal.  The natural
consequence of adopting a motionless philosophy is to get religion -- a
peaceful one.  If you enforce no-motion on



                                       44

someone and make him think motion is bad, he'll get Buddhistic.  Road safety
campaigns make no sense because they emphasize going slowly, less motion, not
keeping unsafe drivers off the roads or putting freight on trains.  The more
you make a population motionless, the higher the crime rate.  T.V. corrupts
the youth because it pins a child motionless, not because of the T.V.
material.

     The theory that people get seasick because of motion led LRH to think one
should have pictures of very still scenes to counteract this.  He chose some,
thought about it, and started to feel seasick.  He realized that what's needed
is pictures of motion to accustom them to motion, not motionlessness.  The
cure for motion is motion, not stillness.  Philosophies of motion don't
necessarily mean no criminality -- e.g. space opera.  If you could keep it up
with no rest, you might manage to be ok.  When you become incapable of
handling the motion of life, you can then start to experience pain.  The
experience of pain comes about because of intolerance of motion.  You can run
motion or no-motion to handle this situation.  Predictable motion is better,
from the PC's viewpoint, than unpredictable motion, because with unpredictable
motion, he doesn't know what to confront.  When he gets the idea that it's bad
not to be able to confront everything at once, he starts to butter all over
the universe, stick on the track, etc.

     Also, whenever a person gets hit hard by life, or as soon as he begins a
program to coerce people into working harder, that person will obsessively
start producing.  Production follows defeat (as in Germany, Japan, etc.).
Someone who's been defeated will produce more bank than someone who's doing
well.  So in eradicating, on the one hand, a person's intolerance of motion
and, on the other hand, his failures or defeats, you are causing his bank to
disappear.  [The first can be done by CCH's], the second, by goals running.
Everything becomes a cure for past failures; every goal is a consequence of
not having done.

     We don't erase the bank; the person gets accustomed to not needing one.
The person himself takes over the automaticities of beingness (identities),
doingness (creation), and havingness.  Most havingness is the result of a
defeat and the whole cure sequence, where nearly everything in the universe is
a cure for past failures.  Every goal also is the result of not having done.
So we get intolerance of motion, feelings of defeat, ability to have without
having defeated anything.  If you can remedy those things for someone, you've
produced a new being, who is not the same as an old being who's never had the
experience.  His knowingness of what's happened doesn't leave him, but his
knowledge of the consequences of what he's done lets him emerge as a veteran
of campaigns unscarred by his battles -- tough and capable.  That which strips
all games from the universe would normally result in motionlessness.  But how
about ending certain games for somebody who doesn't have the consequence of
ending in motionlessness?  You've broadened the person's view of games he can
play.  This gives him more games, not less.  Play is delusory motion, about
which you're not supposed to be serious, so you're not supposed to as-is it.
So a person gets trapped in it because it's not real.  Play is a dishonest
doingness; work is not a serious activity.  A person can work at a sport and
have fun as his job.  Also, if you don't just do what you are doing but put an
"I should be doing something else" in, you'll stick in it.  If one just did
what he did when he did it, he wouldn't get stuck in it.  Morality is a
now-I'm-supposed-to which makes people not willing to do what they're doing
when they do wrong, so they never as-is their wrong acts, so they continue to
do them.



                                       45

It's a certainty, then, that one gets a persistence of the things he doesn't
want, or a tanglement of the things he does want.  Then he wonders why he
feels odd.  So auditing is straightening someone out so he has tolerance for
motion and motionlessness and can have what he should have, or not, as the
case might be, as he wishes.  To do that, you have to erase all the oddities
of doingness, all the pain and boredom of motion or no-motion.

     The Prehav scale disentangles all the doingnesses.  But if you make the
PC intolerant of motion or be motionless when he can't, or give him failures
in auditing, or don't make it duplicative so he can't have, then you reverse
the process.

     Goals are, to a large extent, a "do something else" or a
"Now-I'm-supposed-to".  If the individual isn't doing anything, he simply
isn't doing anything.  There should be no "Now-I'm-supposed-to" superimposed
upon the situation.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=26/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=20
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-20  Dealing with Attacks on Scientology




6106C26 SHSpec-20  Dealing with Attacks on Scientology

     Scientology doesn't have an Achilles heel, so it's in a good position to
defend itself.  People do get upset when confronted with a new idea, but new
theories get accepted fairly quickly, e.g.  Harvey on blood circulation,
Socrates on the nature of man.  Proponents of new theories don't necessarily
get martyred.  The ones that do generally are getting motivators for their
overts as tyrants.  Also, if one continually fails to advance an idea, one may
get suicidal and die for it, e.g.  Christ (and Socrates).  LRH believes in
making an idea effective, not to fail at it and make everybody feel guilty
because they kill you.  It's not necessary to sacrifice oneself for a new
idea.  That's just a way to protect old ideas.  Man is a great believer in
no-change, while he obsessively changes everything.  So new ideas are
rejected.  Scientology is over the top, but it is still being fought, because
to the degree that one is right, to that degree he is dangerous.  We threaten
to upset a lot of beliefs and customs.  It's only safe for us to do it because
we can undo what we do.  For instance, we can run out bad auditing.

     The reason there is a question on sec checks about overts on LRH is that,
if one had a lot of overts on Ron and scientology, one could acquire a
forceful, overwhelming valence called scientology.  So this is the first time
anyone has said, "Try it and see." In the early days, people said we should go
big on aesthetics.  LRH said no.  You can always overwhelm a thetan with
aesthetics, but it's not desirable to overwhelm a thetan.  If it's true far
you, it's true, not because we've overwhelmed you.  We're attacked because we
have no evil motives.  People get frantic because they can't figure out,
"What's the Ditch?" If you can make a thetan commit overts against you or set
him up where he can commit the overts and remove any possibility of running
the overts, you can overwhelm him and get him so stamped dawn with a valence
that he can't even wiggle.  [In other words, you set a person up where he
can't receive an overt from you (you won't commit one), and on the other hand,
you set him up where he can commit overts on you and cannot get them run out,
then you've done him in good and proper.] Former efforts at this were
entrapments.  It isn't really an effort towards total freedom either, since it
allows for games.  Man becomes alarmed at the fact of there being this
selfless philosophy that doesn't demand that one become subjugated and
enslaved by it, and that it doesn't say that the originator of it must be
carried on an an imperishable valence that everyone should bow down to.  That
alone is incomprehensible, which alarms man and makes him think there must be
some



                                       46

     When attacked all one needs to do is to take effective actions, not get
frantic.  Just keep up effective pressure, investigate loudly, and don't feel
rushed about it, let it coast.  When people are in terror, they make
mistakes.  So let them make the mistakes.  For instance, a man called Ettleman
had been hired by the AMA and the APA to attack scientology.  In this case,
which went on for three years, when it finally came to trial, his attorney
didn't show, so the case was dismissed.  All that can be Zone to an
organization or a person is to harass them to the point where they're too
worried to do their job.  So keep the reaction to attack to the minimal
effective actions.  Don't waste time, and keep the show on the road.  The more
you worry about the attacks, the more motion you waste and the less
scientology you get done.  So all the enemy can do is to get negative gain by
reducing your effect.  See if it's your game before playing it.

     (Nothing wastes as much time as the law, because the law has overts
against time.)

     If no one anywhere fought scientology, it would be as nothing,
unimportant.  Think of all the philosophies that must have been developed in
the past eleven years.  None of them have been fought.  A sure sign that we
have ignorance and aberration on the run is that there are attacks and
fights.  [The process is biting.]  Start worrying when there are no more
attacks.  Also note that our comm lines are far more rapid and effective than
the enemy's, and must be kept up.  This alone discourages the enemy.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=27/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=21
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-21  CCH's -- Circuits




6106C27 SHSpec-21  CCH's -- Circuits

     The way to bust up machinery on CCH-1 is to vary the pace.  He'll jump
the command if a machine is doing it.

     One effect of the CCH's is to help the PC find the auditor.  If he goes
on automatic, he doesn't have an auditor.  Just running the CCH's will run it
out; varying one's pace will prevent it from starting.

     If you just use intention on the PC and no verbal commands, your
intention may be good, but the PC's command circuits may be goofed up, and you
may not get the response you expected.  He may not be hooked up the way he
should.  You can have fun with a meter talking to the entities in a body.  You
could start talking to the PC's circuit, but it hooks in harder and harder.
It hooks in on a drop of havingness, and you are making a comm line talk
across to his circuit.  You're validating the circuit and lowering [the PC's]
havingness.

     If the PC has a problem and you try to run, "Think of a solution,"
repetitively, the PC caves in.  You are running off the core of an Area of
motion, leaving the motion on automatic.  The PC is not confronting the
actuality of the thing; he's not confronting what's going on at all; he's
confronting a solution to it.  That is, he's trying to not-is what it is, and
the problem mass moves in on him.  If you get him to spot the mass connected
with the problem, then describe the problem, then spot the mass, it moves
further away.  If you get him to think of solutions, the mass will move in.
Problems of comparable magnitude will also move the problem out.  This occurs
because of confront.  If the PC avoids it, it moves in.  You can also move the
mass out with havingness.  A solution is a stable, no-motion datum amidst a
confusion.



                                       47

     Circuits can be used to get data, to verify answers to calculations,
confirm if they are right or wrong, or to give you tomorrow's weather.  The
latter takes the increment of time that is tomorrow and inspects it.  This is
possible if you can look with equanimity at tomorrow, at least its
insignificant aspects.  You can predict to the degree that you can confront.
People who can't confront PT obsessively try to confront tomorrow or
yesterday, but it's not a real tomorrow, and probably not a real yesterday
either.  The way you go nuts on circuits is to ask yourself, "Who put that
there?" or "Who else put that there and what does it mean?" This gives you a
mystery.  Pc's who don't control their circuits and haven't inspected them for
many years or eons have things popping up all the time when you audit them.
Some get auditing answers from their circuits.  The circuits were put up as a
substitute for confronting and are so old and forgotten that now nothing about
them is confronted.  When the PC nears one of them, it tells him what to do or
say.  Since a circuit is just a no-confront, running havingness and confront
improves circuits.  The PC may have originally put a circuit there for
convenience and then come to believe that it was unconfrontable because there
was a circuit there.

     You could say to the PC, "We're going to handle your primary aberration,
so make a picture of it and look at it.  Tell me what you see." You'd get
amazing answers.  The action of taking a picture of it, then looking is, of
course, an alter-is of confront.  In auditing, you want people to look
directly at things.  Circuits encourage them not to because they think they
can't confront something.  As you audit a PC, these things go live.  As
havingness drops, the PC gets anxious, keys in circuits to predict, or
confront drops.  Or, as the PC improves, and circuits can be activated as the
PC comes up through them.  So everything goes on a via.  Auditing walks him up
to less and less vias; more and more confidence.  The reason confront isn't on
the prehav scale is that it isn't a doingness; it's an ability.  [Cf p. 22,
where confront is described as an action.] [Also Cf. p. 40, where confront is
defined as subjective havingness, or or at least the process is defined as a
subjective havingness process.]

     That explains oddities you get running CCH's.  You're activating and
knocking out circuits because direct control and communication brings about
continuous shift of circuitry in terms of havingness.  Then, since he's been
gotten to PT, confronting the auditor, this brings his havingness up.  If you
talked to those circuits, they might well say anything, which is also true of
the PC on CCH's.  So the less attention you Day to what the PC is saying or
thinking, the better.  Dope off and comm lag indicate things happening to the
PC's confront and havingness.

     Circuits go haywire when they contain the postulate that the thetan is
unable to confront.  Apart from that, they can be useful.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=28/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=22
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-22  Raw Meat -- Troubleshooting Cases




6106C28 SHSpec-22  Raw Meat -- Troubleshooting Cases

     [Details on handling raw meat cases -- tests, etc.]

     If a PC has persistent out ruds, check for continuous PT overts, at least
at the level of unkind thoughts on automatic.  This is very common.  You can
handle this with Prehav 13.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=29/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=23
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-23  Wrong Target -- Sec Check




6106C29 SHSpec-23  Wrong Target -- Sec Check

     Herbie Parkhouse telexes from London: Auditors aren't getting sec checks
done because it takes two to three hours to get ruds in.  He wants to scrap
model session for processing checks.  This



                                       48

is an unusual solution.  People are now in the same position about auditing
that Ron was in when he started researching life.  There's been so much
alter-is and counter-create, the truth is obscured.  Naturally in relaying
comm about the simplicities of life, these things get restimulated and people
start looking around corners, when the cop is right on the sidewalk.  There is
no secret about life; it is just surrounded by alter-is and obfuscations.

     People aren't doing their jobs because they are so busy doing other
things.  For instance, government is so busy doing the work or charitable
organizations that it has no time to administer justice, protect citizens from
criminals, etc.  In a good government, production rises, people prosper; a
welfare state government attacks producers with taxes.  It's all off post.
Everything is trying to make you wear its hat.  So in scientology, the person
who is on the ground observes.  Parkhouse, by not observing, caused Ron to
interiorize into his hat.

     The analytical mind isn't really a computing machine; it is the PC.  When
he, or the analytical mind, is attacked by the auditor, you'll get no auditing
done.  Your target in the reactive mind.  This is why LRH can do in 5 hours
what it took other auditors 25 hours to do.  The difference isn't that LRH is
good and others are lousy; it is that the other auditors' reactive minds were
apparently choosing the PC as their randomity, attacking the PC because he was
aberrated.  No.  The target is the reactive mind.

     You sit down; you take the E-meter; you say, "Have you ever stolen
anything?" What you really want is for him to recall, ventilate, air the
reactive mind.  You shouldn't assume he already knows and purposely won't tell
you.  When you do a sec check, because of the specific question he remembers
it and will ordinarily tell you.  If you get heavy reads and he say's,"No,"
have him keep looking; let him know there's something there, but maintain
ARC.  The proper attitude is, "You couldn't possibly remember this and not
tell me.  Let's just get the show on the road." When they look hunted, use a
light touch to get them to tell you.  If you're suspicious and accusative,
you're cutting comm with the PC and encouraging him to withhold.  Assume that
if he remembers it, he'll tell it at once.  It puts him in session that way.
The meter check is "just to make sure we got all of it." It's up to the
auditor to create an atmosphere of communication.  You can use some dunnage to
do it.  This approach gets the PC comfortable, relaxed, confident.  His
knowingness comes up; he gets relief.  After all, you are the auditor, not the
E-meter.  The guy gets to where he feels safe.  His anxieties come from
feeling unsafe in life, so your attitude alone can produce a great change in
the PC.  If you're using the meter and he says, "No," you don't assume he
knows and won't tell you, but that he hasn't overwhumped the reactive mind.
You're disappointed, but you assume he can remember.  This builds his
confidence and gets him in a hopeful frame of mind.  doing it this way speeds
it up enormously; gives faster gains.  It's not that he's getting more
confident in you.  It's that he's getting more confident in his ability to
overwhump his bank.  You get far more off the case, faster, by this method.
You'll slow it down by making sure he won't want to tell you and has to be
trapped and beaten into telling you.  Don't ever assume a games condition in
auditing.  This will also keep the rudiments in, since ruds go out with rough
auditing.  Set yourself up as someone who can be confided in, rather than as a
cop sniffing out the crime.

     Never assume a games condition (in auditing or not) if you don't want
one.



                                       49


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=30/6/61
Volnum=1
Issue=24
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-24  Training on TR's; Talk on Auditing




6106C30 SHSpec-24  Training on TR's; Talk on Auditing

     [Details on running TR's, CCH's, and Prehav 13, and Routine 2]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=3/7/61
Volnum=1
Issue=26
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-26X Routine 1A -- Problems




6107C03 SHSpec-26X Routine 1A -- Problems

     Routine 1A is problems processing alternated with sec checks.  It is to
handle cases that are too tied up with out ruds to run CCH's.

     What is it that makes a problem so deadly in processing?  A problem is
postulate-counter-postulate, an indecisional proposition because the two sides
are in balance.  One can hardly confront the two data at once; the PC doesn't
see the amount of confusion on it, and the confusion mounts up around each
side of it.  Thus you get two separate zones of confusion, each side with its
stable datum, because each side has a yes and no about it.  So you don't as-is
the problem and it persists.  That's its most basic characteristic.  People
get impatient with problems, so they solve them.  But a problem solved has
been not-ised, not as-ised.  The solution of a problem is, of course, an overt
against a problem.  Everything in the universe is a cure for something else --
a solution.  This is one reason the universe persists.  Cures deteriorate and
solutions become new problems.  Alcohol, a century ago, was curing things.
Even diseases once cured something.  [Cf. sickle cell disease.] The bacteria
that caused disease once cured something.  Take an organization that is hammer
and tongs on the subject of creativeness: the Catholic Church.  They have the
hatchet out on the 2D; they don't think creation should be done that can be
prevented.  They oppose VD campaigns because they think VD is a good thing, as
a cure for sex.  If you get VD, sex stops; so if sex stops, you get VD.  No
sex = VD because VD = No sex.  Prostitution is also a no-sex proposition, so
it gives a no-sex disease.  Sex is a cure for no bodies, and no bodies is a
cure for sex.  You don't get a PC whose idea is, "Horses sleep in bed," who
wasn't curing something with that idea.  Every aberration he's got was a cure
for something.  His motionlessness is a cure for having killed so many
people.  If you pick up withholds on killing, he will be able to move again.
Killing, too, was a cure for something -- maybe for hating people.  Hate, in
its turn, was a cure for associating with people whom you might damage.  And
Damaging people was a cure for people being people, etc.  An aberration is a
cure that doesn't cure, that you don't understand.

     This all goes back to confusions and stable data.  If you have two
confusions and two stable data opposed to each other, which you don't
confront, you get an endurance, because you never as-is the thing; you solve
it.  Pc's who go through vias continually on an auditing command have some
problem they've never looked at as a problem.  When you run problems of
comparable magnitude, you've taken the via of curing the problem off automatic
and sneakily gotten the PC to take a look at the problem.  Certain conditions
that are designed to cure other conditions actually create them.  E.g. a
snake's venom makes a snake antipathetic, and snakes have venom because people
(and other animals) don't like them.

     The willingness to solve problems but not to as-is them is the basis for
Q and A.  People don't like getting the question fully duplicated as the
answer.  This is because they are trying to solve some very fundamental
confusion they have.  An effective method of teaching is to try to find the
source of the question.



                                       50

If you try to cure confusion, it continues.  Duress and punishment are the
results of despairing of solving someone's problems.  Jails [and mental
hospitals] are the cure for confusions about people.  This seems awfully
drastic, but it is born out of despair.  The effect of jails is to merely
educate criminals more into hating people.

     There is a way to make a correct and frontal attack on these confusions.
They often stem from withholds, so a Joburg will help.  You may note that a PC
may look a bit confused as he tries to find the problem he was solving.  A
problem, remember, is a multiple confusion.  There are two solutions or ideas
involved, each with its own confusion -- an encysted confusion.  So one tries
to back off from it, which only pulls the problem along.  This is why thinking
of a solution makes the problem mass move in.  You can't really escape your
own ideas.

     Thought mass is basically composed of problems.  It endures because it's
not confronted.  Given enough of this, the PC will be overwhelmed, and will
dramatize being a problem, one which is insoluble.  So you keep worrying about
the PC because the PC is a problem.  A PC who says he has had no gain is
saying, "I'm a problem -- Solve me!" Your chances of doing it are poor.  He's
got two confusions And can't confront either.  Pcs whose needles keep rising
are not-confronting a problem.  You ask, "How are you doing?" The PC says,
"Fine." The needle rises.  You ask, "What happened?" The PC says, "Nothing."
It's discouraging.  They can't tell you what it is because they can't confront
it.  CCH's will saw through this, but slowly.

     A slow-gain case is heavy on comm lag, or not quite on the subject when
he's talking.  The comm lag stems from no-confront; so does the alter-is,
which is a dissociation from the confusion.  You ask the PC if he's got a
problem.  He gets upset because he can't confront it and knows he can't, and
he wants to avoid it altogether.

     Phenomena observed in the field stem from problems, on a no-confront or
inverted basis.  In fields of stress or duress, religious cults make their
finest harvest.  They offer an escape from problems.  The reason Alcoholics
Anonymous doesn't cooperate with scientology is that they have (for their very
existence) a contrary datum: "Alcoholism can't be cured." You can't do
anything about it, so you might as well join A.A.

     No matter where you go, you can never get away from yourself.  If you try
to pretend you are not where you are, you get a dispersal of location; you'll
be buttered all aver the universe.  The guy who permeates everything without
being anywhere is trying to escape his problems, which all carry a
no-confront.  You put motion and action into a thought process, and they
become inextricably tangled up, inextricably, that is, short of scientology
processing.

     All this is a prelude to a very simple killer process, for the PC for
whom all life is a problem.  The difficulty for the PC is a series of ridged
problems.  The ridges people have trouble with surrender on this one command,
which is horrendous to run because it moves very slowly at first and turns on
fierce somatics: "Recall a problem." You must be very careful to get the
question answered on "Recall a problem"; you should ask, "What problem was
that?" and make sure he is not giving you a generality instead of a specific
problem.  The PC will come up with some interesting solutions, which will
suddenly turn awful.  He'll discover he's been both sides of various
conflicts, each side to solve losing on the other.  If the PC does a
locational on some object he's used to solve a problem of boredom, he'll come
uptone to interest.  This is another reason touch assists work. (More details
on running Routine 1A).



                                       51


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=4/7/61
Volnum=1
Issue=27
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-27X Problems and Solutions




6107C04 SHSpec-27X Problems and Solutions

     Only LRH could get a simplicity on auditing problems.  Usually when one
tries to look at them, he just gets confused.  The only mistake psychiatry
made about psychosis was to try to understand it, since it's basically
incomprehensible -- that's its whale character.  Then they have to use heroic
measures, which fail and leave them no place to turn.  The common denominator
of psychosis is problems, of course.  When the problems can't be associated
with the solutions any longer, you get solutions to no-problems, which is
psychosis.  When a psychosis has been objectively described, there's a missing
datum: what problems is this behavior a solution to?  [Cf.  R.D. Laing and J.
Haley] The lack of this datum makes the psychosis incomprehensible.  You
cannot cure A psychosis by addressing the psychosis, or, more generally, you
can't cure an aberration by addressing the aberration.  This is because in so
doing, you are running the still in the middle of the motion, the stable datum
in the middle of the confusion, the solution.  You're trying to cure the
solution and not looking at the confusion.  You are looking at the cure, which
won't move out unless you get the motion off it.  The whirlpool wouldn't whirl
without the motionless center, but the center is motionless only because it
has motion around it.  You should take the whirlpool off the motionless piece,
not the other way around.  Here you have confusion and the stable datum,
motion and no motion, sound and silence, absolute location and change.  If you
try to get the motionless points out, all you get is new motionless points.
All that is wrong with a thetan is what is wrong at the lower and of the
scale.  At the highest level, a thetan can be motionless; At the lowest level,
he has to be.  It's a matter of determinism.  At the lower levels,
motionlessness is not determined by postulate, but by the mechanics of
motion.  If you want to see someone stiffen and go still, stand a fellow up,
shake your hands in front of his face; produce a lot of motion, and say,
"There's the motion!" At this point, the fellow will sort of freeze, as he
becomes a stable datum.  But this doesn't work well as a demonstration,
because the observers will Also all go still in a sort of stupidity.  They
won't confront the motion; they'll put a barrier up against it and become
still, so the motion will duplicate them, and they will butter themselves all
over the universe and become agitated.  Auditing motionlessness just makes
more motionlessness in the bank.  Stillnesses identify more rapidly than
motion.  In psychosis, the person is being stillness.  The worst example of
this is catatonia.  There can't be such a thing as an"average" individual;
there can only be someone who is trying to be a lot of other individuals and
is therefore buttered all over the universe in terms of beingness.  He'll be
obsessively a still; the next step down is going round the bend.  The
operations this universe uses to try to make one assume the Average are so
numerous that one accents then as normal.  Insanity is the adoption of a
solution to the exclusion of all other solutions in the absence of a problem.

     If a person confronts no problems, takes no responsibility for them, and
goes into being a solution, all problems go on automatic; they just go on all
around him.  There can be a million problems, but there's only one solution:
him.  A psychiatrist is being an obsessive solution also.  He never really
cures anything; he just persists with his ineffective solutions, which just
hold the problem in place.  He isn't aware that psychosis is a problem.  He's
handling people who are being obsessive solutions, so he



                                       52

becomes one too.  The psychiatrist is the society's solution, just as his
solution is shock treatment.  Psychotics don't realize others have problems or
that they're being problems to others.  Psychiatry's research has been a
search for solutions, but they hate solutions and they don't recognize the
problem.

     Man has made the mistake all along the track of not realizing that if
there's a solution, there must have been a problem.  Look at the "ten"
commandments.  Actually there's 162 -- pages of them.  These are moral codes.
And "moral codes are a series of solutions to problems which are neither
confronted nor analyzed." Almost all the bible's commandments are prompted by
the obsessive crimes of the time.  Several are solutions to VD.  That was a
problem that descended on them that they knew nothing about, so they looked
for solutions.  They already had various areas of no-sex; they had already
prevented true ethicality by inventing immorality with a bunch of new morals.
A lot of religions, also, encourage facing motionlessness, e.g. by getting you
to turn inward, contemplate the stillness within, meditate, face Mecca, etc.
This is the basic operation of the track.

     "I believe it's perfectly all right to do anything you want to to people
as long as you don't say it's something else or try to convince people you're
doing something else ... as long as other people are not ... completely
ploughed under by it." The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics
gives a lot of lattitude.  The main crime is the entering in of a not-know.
That's the only real evil there is.

     When a person reaches a stage of being an obsessive solution, with total
not-know on what he's being a solution to, or when one is to being terribly
still, he doesn't know what motion he's being still to counteract; obsessive
stillness enters.  The bug factor here is the not-know in all this.  Where you
have someone solving problems, you don't have an evil.  It's OK to solve
problems.  But an individual who has put all problems on automatic can't solve
problems, except with some fantastic liability of cave-in, terror stomach,
etc.  He doesn't dare solve a problem.  There are gradients of this.  There
are people who can salve a minor problem but not a major one.  They'll try to
protect you from a problem by preventing you from solving a problem by feeding
you extraneous data.  This is not to confuse you; it's to protect you.  [E.g.
the pedant who doesn't want to make a mistake and doesn't want you to make a
mistake either.]

     When you see someone sitting in the middle of a catastrophe, one of two
things is happening.  Either the stuff is avalanching in faster than he can
cope with it but he's trying to cope, or he doesn't even know it's a
catastrophe; he doesn't even see all the papers all over the floor and the
account book being used far a doormat.  That's the condition of the thetan
sitting in his bank.  He feels he's got it all straight and the trouble is all
over there.  Since, you can't see the clutter, you say, "Well, he's behaving
oddly.  But that's not the situation; he's confronting "no-ly".  It is all
not-ised.

     When you run something in an orderly fashion, you will at once get
something done.  In the first place, you're giving the PC an orderliness to
confront, and he finds out there's some motion that can be confronted.  Where
you have individuals who are totally insane, you have no confront of problems,
so Routine 1A won't work.  It doesn't go as far south as the CCH's.  But it
works on most people, including the guy who thinks he's is such good shape
that he doesn't need any auditing.  If you run problems on him, he'll go,
"Hm.... Ridges?  Where did this come from?" The bank starts going solid;
somatics turn on.  He'll see there were some problems around.  Their masses
start showing up.



                                       53

     This is the first time we've had a good cure for this type of mass.  It
bypasses the liability of curing it.  We're enough on top of the mechanisms of
existence to pull the Overt-Motivator sequence without falling athwart of its
consequences.  Similarly with the problem-solution sequence.  You can thus
solve all the PC's problems without squashing him, unlike psychiatry, which
also tried to solve all of his problems.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=5/7/61
Volnum=1
Issue=25
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-25 Q and A Period -- Procedures in Auditing




6107C05 SHSpec-25 Q and A Period -- Procedures in Auditing

     The meter may fall on a question, but it might not be the question you
asked; it might be protest or something else.  Find what the meter did fall on
and clean that up.

     Notice that when you run Description Processing on a problem, the problem
keeps changing.  That's one reason we don't do any fancy problems process on
rudiments.  We just keep the PC on the one he brought up.  Otherwise, we start
to get into all this alter-is.  Change as a level in the Prehav scale was
developed to cure alter-is.  It turns out that this was a stopgap.  What cures
alter-is is Problems.  Pc's who obsessively alter-is will run problems like a
rocket, since the solution is an alter-is of the problem.  You can check every
once in while with the PC, "How did you get that answer?" "What are you
doing?" On running problems you have to strongly do this.  You have to be sure
he really did recall a problem and didn't just get a notion of a foggy
confusion.  You don't have to check every command; just every few, randomly.
You have to use TR-4. If he repeats the command after you, he's set up a
circuit, so you repeat the command.  Don't do it if the PC has had a
cognition, since in that case, it can seem invalidative.  Let the PC stay in
communication.  Don't be robotic about using the repeat statement, but stay in
PT and don't put the command on a circuit.  The acks are half-acks, not full
stops to the cycle, and you can put a little insistence on the command when
you repeat it; this keeps it from sounding like a new command.  Always get the
command you asked answered.  You can ask him if he still has the command, if
he's comm-lagging and drifting.  Use this rarely and sparingly, since it does
distract the PC.  That's the common denominator of pcs' ARC breaks with
auditors.  Sudden change of attention is associated in all minds with
accidents, pain, etc.  So the auditor shifting the PC's attention suddenly
makes the PC feel hit.  You should wait until he looks vaguely in your
direction.  Don't jump on him.  The meter action will also tell you if the PC
is doing the command.  If it stops registering, you can suspect he's lost the
command.

     The auditing command is what it is and doesn't have any understood
additional agreements in it, so if you say, "Recall a problem," it doesn't
include, "Tell me about it," or "Don't tell me about it." And you can't make
agreements with the PC that he should tell you and let it be understood for
the rest of the process.  Other ARC breakers are the auditor giving you five
commands without letting you answer any of them, or the auditor saying nothing
-- giving no new command when the PC is waiting for it.  You cannot tell the
PC how to do the command in addition to giving the command.  He must
understand the command, but to give advice on how to do it is evaluation.
Also, if the PC makes a contract with the auditor for session length, that can
get tacitly into every command.  The PC will get stuck in the first command of
the session if you start with some agreement that wasn't repeated.  The
auditing track will bunch.  The only understanding you have with the PC is the
command given at the moment given.  The auditor's



                                       54

control of the PC extends to one command at a time.  The auditor does control
the session.  And not with kindness or social niceties.  You can tell the PC,
"You're answering things I haven't asked you.  Recall a problem." There's a
polite way of telling a PC to shut up: a good solid nice acknowledgement as
soon as the PC starts to diverge.  The mistake is not to control the PC.  But
note that when you've announced yourself as a control unit, you'd better stay
one, since the valence will immediately test you to see if you will.  If you
chicken out, you'll get an ARC broken PC.  ARC breaks proceed from lack of
control, i.e. from lack of auditing.  What you can get away with is what
impingement you can make on the PC.  But it must not be misemotional
impingement, or you'll bolster up the valence the PC is dramatizing, which is
always a misemotional entity, under the surface.  You'll cave the PC in.  So
exert tone 40 control with ARC.  There's a difference between overwhelming the
PC and controlling the PC.  If you don't shoot misemotion at the PC, you can
say anything to him.  It's a mistake to make any comment on anything the PC
said or did, even if the PC asks for evaluation.  It's not up to the auditor
to comment, just to acknowledge.  The auditor's opinion otherwise becomes a
stable datum to the PC, and you are going to have to audit out the stable data
you put in.  Don't even imply by your acknowledgements that you agree.  You're
not in or out of agreement with them -- just in control.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=6/7/61
Volnum=1
Issue=26
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-26  Routine 1A -- Problems




6107C06 SHSpec-26  Routine 1A -- Problems

     The cure for Step 6 phenomena or creative processing ill effects is a six
way confront bracket on the pictures and responsibility on pictures.  People
who go solid on Step 6 type processes have an automaticity where, if they
create anything, everything they've ever created gets created.  Hence, since
the bank is an individual creation, the bank beefs up.  If you use these
remedies, and you keep these things in mind, it would be safe to do creative
processing.  You can prove this by taking picture A, improving it, then
looking at picture B.  You will find that picture B has also improved.  If you
improve the PC's ability to perceive, you improve his ability to create.  And
it is only because the PC is doing it all himself that you can clear him.
However, if you improve the PC's ability to create without improving his
ability to confront, you've done him in.  Art school does this; same with
technical schools.  If you make sure the school has only text, diagrams, and
no real objects being studied, you'll cave the students in.  Everything he
doesn't like about the subject will eventually come to the fore, because you
are running a can't have on him.  It's a games condition; you are fixing it so
he can't have what he's being educated in.  The more theory on the mind you
give someone, unaccompanied by an ability or opportunity to confront the
substance of minds, thinkingness, and the beingness of life, the less reality
they will have on it.  So you'd do better to leave them alone in their present
confusion.  All training must be accompanied by confronting, particularly in
the creative fields.  The cure for obsessive create is confront.  If the guy
is creating his own aberrations, it must be that the road out would be
confront.  That would be the secret of clearing.

     A mind is an obsessive unknowing creation, into which only a few
important factors enter:

     Create                   Problems

     Confront                 Change

     Responsibility           Not-know

Goals prevent the PC from looking at anything.  He's always



                                       55

looking at tomorrow, not looking at what he's looking at.  There's nothing
wrong with having goals, but what you are looking for is the obsessive goal of
the case.  There's only one of these, and it prevents the PC from looking at
any part of that goal's chain, because the goal is so obsessive that it
removes his attention from that chain to something that isn't yet in the
chain.  When you find the terminal that represents that goal, you'll have
found the terminal they've never looked at or inspected but have been.  With
an obsessive goal, the PC isn't in PT.  He's down the future track at an
imagined future point, so of course he isn't confronting where he is.  One of
the PC's goals leads to the person who most obsessively had that goal, which
is the valence [the PC is in], and of course this is the total no-confront of
the bank all bunched up in that spot.  If you only looked at tomorrow and
never observed the immediacy of the situation, you would eventually have
as-ised any future of it at all.  So it hangs in time 100%.  You've never
as-ised any immediacy of the situation, so it is all there on that chain, and
all the future of it is as-ised.  Goals processing undoes this mechanism of
no-confront.  You are taking off all the futures.  If you did goals processing
crudely and peculiarly, you could get the PC totally regressed so that only
some back point of the track has any reality to him, and no present point
does.  If you ARC broke him, didn't keep him moving on the track, this could
happen -- a right-now-ness of moments on the track.  Those points are on the
goals chain; they're moments where the PC wished to God he were somewhere
else, but he can't be somewhere else, so all he's got left to escape to is a
future.  This solid scene he's looking at -- no part of it is actually
observed.  It's a total overwhelm, and he's got a future there, a future
postulate.  So it stays on the track as a solidity, since he can't confront
it.  He'll hit these and bounce into the future.  This could happen quite
early in SOP Goals running.  The more he's confronted elsewheres than the
unwanted incident, the more they have as-ised, and the more he's fixed in the
incident where he didn't want to be.  When you run creative processing, these
points come up easily, because he's obsessively creating them all the time.

     A problem is the least confrontable thing there is, being composed of
unconfrontable confusions.

     Some PC's will run a total irresponsibility on problems of any kind.
They will perceive no connection between having trouble in life and not
confronting problems in their lives.  This is the clue to slow clearing.
Profiles don't change when PTP's exist.

     A clue to cases is the magnitude of problem the PC comes up with.  It can
drive kids buggy when their parents' idea of what a problem is is grossly
different from theirs.  You may see someone sitting in the middle of a
disaster of a dramatic or a quiet sort who is worrying about the fact that the
lady next door has bought a new hat.  That's the level of problem which that
person can confront, and the things connected with the disaster are not
problems.  In fact, they're not even there.  Someone could say to this lady,
"Why don't you straighten all this out " and she'll think they're nuts, that
there's nothing to look at, or if there was something there, there would be
nothing you could do about it.  You could probably do a sanity and ability
test by making a list of problems by dynamics -- a prepared list -- in
gradients of magnitude.  You could then have the test taker just check the
"problems" in each dynamic.  What he checks would tell you where he lives.



                                       56


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=11/7/61
Volnum=1
Issue=27
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-27  Problems and Solutions




6107C11 SHSpec-27  Problems and Solutions

     Just going into session and running "Do fish swim?" would give gain if
there were no PTP's, ARC breaks, or W/H's.  This is hard to teach auditors,
though it's been known since 1955 that if a PTP was present, you'd get no
change in profile, if an ARC break was present, you'd have a depressed graph,
and if a W/H is present, you don't even have a session.  It's weird; You're
trying to hold the PC still so that you can audit him.

     A problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision.  Any
time you have a fixed stable postulate, it accumulates, or came about because
of, a confusion.  A problem has at least two stable data (the two opposed
postulates), each surrounded by a confusion, so at a MESTy level, it looks
like a confusion -- counter-confusion situation.  War is one of these.  Twenty
years after World War II, traces of it persist as NATO, the Common Market,
etc.

     As for the bank, someone set up some idea that he should oppose to some
other idea.  However, the idea that he set up to oppose the other idea commits
overts against the other idea in that it confuses the other idea.  Then it, in
turn, gets back confusion, and the other idea attacks his idea, so you wind up
with two opposed confusions, which then gather more confusion.  This then goes
down the ages as one aspect of the reactive mind.  Problems have duration;
thus the reactive mind has duration.  How many ways could you take a problem
apart?  As motion, as looking at two things, as getting confusions of
comparable magnitude -- all without adding a new solution.  Solving problems
without being stuck with a new solution has never been done before.
Psychoanalysis, by contrast, lays in a new solution that produces new
confusions, then more solutions.  Thus you get branches and schools of
psychoanalysis.

     If someone has to have a solution, he didn't confront and as-is the
problem.  A solution is always a no-confront; confronting produces a
vanishment of the problem.  If you want something to persist, just don't
confront it.  This gets us back to the original mechanism of structure in this
universe: preventing solution of the problems of the universe to guarantee the
persistence of the universe.  So anybody who solved problems with regard to
the universe was persona non grata with anyone who was trying to get a total
persistence of the universe.  The problem is that it is impossible to create
and at the same time to say that something will persist.  [Things created tend
to as-is] [So if we want things persisting around us.] if we can't create,
we've got to preserve what was created.  The way to preserve it is to get in
this mechanism of no-confront and solutions that we are now trying to undo in
the reactive mind.  This is the idea that "anyone who solves problems is a
dead duck.  Horrible things will happen to anyone who solves problems." And
everybody agrees 100%, and everybody does it to everyone, and you get a
physical universe fact that enters the mental field.  [With reference to the
above quote, I think Hubbard means by "solve," "As-is."]  This is where
structure and mind take their first divergence.  If you want a shakily
persisting universe to persist forevermore, you've got to prevent a solution
[As-ising] of its mysteries.  You've got to prevent it from being confronted.
So you say, "Anyone who tries to solve this thing is gonna get it." This goes
over into PC's trying to solve their problems from day to day.  The terrors of
having solutions [as-isings] then bring about all these other mechanisms.



                                       57

     The universe poses a lot of problems: why is it here; why does time go
clickety-click, etc.  And a person who could be a tremendous mystery thought
he could guarantee to himself a tremendous persistence.  Obviously, the way to
live was to be mysterious, and if you confronted nothing, you'd live on and
on.  So we developed a whole genus of thetan who had decided not to solve
anything, because to solve something is dangerous.  If you just ask a PC to
solve something repetitively, masses close in on him.  He dramatizes the cure
of the impersistence of universes.

     Basically, there's nothing wrong with solving [as-ising] problems, but
when you've got tremendous overts against people who were trying to solve
problems, of course it becomes impossible to solve problems.  The persistence
of the reactive mind is a Q and A'ing with the physical universe.  So you find
that most physical universe principles that affect the mind are in the area of
problems: gravity, being trapped, stillness, etc.  The person gets threatened,
"You solve [as-is] a problem and we'll put you in jail," so the fellow has a
problem, doesn't solve a problem, doesn't confront the problem, doesn't create
space between himself and the problem, and of course he gets embedded in a
sort of black basalt of energy.  He "solves" the problem and jails himself!
He knows if you confront a problem, you get confused.

     All this is a protective mechanism resulting from an upper-level creative
failure.  The consequences of creating showed up with step six.  So after the
universe was figured out on the basis of, "If you create one, there are
terrible consequences"; therefore it's impossible to create another one.  So
your havingness would be shot to pieces if you knocked out the one you've got,
because you couldn't create another one.  You've already had, earlier on the
track, tremendous problems on the subject of creation.  It isn't enough to
just create something and say, "That's it." You have to agree it's valuable
and no one can ever create another one like it, etc.  You make something
valuable by protecting it and by never being able to replace it.  These are
all mechanisms of value, by which people try to get you to lay off MEST.  So
everyone is convinced that creation carries penalties and that you have to
protect creations against being as-ised, and you get the problem sequence
going.  We have legends against looking -- Medusa, Pandora, etc.  Another
threat would be, "You realize that if you solved the problem of time, all time
would cease." Actually, if you could solve the problem of time, the worst that
would happen would be having to put it there for yourself again.  And mass
without time probably wouldn't entrap anybody, anyhow.

     If you told the PC, "Face a solution," repetitively, he'd get upset.  In
the first place, solutions are the easiest things a thetan does and the
easiest things to create, and he'd practically get his head knocked off with
the confusion surrounding the solutions.  You didn't have him looking at the
confusions -- only the solutions, so the confusions just get more confused.
Not confronting the confusions, you have no reason why any of the solutions
ever occurred.  If we say, "Look at the confusion," they haven't much inkling
where to look.  What's communicable is the package of confusion + solution
which is the problem.  When he looks at problems, he looks at future solutions
too, so it as-ises things a bit.

     You're not trying to get the fellow to solve or erase problems but to get
him over his horror of problems and the piability of solving things.  You're
trying to get him to recover from these things which were set up on the very
earliest part of the track.  A person who can't confront problems hasn't much
judgment, so this is the clue to judgment.  Judgment can only take place in
the presence of observation.  We can observe synthetically



                                       58

when using mathematics, or when mocking something up.  Judgment is absent in a
person who can't confront a problem.  The auditor who cannot confront the
problems of the PC won't see them as problems, won't handle them, and the PC
won't make progress.  So this resolves auditing too; the more confrontingness
a person has, the better his judgment.  An auditor with judgment is a valuable
auditor.

     So we want to get someone familiar with problems.  We start with reach
and withdraw on the MEST he has problems with.  Any number of processes will
increase the PC's familiarity with problems.

     People go off onto the collection of solutions for which no problems
exist, e.g. decorative knot tying or botany.  Then there are people who will
have nothing to do with problems but are overwhelmed with problems.  Most of
these problems wouldn't seem like real problems to you, just facts, as he
describes them.  [E.g.  "Tell me a problem." "Ok... The sidewalk."] As you
enter the area of problems with a PC, you'll find him in one of these two
conditions, if it's a problem he's never been able to handle:

           1. Pc in an obsessive automaticity of solutions

           2. Pc totally immersed in the problem as a fact.

He'll never be in the center line of, "These are problems," until he wakes up
to it.  When you run problems on someone, he first starts coming up with
solutions, then, on a gradient, he starts to relate them to the facts, which
for him appear to be problems.  Or he goes into the processing announcing
facts, not solutions.  So it doesn't seem to you, the auditor, that you are
listening to problems.  It's not that he hasn't told you the whole story; The
fact he's given you is, to him, a problem.  It starts peeling back,
onion-like, until you find eventually there was some problem it was involved
in, usually with an overt in it, and he can see it all and it blows.

     The way to get the PC more familiar with problems is to get him to look
at them.  "Recall a problem," is one way; 6-way confront bracket is another.
The two can be combined with profit.  You can also use, "Recall a PTP." This
situated him in the time of the problem.  It's a head-on type of process, with
no alter-is of time.  [For 6-Way Confront, see HCOB 6Jul61 "Routine 1A"]

     In view of the fact that the aberration about problems was originated to
protect the universe and creations, you find the early end of a problems run
appearing to run forever, since it was put there to insure persistence.
However, you will notice that the TA is active.  This then starts
deteriorating, and he'll pass to either side, either facts or solutions or
cognitions.  He can alternate between facts and solutions, too.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=12/7/61
Volnum=1
Issue=28
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-28  Q and A Period




6107C12 SHSpec-28  Q and A Period

     Continuous lack of cognitions on the part of the PC means he's hung up in
fantastic maybe's.  The way to take it apart, as per the Anatomy of Maybe, as
set forth in Scientology 8-80, is on the plus-minus side.  "How have you done
it?" "How have you not done it?" "Maybe" does not have any reality in fact;
it's a manifestation of positive and negative.  This is also the anatomy of
problems.  Maybe is counterbalanced insistence on "It is." "It isn't." or
"must/must not." Since it is not a fact, it must be taken apart on the basis
of the two sides.  This handles the subject of anxiety, which is must-must
not, is-isn't.  It is a frantic state of maybe.  So such a case should be run
on a positive-negative bracketing.  Everything you run on such a PC should be
run plus and minus, even rudiments!  The case will change and never seem to
notice it.



                                       59

     It's not impossible to run solutions; just don't prevent the PC from
examining the problem.  E.g.  SOP Goals runs solutions.

     The universe has been booby-trapped with ease of getting in and
difficulty of getting out, e.g. marriage, the army, etc.  Scientology even
does it to a degree: discouraging people from squirrelling, etc.  Because it's
rigged this way, the way out has to approximate the way in.

     All resistance is to prevent oneself from going any further down.  If you
can resolve the resistance to getting worse, the PC will get better.  He's
preventing deteriorating, but this can produce deterioration; however, that is
not his intention.  All the auditor has to do is to convince the PC that he's
not going to push him further down, nor to cure him, then to dissolve his
resistance to getting worse, which is pinning him down, and the PC can then
spring back.

     If the PC didn't make his goal for the session, you can ask, "What didn't
happen?" and sometimes you will get his hidden standard.

                   [Various details about running processes.]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=14/7/61
Volnum=1
Issue=29
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-29  Checking Ruds and Withholds




6107C14 SHSpec-29  Checking Ruds and Withholds

     To clear somebody at this time, he must be in a body, just so he can be
picked up and audited.  A thetan who has just dropped a body has to get
another one before we can clear him.

     When columns A, B, C, and D consistently register low after processing,
you know the PC hasn't found the auditor.  This is due either to an auditor
who doesn't impinge, or a PC who can't tolerate being effect or control.

     A case that hangs fire has an automatic not-is, which can wipe out the
needle read.  He'll tell you all sorts of overts on a sec check but not
consider them bad.  He doesn't think it's real.  He knows about it, but it's
all not-ised.  Don't get outraged with the auditor who missed it.  He didn't
really miss it.  All the time you are checking the PC over, you ask about the
auditing, so as to unearth the moment of not-is.  You'll make it safe by
putting it on a via, e.g.  "Have you ever thought it wouldn't hold up your
case if you didn't tell your auditor?" "Did you ever have objections to the
auditing room and just fail to mention it?" "Is there any time in your life
when you felt completely beyond help?" "Did you ever tell your auditor?" These
are tricky questions, but you're counting on the fact that, during that fifty
hours, something did get brought to view that can be re-examined when
spotted.  It requires a bit of cleverness to spot it.  There's no sense in
trying this technique before he's has any auditing; the ground hasn't been
plowed yet.  He's been like this all his life and thinks it's normal.  The
meter registers on disagreement and he doesn't have any yet. (In fact, you can
use "disagreement" as a broad-sweep ruds question when nothing else will
register.) The "This is normal" is in Dianetics, the Evolution of a Science,
as the "Everyone knows..."  The PC really knows it's not normal, but the
valence he's in considers it's OK.  You could ask, "What is life really like?"
to find out what "normal"is to him.  When we say "It's below his level of
reality," we mean he has some specialized compartmented values of existence,
which really have nothing to do with existence.  His level of reality has
nothing to do with other people.  This is his reality, so it doesn't register
when you ask for differences.  For instance, you ask for critical thoughts; he
says "No", and it doesn't register because it's all justified that he natters
continually.  The disagreement is in total agreement with



                                       60

his reality.  They have everything identified with everything, so there is no
sense in disagreement.  The complexity of disagreement with everything is such
that the disagreement is just the way things should be.  Thus there is no
read.  An automatic not-is is an automatic disagree.  You have to be clever to
unveil it all.  The PC has opted out of life because it was too much, but he
knows he shouldn't have.  He will perhaps tell you that he has led a calm,
orderly life; that nothing much has happened.  Actually, he just hopes he has
no past.

     How do you get him back into the mainstream of life?  The meanest thing
you can do is to ask him, "Have you ever left anyplace?"  He answers.  Then
you hit him with, "Why?" Now you are asking for the points of departure from
the main highway.  You are asking, "What didn't you confront that you feel you
should have confronted?" Now the meter gets active.

     It can be summed up in this way, "Did you ever have anybody demand that
you put your attention on something?" "Have you ever had anybody tell you that
you're wrong not to have had your attention on something?" That's the basic
trick.  This comes up on problems.  The basic trick of life: making people
confront is the overt and having to confront is the motivator.  All deaths,
and the whole mechanism of death, comes from unwillingness to confront.  So
when people leave and feel they shouldn't have left, it is because there was
something there that was too threatening and it keyed in death, so they did a
Q and A on death and opted out of life.  They were running a no-confront on
people, giving people things that couldn't be confronted.  If you do that, you
get the idea that you can't confront.  After you get that idea, you can only
leave.  And when you can't even leave any more, all you can do is to go nuts.
When you get the why of leaving, you can ask if that's been a problem to him
at any other time.  You could get his PTP that way.  You can ask, "Have you
ever thought of blowing session?" "Why?" What you've done here is to walk
around, cleverly using all the buttons that he is using to lie there quietly
unchanged.  The buttons of the prehav scale can be used in this line, e.g.
"prevent", which has to do with problems.  The surprise element is effective
in all this, so it shouldn't be rote.  The PC must realize that he is being
interrogated by an intelligence.

     Control is associated with intelligence.  The labor - management
situation stems from suspiciousness of cleverness.  When people are un-clever,
they are easily overwhelmed by cleverness.  They can protest it with a
strike.  Labor's basic yap is against the intelligence of management, but
management is never bright enough to use intelligence as a counter-weapon.
Intelligence is an altitude factor.  This applies very strongly in sec
checking.  You won't get anywhere operating as a robot.  Similarly with ruds.

     If you know there is something wrong because the PC hasn't responded to
the correct processes, then there has got to be something wrong with
rudiments.  If you can't get the PC to respond well, it's not that he is
trying to hide from you consciously.  He is being a dead body up in a gully
covered with leaves, and you've got to work around cleverly to communicate
with him so he can be gotten back into life.  The trouble is that he thinks he
is just lying there quietly, and he isn't.  He is shooting guns and making all
kinds of fuss.  On the other hand, you don't want to get so helpful that he
comes to rely on you totally and never looks.



                                       61


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=18/7/61
Volnum=1
Issue=30
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-30  Can't Have -- Create




6107C18 SHSpec-30  Can't Have -- Create

     In 1952, the Philadelphia Doctorate Course and Scientology 8-8008 were
the basic texts on havingness.  Havingness is a dominant thing; it is a part
of games conditions.  Now we are back to games conditions and its relation to
havingness.  In Scientology 8-8008, we had the principle that the goal of
processing is to remedy the scarcity and abundance of all things.  But all
that we previously had to do this was creative processing, and a lot of people
couldn't run it.  Now we have come up with a new way to do this and thus clear
someone fast.

     There is a new datum on havingness: its relation to create.  After you
create something, you may have it or not; create doesn't necessarily mean that
you'll have.  All of auditing could be considered prehavingness, hence the
prehav scale.  The relationship between creating and havingness has to do
with the fundamental formation of the reactive bank and is very important:
What a person can't have, he creates.  That is the law on which man operates.
It is the most fundamental law of the bank that has yet been discovered.  This
is how the bank is formed.  E.g.  whenever Italy gets beaten, they have a
Renaissance, or like, when you abuse a plant, it blooms.  LRH wanted a ship
and couldn't buy one, so he started to build one; if a rosebush can't have a
rose (if you trim it off), it creates roses.  If a shipyard can't have ships,
it builds ships that wear out in twenty years, so you can't have the ships
either.  Probably the government punishes everyone for producing in order to
make them produce on a reactive basis.

     There's evidently some cross-relationship that goes further than the O/W
mechanism.  It was described in theory in Scientology 8-8008 plus in the
discussion of games conditions in The Fundamentals of Thought.  Games
conditions concern preventing people from having things.  Things of all sorts
are havingness.  The thetan is only unhappy when he can't have.  His idea of
quality could be reformed.  If you deny him anything, he'll try to obtain it
(e.g. the Prohibition).  Now LRH knows how to make a civilization: decide what
would be good things to have and create knuckleheaded bureaus to prevent each
one of them.  The trouble with economics is that it tries to create demand
with supply.  It should use scarcity.  How do you create creation?  Run a
broad can't have.  The games condition can get so bad that if you insist on
people having something, they don't want it.  Police action creates crime; BBC
creates rock and roll.

     As long as you aren't in a games condition with the people around you, as
long as you don't run a can't have or a must have on them and still have
control, all will be smooth sailing.  It's supposed to be a good thing on this
planet to run a can't have, e.g. with strictness.  But this is the way you
create problems.  Problems may appear to be don't haves, but how did the PC
get into the condition of don't have?  Actually, don't have is the last ditch
of can't have.  Because even with a can't have, you could materialize what you
don't have, maybe even build one.  But the way you got into a don't have was
the overt-motivator sequence.  First you run a can't have on others, then they
don't have, then you don't have.  So if the PC doesn't have anything, it must
be because he denied it.  If he's got a low quality of something, he gets it
thus: he can't have a good one, but nobody wants a bad one, so he's got a bad
one.  The test of his havingness is that he has it because nobody wants it.
If nobody wants it, he can have it.



                                       62

     Total lack of something doesn't mean that the thetan is without it.
It'll still be obsessively created in his reactive bank.  The covert
creativity of the bank is a remedy of havingness.  That's all it is.

     Now say you run a can't have on somebody on sex; then you find people
running a can't have on you on the subject of sex, and you're puzzled.  You'll
find 2D activities are impossible, so you're likely to do a flip -- to go off
in some different direction and build up various sorts of 2D activities you
could have.  When these also fail, you end up with them hidden from yourself
but still created in the bank.  So we get the downgrading quality.  The
degrade is on the basis of what he can have.  A common denominator of pcs at
the bottom is the complaint of not being able to feel.  A bit higher, they
complain of not feeling as much as they'd like about things.  That's a can't
have on feelings.  Also, the feelings degrade, and go on down the tone scale.
Serenity is impossible, so the thetan becomes enthusiastic, but that's an
overt, so he goes down to conservatism, but that's for bank managers, so he
gets bored, but people won't let you be bored, so ... down to no feelings.  But
of course all these feelings are being mocked up at the back of the bank.

     At the first St. Hill ACC, LRH talked about two routes:  experience, and
the auditing route used at that time.  They are now combined, because the
experiential factor is havingness.  Experience is havingness, so all
experience can be restored.  Beingness and doingness can be junior to
havingness.  [But Cf. p. 42, at upper level strata, beingness is higher than
doingness, which is higher than havingness, so maybe LRH is talking about a
lower level stratum here.]  But beingness and doingness operate on the same
can't have mechanism.  When you hit bottom on your own beingness, you'll mock
up some very desirable beingness, and you will be that, except that you are
not really being that.  For instance, a kid isn't permitted to be a pilot and
fly airplanes, so he mocks up being an ace aviator.  A person may end up
settling for a lesser and lesser beingness.  Finally, he is not being much, so
he mocks up a substitute reactive beingness.  Little kids are not permitted to
fly planes, so what do they do?  They become "aviators".

     What confuses people is that, while can't have produces create at a
reactive level, all this can take place at an analytical level.  Not all can't
haves trigger the obsessive create, but if you communicate the can't have in
an unacceptable (can't have) way, in a good games condition, the guy may well
slip into the reactive create.  Absence of ARC is almost a requisite for a
reactive creation by reason of a can't have.  If you run a strong can't have
on war in the interests of peace, war will result.  Keeping the peace is not
done by running a can't have on war by propaganda, etc.  For instance, at the
outset of World War II, no information was given out about the war; it was not
considered OK to attack the enemy, yet we did get ourselves into it.  When
people run a can't have on things that do exist, we get a delusory state.
Christian Science does this.  Try running 8-C on a Christian Scientist.  The
insistence of a thetan on Axiom 1 is fantastic.

     On some people, if you try to run a think process, they can't do it.
These people must have an O/W games condition on thoughts, because they can't
have a thought.  If someone withholds a thought, he's running a games
condition on you on the subject of "You can't have it." This will put him in a
condition where he has less of it.  If you can get off his withholds, i.e. get
him to give you the thought, you've stopped him from playing that game
condition,



                                       63

and he'll feel better.  But why does he have these discreditable things
anyway?  Because they are scarce.  If a thought is scarce, there has been a
cut-down of a thought of activity.  So the person withholds telling you about
actions agains the mores of society because such actions are scarce.  If you
can get hold of one, it's his jewel -- a scarcity.  He also holds onto it
because he doesn't want you to have bad thoughts about him.  This is another
games condition.  To handle this, you could run a can't have process on
thoughts, theoretically:

     1. What thought haven't you permitted another to have?

     2. What thought hasn't another permitted you to have?

     You could see another mechanism from another theoretical process.  You
run, "Think of a (say, woman)." At first he gets a generality or nothing, then
he thinks of specific departed women, then dead women, sick women, funerals
too.  You are making him examine the scarcity of women, and it runs backwards
to the point where he could think of a present woman with perfect ease and get
a 3D picture of her.  Whatever it is you find him inverted or nonexistent on,
you develop a process by which you can discharge his propensity for using that
item in a games condition on others and they on him.  Because you are running
out stable data on this, you add a confusion, a problem, or a motion along
with it.  For instance, you could use, "When have you denied another a woman?
When has another denied you a woman?  What problem about women is not present
now?" The "not present now" is because it is the not-is version of problem
confront.  This is a murderous process because it un-not-ises everything
involved.

     A games condition is unnatural since, in such a condition, the person
becomes convinced that there is only that game, so they run the can't have,
and the more they do this, the less they have of it.  Eventually, it
disappears from view, and they have gotten worse, not better.  "Way back,
people wouldn't clear because they thought it meant losing their game.  When
cleared, they promptly went out and aberrated themselves again to have a
game.  They expressed it as, "I didn't want to be detached from existence."
What pinned it down was a scarcity of games.  They thought being aberrated was
the only game going.

     The remedy of havingness of games is broadening the PC's view on the
subject of games.  All you have to do is knock out his fixed attention on
aberrated games, so that he can look around at all the other games.  If you do
this, the PC will blow clear almost at once.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/7/61
Volnum=1
Issue=31
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-31  Q and A Period: Auditor Effect on Meter Read




6107C19 SHSpec-31  Q and A Period: Auditor Effect on Meter Read

     A stage four needle often sits around clear read, but the PC is a dead
thetan.  It has about a 2 1/2 inch swing.  It goes up, sticks (unlike the
F/N), and drops back.  It keeps doing it, no matter what the auditor does.
The PC won't read on sec check, ruds, or anything.  It's an electronic
transfer of energy in the mind, a machine reaction.  The person distrusts
himself to such a degree that he has become a machine.  Machines are run by
energy.  You are seeing something like an AC motor, feeding its current on a
surge, and then reversing its flow, repetitively.  This is a charge line.  The
only thing that can change it is auditing.  The person is a total
no-responsibility case: he knows he can have no effect on



                                       64

anything.  CCH's undercut it best; think processes are not very effective
because this kind of PC's thought has no effect on the bank.

     The common denominator of all cases is the degree of effect the thetan
has on his bank.  This ranges from absolute zero to total easy effect on the
bank.  The stage four needle is a retreat from the bottom.  Some buttons are
still open -- problems, confusion, motion, leaving, or something.  On such a
case, all you have to do is to trigger one of his automaticities and let it
run off the case, giving the guy more control over his bank.  You are not, at
this stage, really asking the PC to do anything.

     There such a thing as a "spook" stage four needle, turned on by the
auditor's statement.  It doesn't matter what the auditor says.  This is very
common.  A third of pcs have it.  That's you energizing the bank.  You can
have more effect on the bank than the PC has.  This is something auditors find
hard to duplicate, being sold on the idea that the PC is responsible for it
all.  They can't see the PC's pictures, so they don't believe it.

     Sometimes the "spook" stage four needle confuses you when doing a sec
check.  The impact of your thinkingness and speakingness will activate the
bank.  This is the lowest reaction, below a lie reaction or a reverse lie
reaction.  If you're sec checking a PC, his level of interest rises and
creates an emergency level.  So don't avoid a reaction on the needle just
because the PC has one of these automatic reactions on the needle at first.
When you ask meaty questions, he's right in there reacting.  So any reaction
on a sec check question that might be meaningful is always taken by the
auditor as factual, providing it's an instant read.  A stage four needle
probably isn't an exception to this.  A complicated question might not be
duplicated as asked, so 3/4 sec. lag could still be an instant read.  Anything
more than one second lag is totally useless.

     A can't have is not a prerequisite for creating, only for unknowing
creation.  Nearly everyone who's studied the mind has studied only the
analytical mind.  We're looking at reactive mind laws.  But even this response
was originally an analytical response; all reactive responses were originally
analytical.  One can just decide to create something knowingly.  This other
law works this way:  one day you get a picture of a rhinoceros in front of
you, because someone somewhere prohibited you from having rhinoceroses.  But
you aren't aware of ever having wanted one.  This explains the mysterious
appearance of a mental image picture which has been hitherto unexplained.  It
also explains some strange desire to make or do something: someone has run a
can't have on you.  But most creativeness is spontaneous and able
[analytical].  Reactive creativeness is generally terrible.

     There is such a thing as a negative sec check to handle not-is in the
PC.  You can knock the withhold into existence by asking questions which
as-is the not-is, e.g., "When haven't you stolen something?" Then you could
ask the the positive question.

     E-meters can be pushed around by pcs, but the reactions look different
from reactive reads.  It looks like body motion -- jerky.  If a PC is worried
about pushing around the meter, he's:

          1. Not in session.

          2. Got withholds.

          3. He wants to impress the auditor.

It's what the PC doesn't know about that moves the needle.  The remedy is to
handle ruds.



                                       65

     Vitamins to be taken during an intensive:

"Dianazene" (used for radiation sickness; has iron in it) | |Vitamin

    __
    |B1 - 100 mg
GUK |
    |Dicalcium Phosphate - fifteen grains (about one gram)
    |
    |Vitamin C 250 mg
    --

     With:

                         __
     Nicotinic Acid 100mg |
                          |  Dianazene?
     Iron                 |
                         --

you can run out all sunburns, radiation flash burns, etc.  This can turn skin
cancer on and off.  When sunburn turned on with this, you will see a flush in
the shape of a bathing suit.  Likewise, not smoking enough will cause lung
cancer.

     GUK makes the PC work better for the first 57 minutes after taking it.
The reason for the calcium is the B1 "finds" calcium somewhere in the body.
GUK also helps nightmares.  It'll run engrams through all by itself.  B1 also
robs the body of ascorbic acid, so you have to replace this too.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=20/7/61
Volnum=1
Issue=32
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-32  Games Conditions




6107C20 SHSpec-32  Games Conditions

     A games condition means an agreement of can't have amongst beings.  It's
have for self and can't have for others in a true games condition, but as an
agreement it's can't have on all flows.  It's agreement that nails it in
concrete.  A widespread can't have agreement gives you lots of mass.  For
instance the Christian prohibition on sex, which is very fundamental as a
can't create.  Bodies are necessary as favorite vehicles and identities, but
there's a penalty in the Christian system for creating them.  This results in
a must-must not.  It is in the field of disagreement and can be processed in
various ways.

     But how did you get suckered into a position like this, where you could
accumulate motivators like this?  You must have been party to the can't have
somewhere along the line; you can't suffer any consequences you had no hand in
creating, and you must have done it by agreement with a lot of others.  With
the disagreement you're objecting to the game you helped to create in the
first place.  If you get the disagreement off, you get a considerable
resurgence.  You could undercut it by getting all the agreements to have the
game.

     A games condition process seeks to isolate the basic agreements on some
kind of game.  "Games condition" is a derogatory term.  It means a package
consisting of a fixated attention, inability to escape coupled with inability
to attack, to the exclusion of other games.  There's nothing wrong with having
games, but a game condition is unknown, arbitrary, reactive, performed outside
one's choice, without his consent or will.  It's a sort of mental doingness
trap.  In it, you've got to do things, assume a certain beingness, and have no
communication with anyone not part of the game.  The world thus becomes
massless, timeless, spaceless, and people-less very rapidly.  Most marriages
that go on the rocks are in a games condition, where there's a total agreement
that neither one can have anything, overlaid with another set of agreements
that are in disagreement with that fundamental can't have agreement.  Their
tenderest moments are when they're in disagreement with the basic agreement of
can't have.  This gives us interesting maxims like, "Hell hath no fury like a
woman scorned," which reflects the later disagreement.  When two people get
this fixated, the rest of the world ceases to exist.  They just stay with each
other and shut out the rest of the world.



                                       66

     Games conditions can exist on any dynamic.  Wars are an example on the
third or fourth dynamics.  One can find portions of the track where one has
repeatedly gotten into the same game, e.g. defending the capitol by being
part of an interceptor squadron shooting down or being shot down by the enemy
right over the middle of the airport.  This was a games condition because it
was an unknowing fixated activity; it did nothing effective for the society.

     The clue to a games condition is that the person is doing a compulsive
confront that makes it necessary for him to assume a compulsive beingness.  In
order to play this game, one must deny a certain havingness.  The US has, in
its last two wars, demonstrated itself to be in a war games condition because
it cannot have the fruits of any of its victories.  In a games condition, no
matter what the person says, he always ends up with no havingness.  So you get
an obsessive beingness and doingness and a can't havingness.  Everybody has a
few games conditions; few have complete games conditions going.  The latter
are in the spin bin.  When you see one of these games conditions, it defies
all logic because it's obsessive.  It has nothing to do with the real world.
This is true of all aberration.  It's out of PT.  The rationale which
rationalizes a games condition has holes in it.  But don't try to argue
someone out of it; audit him out of it.  You can't educate someone out of a
games condition because it's aberrated and he can't look at it analytically.

     The situation of a person who can't influence his bank with thinkingness
is interesting.  The gradient scale of less effectiveness in this regard ends
in no effectiveness.  If you give such a person an auditing command, he
doesn't do it, and even if he did do it, it would have no effect on the bank.
Such a person breaks auditors' hearts and gives people loses.  It is of
interest to understand the anatomy of this phenomenon, which exists to some
degree in all cases, since clearing a person means putting him in control of
the bank.  We've been working on the question of how a person could get into a
condition where they could not affect the bank since 1954.

     The answer is withholds.  The fellow is backing out of life; he's
withholding as part of a games condition; denying something to someone else.
The withhold gives him a can't reach, a pull-back.  Multiply this by a lot of
instances and you find that eventually the person practically exits from the
dynamics.  But this is really not possible to do, so he inverts on them.  As
far as he's concerned, his effort is to leave, compounded with the withhold
and not-reach.  Thus you get an ineffectiveness.  You can't control something
you can't reach and from which you are withholding yourself.  The mustn't
reach is really a mustn't be reached, of course.  This is true especially when
there is punishment involved.  Punishment compounds withholds.  So as we go
downscale on reach, we get:

          1. Ineffectiveness

          2. Destructiveness (the PC can't communicate with something well
             enough to understand it, so when he does reach, he can only be
             destructive)

          3. Inability even to destroy something.

          4. Inability to have any influence at all, of any kind.

          5. Inability even to affect his own mind.

     Add up all these withholds and can't haves on all dynamics and you get
someone who's totally withdrawn, individuated; totally ineffective on his own
bank.  When he runs can't have on people, he makes them less familiar and more
withdrawn from things.  Then, by the overt-motivator sequence, this reacts on
him, so he stops



                                       67

reaching and starts withholding.  At 100% withhold, or 100% withdraw, he can't
influence anything, including his thoughts and bank.  If he reads on the
meter, you know something is effecting his bank.  Don't be amazed if the PC
has never noticed, really, the condition he's in.  He can't think or
rationalize on the subject; he will buy wrong why's on it readily.

     So if you run a command that you haven't tested for read, you are doing
something adventurous, since if it didn't read, you're in an area where he's
still totally ineffective or totally effective.

     A PC can be compulsively exterior: the detached case.  Freud could never
help this kind of case.  That's someone who is backed out of the dynamics and
backed out of his head.  People will tell you they feel detached.  That
indicates a games condition in the area where they feel detached.  Most
homosexuals are detached in this sense.  In any area a person is in a games
condition about, he is detached.  How do you reverse the games condition?
Find something that reads on the E-meter and is therefore something he can
effect, i.e. something real to the PC.  Real means, "Can the PC be effective
in that sphere?" Get the PC's withholds and can't have off the subject on a
gradient scale.  You take off the games condition, and the PC can now reach in
the area and regain effectiveness.  It's basically idiotically simple, but if
you violate that doingness, you don't get results in auditing.  Say you want
to cure psychosomatics with auditing.  You can find people who are so much the
effect of their psychosomatics, you can have more effect on them than the they
can.  You can make them well, but they don't know it!  So they never thank you
for getting well.  What you should do to avoid this situation is to assess all
the person's difficulties, get the best read, get off all the person's
withholds on the area, get the games conditions in the area cured, and the
difficulty will right itself.  You can eradicate illness and upsets, but you
have to assess them first.  The fact that the PC complains about something all
the time doesn't prove anything.  It could be a circuit or a mechanism; or it
could be part of some other games condition.  There is a gradient scale of
difficulties.  The PC may have lots of them, but may be effective only in one
area.  That's where you must start.  That's been the barriered line on healing
and help.

     If you run a command that doesn't read, the PC is ineffective in the
area.  Therefore it's auditor vs the PC's bank, with no help from the PC.
He'll be ARC breaky, hard to audit because you're just auditing bank and the
PC isn't there.  This violates the basic auditing principle: auditor plus PC
is greater than the bank.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=3/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=33
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-33  Creation and Goals




6108C03 SHSpec-33  Creation and Goals

     The earliest unanswered question in dianetics and scientology is, "Why
does a thetan mock up bad pictures?" It's remained unanswered all these
years.  You almost never find anyone with a fixed pleasure moment.  Old
validation processing was productive of more grief charges, etc.! [Validation
processing = validation effort processing "This consists of discovering
moments when the preclear is successfully approaching goals; when he is
successfully exerting an effort; when his self-determined effort is winning."

L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=1/10/51
Volnum=0
Issue=0
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

OCTSER (October Series) Self-determinism -- Effort Processing, plus




5110CM01 OCTSER (October Series) Self-determinism -- Effort Processing, plus
Validation Straightwire, "the theory of which was to validate all the good
moments of the preclear's past by having him recall them (Ability Major 5,
"Ability Straightwire", page 7).] What is this fixation on death, disaster,
and invalidation?



                                       68

     One theoretical possibility is that he's getting even.  He's been made to
produce, so he mocks up a bad production.  Mechanically, of course, it's
something he hasn't as-ised because it's unpleasant, etc., but why did he
agree to those mechanics in the first place?  He makes an original agreement,
then revolts against it.  Maybe he's been made to produce lots of good things,
so he revolts with this mechanism, so when he's called upon to mock up
something good, he mocks up something bad.  This may happen on a 1.1 level.
This can be seen running pleasure moments, when the PC slips into the badness
of it all.  Assuming that the fellow is in revolt, this can be very overt
(hi-toned) or covert, e.g. not producing but having excuses for failure or
forgetting to do it at all; the latter is a lower harmonic of direct refusal.
Occlusion is this level of revolt, and we let people get away with it.  For
instance, Hitler's around somewhere, and we allow him to get away with having
forgotten who he's been.  "I can't" is a covert "I won't." The mechanism is so
lost it has become a way of life, not a revolt any more.  The guy just mocks
up bad pictures and forgets.  Some civilizations on the track were really
production-crazy, e.g.  Arslycus, where the thetans were actively producing,
mocking up matter.  You couldn't get away; there were entrapment mechanisms.
Production got a bad name because it was production against power of choice
over production.  The bank dramatizes this creation against the wish to
create.  The fellow doesn't want to mock up the bank, so he mocks up the
bank.  His will to create has been badly overwhelmed, partly because he
overwhelmed others' will to create.  Arslycus eventually fell apart.  Some
worker invented disintegration so that it could happen.  This was the only
possible response -- to out-create with a new idea something worse than what
was happening to them.

     Creation gets a bad name from enforced creation.  There's another side to
it.  LRH has been unhappiest when he's produced so much that he gluts the
market.  Others decide they've been out-created, and they get unhappy too.
That's not so upsetting; what's so upsetting is not having any market for your
creation, no observers, no audience, etc., and not having it wanted.  One does
want one's creations to be admired.  If you are made to produce when you don't
want to, or if you think there will be no appreciation of your production, you
will generally produce an overt product.  One can also think that a good
creation in some field will bring one into a state of victimization or some
unpleasant consequence.  In this case, one retreats, saying, "I can't," or "I
don't have any talent," or "I haven't been educated."

     In 1948, the answer to "Why does a thetan create a bank?" was that he
creates something with resonance between his own tone and what he creates in
the bank.  This is not the whole story, though.  An individual mocks up, or
doesn't, in an effort to prevent his will from being overthrown on the subject
of creation.  He gets mechanisms to inhibit creativeness in order to protect
his self-determinism.  These mechanisms are what we run into in processing.
This is why creative processing works, but it is also why some pcs eventually
dreamed up that the bank gets solid.  The mechanism was already there.

     Methods of denying creation are the most fundamental thing you're dealing
with in processing.  We have to figure out what the guy's afraid of and disarm
it on that angle.  So what is he afraid of?  He's afraid of being made to do.
(You can substitute "do" for "create" to avoid some mine fields.) He considers
there are bad consequences to doing; he considers that you have to hit a
thetan to get him to create.  This is an old-old consideration;



                                       69

it explains things like the high birth rate amongst the lower classes.  [It
also explains waiting until the last moment to write a paper, and the artistic
temperament and why artists seek out SP's.] If someone hits you, you'll make a
picture of it.  This explains to everyone that he's a victim -- he has been
made to create, and he is following the law that the best way to keep from
being hurt is to create.  This keeps you from being beaten.  The most involved
point in an engram is where the fellow thinks he has mocked up the engram in
full, which should keep him from further injury, then gets hit again by
something else, so he mocks that up too, and then there's more injury, or
something, which defeats him.  His best answer to a blow was to create.  That
used to get him off the hook.  Then he suffers defeat and an invalidation of
the mechanism of creation as a defense.  Then comes a total not-is of engrams,
which is another defeat, and the disappearance of earlier engrams.  People
with invisible fields have gotten to a chronic state of believing it won't do
any good to create.

     This all sums up to the thetan's responses to the accumulation of all the
times his choice was overwhelmed.  Someone's choice is overwhelmed, so he
responds in some way, in a downscale attempt to make his postulates stick,
which he never gives up trying to do.  The basic assumption of a thetan and
the first thing he wants to do, is the communication formula: Axiom 10.  It's
the most fundamental game in the interrelationship of thetans anyway.  From
there on, he just wants to make his postulates stick.  When he fails to create
an effect, he will still try to create an effect [by mocking stuff up].
Routine 3 (goals processing) is effective because you are looking over all the
powers of choice he has hoped to effect, most of which have failed, and
running out his failed powers of choice.  Running goals is a sneaky way of
getting at what postulates he would like to make stick by asking what
conditions he was trying to bring about.  The bank is the mechanisms of all
sorts that tend to defend his assertions of self, though the effect of these
mechanisms is to make a mess of the PC.  The disintegration of his postulates
is what's wrong with him.  His reaction to this is surprisingly extreme, but
the bank is still trying to have the effect.  The basic of the chain is an
overt, which is why overts work so well in processing.  Someone who is
obsessively protecting anything has overts on it.  He is still trying to make
his basic postulate of "effect on" stick, however.  Why does he make the
original overt postulate?  He has gotten into a games condition on creation,
that's why.  He has been creating against someone else, gets a lose on making
nothing of the opponent's creation, so he overts against it.  Early on the
track, thetans specialized in goofy games and got into forgetting what they
were doing.  So there seems to be something wrong in the field of postulates.
Theoretically, you could run a PC on, "What effect could you actually create?"
This doesn't work because it is too direct; it goes straight through the mine
field.  To the PC, it seems unreal; he can't do it.  Modifying it to, "What
decision would it be all right for you to make?" would be more workable.

     A thetan must have a feeling that there are motions and confusions he
cannot tolerate, so he avoids them with mechanisms of creation.  If a person's
tolerance for motion and randomity is raised, his fears of consequences of the
overthrow of his power of choice are reduced.  Most fundamentally, obtaining a
tolerance for motion and catastrophe would wash away the fear of fear.



                                       70

     The creation of a confusion is the last echelon of a postulate.  The last
echelon of a confusion is the creation of a confusion by omission.  So we're
on safe ground with pcs if we stress creation of confusions, especially by
omissions.  So you could use the process, "If you said nothing, what confusion
would occur?" or, "What not-doingness would create a confusion.?"

     Cases that don't move are the roughest ones.  In catatonia, we have the
last desperate effort of a thetan to make a postulate stick somewhere; it's a
not-doingness.  There's probably no such thing as a thetan who'd not trying to
do something.  All thetans are busy, if only trying to do things through
omission.  Thus, in asking for goals, we should ask for failed goals, secret
goals, withheld goals, etc., since that leads straight to old postulates.

     A PC can be so confused on the blow/create theory that just being talked
to by the auditor can cause him to create something.  Or below that, he'll
mock up nothing while in session and get lots of ideas about it out of
session.  Ron handled this with short sessioning.  The PC would hand up his
case right after session.  Then LRH would begin a new session and handle it.
At this level, the PC is on a total reverse: he creates when he's not supposed
to and doesn't create when he's supposed to.

     Occlusion is the last answer, the last attempt to create an effect: an
overt of omission.  Here, you could use some far south process as, "What
confusion wouldn't occur if you forgot?" This might get through to him if he's
on a failed forget.

     [So the dwindling spiral of creation or postulates is:

          1. Postulate

          2. Failed postulate

          3. Creation

          4. Failed creation

          5. Creation of a confusion

          6. Creation of a confusion by omission

          7. Not-ised creation of a confusion by omission.]

     A tolerance of confusions, problems, motion, etc, is fine, but failed
postulates is what you are trying to get with goals processing.  You can also
get this effect if you ask a PC what he hopes would happen if he kept on doing
what he was doing.  If he can't answer, you can undercut it with "What won't
happen?" What shows up here will be caution, which seems laudatory, but he'll
begin to realize something will happen too, as you get the not-is off.  You
could run off intentional overts with, "What would (or wouldn't) be damaged if
you forgot it?" They are both aimed at getting the effect he's trying to
produce.  Or you could use, "What damage would forgettingness cause?" You're
running O/W crossed with forgettingness.  Etc.  This is all at a high level of
theory.  It's a road parallel to the one through the minefield, even if you
can't get the exact road.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=4/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=34
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-34  Methodology of Auditing -- Not-doingness and Occlusion




6108C04 SHSpec-34  Methodology of Auditing -- Not-doingness and Occlusion

     It's impossible to have judgment in auditing if one's TR's are out and
one is worried about making mistakes in application of the tech.

     On running brackets, a problem may be that the outer legs of the bracket
may not be real to him at first.  Reality on these legs may develop as he runs
the process.  This happens because of the dynamics.  As he is audited, the PC
gains reality on the other dynamics besides the first dynamic.  The PC's
ability to



                                       71

reach is directly reflected in his ability to conceive of someone else having
an idea or action.  So, as you run the process, the command you started with
can be too narrow and limiting, as the PC's ideas reach further, and the
commands could need to be enlarged -- more legs could be added.  Each leg of
the command stands as an individuated unit, without interchange among legs;
each, in fact, could be run as an individual command.  In view of the fact
that it doesn't harm anybody to run an unreality as long as they are moving
towards a reality, it would be OK to run all legs of the bracket from the
outset.  Try to choose a bracket and command wordings all of which fall.
Remember that if you choose a command that restricts the PC, you limit his
gains.  Also, the PC will tend to look at the legs not being run as his
reality comes up.  He will have to withhold himself from those areas, tending
to put them on automatic.

     An auditing command can be broadened; it shouldn't be made more
particular and specific.  If in doubt, take the broadest form and run it from
the outset.  Running one which is too restricted can turn on somatics.  It's
legitimate to change the targets, flows, etc., but not the basic form.  Don't
change "how" to "when" or "could" to "would".  You can drop portions of the
command, too, as long as in so doing you are removing particularization.  When
the PC gets very free on flows, you can drop out the legs and go to the
simplicity of, e.g.  "Get the idea of (verb)."

     An aberration is located as a total imprisonment, a total individuation.
Auditing commands resolve the degree of imprisonment and individuation.  As
the degree lessens, you may lose TA on one leg of the process but now have it
elsewhere.  The TA ceases to move when the targets of the process are flat, so
the rule is, before leaving the command, check it out for all variations which
might produce new action.  Remember that the reactive mind is an idiot, so you
could miss something because of a wrong pronoun, or whatever.

     The biggest barrier in dissemination is not-doingness and mis-doingness.
There is an old unresolved philosophic question about the value of
not-doingness: "To do or not to do?" Which is better, the active or the
passive life?  If you do, you get into trouble; if you don't do, you get into
trouble.  There's confusion on either side.  For instance, LRH had a problem
as a writer:  whether to be super nasty if he was criticized or to be nice and
let himself be criticized, thus protecting his markets and friends.  There are
contradictory lessons in this; of course neither answer is right.  The missing
datum is that they are both overts, longest continuous overt is
not-doingness.  Have you ever noticed the randomity that can be produced by a
missing datum in a problem?  A false datum can cause some confusion, but look
at what a missing datum on the subject of the mind has done!  How about a
missing beingness?  This is a near-ultimate in not-doingness.  The ultimate,
of course, is forgetting.  You're not only doing nothing; you're not there to
do it and you've forgotten.  This really produces confusion.  A thetan never
ceases to try to have an effect on something, to put Axiom 10 in effect, no
matter how many trillenia have gone by.  You are trying to process someone who
is in the middle of 10,000 continuous overts of omission.  Doing something is
apparently the least damaging type of overt.  Thus withhold seems to be the
more therapeutic side of O/W.  It's his not-doingness which weighs on his
case.



                                       72

     Doingness and not-doingness are not data of comparable magnitude.  Not-do
is enormously greater.  That's why people who stop doing, even if what they
have been doing is nasty, crash when they stop; that's also why men die before
women.  Underneath it all, a thetan knows he's important to life and knows
it's an overt not to participate.  The only greater overt is to forget.  This
is still an attempt to create an effect.  So there's a gradient scale of
effect creation:

          1. You do something to have an effect. (Axiom 10)

          2. You create an effect by not doing something.

          3. You create an effect by being absent.

          4. You create an effect by forgetting.

What degree of randomity could you produce by forgetting a whole lifetime?
Quite a bit.  And it's an overt; and the fellow realizes it's an overt.
That's the reason for whole track occlusion:  the overt of forgetting.  The
law behind all this is that the thetan never ceases to have an effect on those
targets he has chosen, and the only thing that could ever pry him loose from
those fixated effects is something like scientology.  He is imprisoned to the
degree that he is still trying to have a hopeless effect on something.  He is
his own jailer.  Forgetting it prevents it from ever being as-ised.

     If O/W can stall a case, how much more can it be stalled by not being
there, the withhold of self?  How much can it be stalled by a withhold from
self and being there, and from doingness and from the subject and from any
knowledge of the subject and from any communication with any beingness of the
subject, etc.?  That's why the more occluded a case is, the harder it is to
audit.  So you run cases on, "What wouldn't you mind forgetting?" This gets
off withholds.  Or, as a general pattern for a command, "What confusion
would/could forgettingness create?"

     We've looked on forgettingness as a sort of passive thing; we've looked
on not-doingness as the natural state of beingness.  Seeing them as overts
opens up new zones for processing.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=8/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=35
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-35  Forgettingness




6108C08 SHSpec-35  Forgettingness

     The reactive mind is basically that area of occlusion which the PC is
unable to contact and which contains a total identification of all things with
all things and until released into the realm of havingness, continues to react
upon the person, compelling him into actions, dramatizations, and computations
which are not optimum to survival.  We find in the reactive mind all the
residual, not as-ised material which the individual is seeking to avoid.  All
the discreditable things of his existence are then contained in this area.  He
hangs onto them, the knucklehead!  He has various mechanisms of survival
connected with this, one being the justification of the aberrations he has.

     Psychology makes the error of saying that one is only able to create by
virtue of one's reactive mind.  Faculty psychology (c. the 1500's) was an
attempt to understand perception and the mind.  They didn't get anywhere
because they dealt with the analytical sphere and got confused by the fact
that men don't always react rationally.  Behaviorism overlooks the
unpredictabilities of men when they don't follow the stimulus-response
mechanisms.

     Until scientology, a theory about man was too precious not to be
carefully guarded from attack.  Men went to the stake to protect the theory of
faculty psychology.  They threw away case histories to protect the theory of
behaviorism.  The abundance or scarcity of



                                       73

all things applies.  Theories were terribly scarce.  In scientology, we are
looking at an abundance of theories.  What we care about is what works.
Former theorists didn't care whether their theories were workable or not.
They just felt they should protect the theory.

     The cure of a reactive bank is knowingness, because the substance of the
bank is not-knowingness.  There's a fourth postulate:  remember.  The third
was forget; it is senior.  It's been stressed that one should run that, rather
than remember.  In order of making, the four postulates are:

          0. Native state: potentiality of knowing everything.

          1. First postulate: not know

          2. Second postulate: He had to know something.

          3. Third postulate: He forgot what he knew.

          4. Fourth postulate: Remember.

A thetan does this on any given subject.  When you enter a school, you start
by postulating you know nothing about the subject.  That's really a request to
find something you don't know.  In other schools, you're asked to not-know and
then learn a lot of nonsense.

     The only thing that ever blows up a false theory is the workability of a
counter-theory.

     We know more about the unpredictable side of man than any other body of
people on earth, so any breakthrough we make in the area is valuable.  The
breakthrough is in the area of forgettingness and confusion.  Man wants things
to be forgotten.  He not only uses forgettingness as a continuous overt act;
he wants forgettingness to occur.  He wants all his evil deeds to be wrapped
in the Stygian darkness of yesteryear.  Man is basically good, so it his deeds
are considered bad, then there's only one cure for them that he knows: To
forget them.  So, as an auditor, you can ask, "what should be forgotten?"
He'll recover almost at once a screaming impulse to make something forgotten,
and that is where his volition and the reactive mind cross.  His volition
desires occlusion; back of all his confusion is a knowable volition: he wishes
a forgettingness to occur, and that wish creates a reactive bank.  That is the
postulate that comes ahead of everything: he must forget.  So it can be
reached with, "What should be forgotten?" There's a danger that this will
become a forgotten point of scientology.  The postulate, "It must be
forgotten," must be the most forgotten of all postulates, so it must be the
one least able to be as-ised, and thus best suited to accumulate the
concatenation of a bank.

     The hidden standard is a cousin to this.  You can handle the hidden
standard by asking what is hidden about it or what should be forgotten about
it -- and it blows.  The PC's attention frees up and he knows processing works
for him.  You can ask, "What would have to happen for you to know scientology
works?"; strip all the motion out of the needle, and you'll have a list of
hidden standards.  [More details on running of this." Any psychosomatic or
livingness difficulty a person has is a difficulty because there's something
about it he doesn't want known, and he wants others to forget it.

     Compulsive rememberingness brings about forgettingness.  One pulls it in
with the must have on remembering, which postulates the likelihood of
forgetting.  And vice versa: someone who goes off to the South Seas so as to
forget, first tries to forget with women, then with liquor, dope, then death.
But all his urgency to forget keeps it there.  He pushes one button and gets
the other.  This develops an awful confusion, which is then buried with death
and occluded, forming the stimulus response mechanism of the reactive



                                       74

mind, because his power of choice and his postulates are being overwhelmed,
even if it's him who's overwhelming them.

     Restoration of memory on the whole track is the index by which you can
measure case gain most easily.  If someone doesn't think he's lived before,
he's heavily plowed into forgettingness, while the guy who has only delusory
recall on track is doing a pretended knowingness of the whole track.  This is
a games condition of magnitude.  It's denying knowingness by giving a false
knowingness.  It's forgetting and remembering at the same time -- very
confusing and irritating to confront.  The irritation comes from one's
awareness of the games condition, putting you into the position of being an
unwilling opponent.  If it goes on long enough, your own occlusion is
assisted.  The target is to occlude your track by giving false knowingness
about theirs.

     Confusion asks itself to be forgotten because it was never remembered.
That is, it is not-known.  That's what makes a confusion a confusion.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=11/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=38
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-38  Basics of Auditing -- Matter of Factness




6108C11 SHSpec-38  Basics of Auditing -- Matter of Factness

     A lot of auditors are doing something besides auditing:  they are
pressing through, introducing something in an effort of make auditing work.
Probably it's because of LRH saying that the auditor has to make the auditing
work, that he should be on the ball, etc.  A certain apathy about results
creates in itself a "grind atmosphere".  Desperation or apathy alike are
counter-productive.  LRH audits with no doubt about what he's doing, no
withdraw, no question about purpose.  His auditing is very matter-of-fact
because he has no doubt that he can help the PC, no doubt about the
effectiveness of the process he's going to run, no doubt about the fact that
the process is working, so he has a relaxedness about auditing that gives him
results five times as fast because he doesn't get in his own road.

     The reason an auditor doesn't flatten a process is anxiety to get the job
done, which gets in the way of getting the job done.  LRH doesn't
artificialize the way he feels about the PC; he keeps it real, unlike other
auditors, whom he heard being stilted and artificial.  Be effective; help the
PC; don't be hidebound.  This should give faster results more easily.

     Not-know and forget would have run out engrams in 1950 if they had been
used then.  This would have avoided a lot of grinding and sweat.  You'd use a
command form which includes as many dynamics as necessary, e.g.  "What should
remain unknown about this to the public / the government / a family / your
superiors, etc.?" The occlusions that auditors were struggling with were the
result of self-motivated efforts to withhold.  The hang-ups in any engrams are
from a desire to make these things [parts of the engram] unknown or
forgotten.  The pretense of knowing about it (dub-in) also blows on the
not-know processing.  Running engrams should not be discounted as of benefit
to the case.  If you get someone clear and stable, they may still find
themselves with an engram there.  It won't take long to run it, since he's
clear.  During stabilization, they're unsnarling track; they are still bumping
into things which can be run.  Using not-know on it makes it run even faster,
since it pops the sticky point into view.

                 [Application of not-know to Goals processing]



                                       75


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=17/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=41
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-41  Rudiments and Valences




6108C17 SHSpec-41  Rudiments and Valences

     An E-meter ceases to register in the presence of an out-rudiment.  This
may fool you into thinking a process is flat.  If you get the rudiments in,
the process will again move the TA and needle.  Keeping rudiments in is the
most important part of auditing.  You can find the rudiment because only the
out rud will move the meter.

                           [Details on goals running]

     A valence is a synthetic beingness, or a beingness which a PC is not but
thinks he is.  It can be a duplicate of any existing beingness, or a synthetic
beingness created by what others have said about the other beingness.  There
is no such thing, really, as one's own valence".  "His own valence" is just
himself; he's either himself or in a valence.  A valence is a package.  A
graph is a picture of a valence, and any change you got was because you
shifted his valence.  This is a very important datum.  The PC will not gain in
any way through any effort to alter the characteristics of a valence he's in.
The PC will only change if you change the valence as a whole package, because
the PC takes no responsibility for any of the now-I'm-supposed-to's or the
package of characteristics which is the valence.  All the person can reach is
a knowingness of the identity of the valence.  What does the PC use the
valence for?  Survival, the road out, surmounted by knowingness -- a valence
is a solid knowingness; a body is a solid knowingness.  A valence is an effort
to get someone to know you are there, to get someone to recognize something.
Therefore they are a road out of unwanted areas.  Say a soldier gets hit with
a mortar shell.  He doesn't want to be there; he's in the wrong valence.  That
knowingness (valence) is now invalidated and becomes a not-knowingness.  So he
exteriorizes and decides that the only way to fight a war is to be a general
or a war correspondent.  If he can't be that, he'll keep on trying, war after
war, life after life.  Finally he gets it together and becomes very successful
at it.  Then he finds all war correspondents being shot for fomenting war.  As
he is shot, he decides he'll be Mata Hari.  He gets a female body, moves on up
the line, becomes Mata Hari in war after war.  Then eventually he gets
executed for that, etc.  These are all efforts to solve the problem of what to
do in a war.  Every valence picked up is an effort to solve a problem.
Valences are antiquated solutions.  So you can say these identities are
antiquated solutions to confusions.

     The goals which go towards beingness are the more definite goals.  They
are the more profitable ones in auditing, because they go toward identity.  A
person is not himself; he is in a different knowingness as soon as he's in a
valence.  You can fix up a valence's broken leg, as long as it's a valence
that isn't supposed to have a broken leg, which is why you can do assists on
almost anyone.  The only person it will fail on is someone who has a
now-I'm-supposed-to of a valence.  The PC has no control over this.  Any PC is
being dominatedly in a given valence, but may be tortured or upset by other
valences which are only really the concern of the valence he is mainly in.  So
any PC's troubles are only the troubles of the valence he's in.  The troubles
are part of the now-I'm-supposed-to's of this valence.  So there's no way to
remedy the difficulties on the valence, because they are outside the power of
the PC to touch.  Here you get the oddity of, "Please audit me, but you'd
better not make me well."  That's what it looks like.



                                       76

     The valence may have somatics turning on and off as part of the package,
which keep the valence from becoming something else.  The PC will keep the
somatics to prevent himself from becoming an unworkable solution to a future
problem.  Don't try to take that solution away from the PC, so long as it
seems vital that it be a solution.  What you've got to do is to get the PC to
face up to the various factors that make that a valence.  You can't make a
valence well; you can move a valence.  So any process run at random on a PC
has a very small chance of success.  This pre-selects our bag of tricks to a
small bag.  You must ask yourself, "Is this process going to change,
familiarize, accustom the person to identity, or is it going to handle
environments which make identities vital, or is it going to alter valences?"
If so, it will work and stay working; if not, it won't.

     What makes a valence stick the way it sticks?  Let's newly define a
psychotic as someone who doesn't know what's going on in his environment and
who doesn't know what is going on inside himself.  It's all unknown and
unobserved.  Neurosis is when he's got some idea of what's happening in his
environment and where he is, but this is overbalanced by unknowingness.
Upscale from that, you know what's happening where you are, but not what's
happening inside someone else a few feet away.  You don't always know what's
going on with everybody.  That makes a slight unknowingness.  The stuck parts
of your track are the points where you knew what was going on where you were,
but not what was going on around you, because there are points of
disagreement: there was a know facing an unknow.  The unknow can get so
overwhelming that one adopts a valence to solve it.  You pick up a valence
which knows about these things.  Many scientists are solely being valences of
scientists.  They've got it confused with the whole track beingness of a
technician.  When you see the level of pretense of a valence, it becomes
spotted for you; it seems artificial.  Anyone who's identified himself by some
set of tricks has thereby put himself in a valence.  The fact that he's in a
body is an obvious valence, but it's the valence that he's using the body to
be that's the auditing target.  Just having a body isn't necessarily a valence
if he's aware of having a body, not ploughed in below his level of
consciousness.

     As an auditing target, a valence is the MIP package a person has composed
to solve the problems of existence which he knows nothing about.  It's always
easier to pick up a weaker valence than a stronger one, so your logical target
in auditing is the weaker one.

     If your PC has a bunch of chronic somatics, they're part of the valence
picture, not part of the PC.  He's got to have two counter-opposed identities
in order to feel pain. 1957 was when this was worked out.  To have experience,
he'd have to survive; to survive, he has to be something other than himself.
Otherwise, he can't survive, experience, and live.  You haven't a chance in
handling this person until he realizes that he can live without the valence.
He's been in a games condition as a valence against some environment -- which
probably no longer exists.  Women are particularly confused here, because at
the present time, the society is in flux and has no really clear idea of where
women fit in, so women have more problems finding the valence to solve the
problem of situations they're not really in anyway.  [Identity crisis?]

     To straighten out a case, you've got to move a valence.  Say a fellow has
a toothache; you've got to find out who had a toothache (c. 1950 tech) and
split the valences.  This is more effective than putting him in comm with the
tooth, since it's not



                                       77

his tooth.  Whatever his difficulties, find out who had it or would do it.
[Cf.  XDN "wants handled" rundown.] You could say, "What beingness would be a
good solution for a tough environment?" You process "who's" -- valences.  If
you want to cure a toothache, run it back and forth with, "Who would want to
cure a toothache / Who would have a toothache?" and get a terminal, to cure the
toothache.  You already have the goal, of course.  You can also use this
technique for the hidden standard.

     For a long time, we had the question, "Should we handle solids or
significances?" The answer is, "Solids," but the further answer is that you
shouldn't handle conditions of a valence.  Handle the valence.  This is the
limitation of a touch assist.  Always handle the terminal.  This brings Prehav
13 into the limelight.  [Prehav 13: a process which takes a list of charged
terminals and combines overt running with prehav assessment and running of
brackets on levels assessed out.  See 6106C21 SHSpec-17 or p. 42, these
notes.]  Prehav 13 will also fix up rudiments.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=18/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=42
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-42  Control of Attention




6108C18 SHSpec-42  Control of Attention

     You might think of auditing as having hundreds of rules.  As long as you
think of it that way, you aren't auditing.  These rules are only guideposts.
Back of them, your good heart will carry the day.  You are trying to help the
person out.  All right.  There are certain things his mind will and won't do.
If that is what your rules are, you're fine.  Rituals, as developed by
religions, represent their failure to communicate the basic truths.  Here is
what a PC will not do: he will not go into session with his attention fixated
on something else, nor will you have his interest in what you are doing.  All
the rudiments can be covered with, "Is your attention fixated on something?
Is there any reason you won't talk to me?" Since these questions are a little
too broad, you have the rudiments.  He can have a fixation on a PTP of short
duration, where his attention is fixed on the immediate environment.  In the
PTP LD, the PC also has his attention fixed on something in PT, but he also
has something subjective holding his attention, something very real to him.
When you don't parallel what the mind is doing with auditing, you fail in
auditing.

     The rate of change of attention defines relative pain, and the common
features of every stuck point on the track is a sudden shift of attention.
This has been known since 1950 at least.  The processes being used are
sufficiently strong that no matter what the PC's attention is fixed on, you
can yank it away, but doing so will result in an ARC break.  Furthermore, his
attention won't totally come off what it was on, so you will create a new
identification of what he was looking at and what you pull his attention to.

     You can, of course, go too far in paralleling the mind and wind up in a Q
and A.  LRH has never seen a case progress when the PC's attention on PTP's of
short or long duration isn't handled.  If you don't handle attention fixation,
you eventually get an unexpected attention shift that produces an ARC break.
It isn't the minor flub you make that really causes the ARC break, though it
triggers it.  The ARC break is really caused by yanking the PC's attention off
his PTP, and you won't find it by running O/W on the auditor.  "Willing to
talk to the auditor" is the other requirement for the PC to be in session.  If
the PC has an ARC break or a withhold, his willingness is out.  With a
withhold, there's



                                       78

another factor.  The PC is sitting with a known where he is and an unknown
where the auditor is, so the auditing session is a ridge.  In view of the fact
that the PC's attention is fixed on the withhold, even if only at a
sub-awareness level, if you audit over it, you're guilty of an attention
shift.  The attention fix in a withhold is complicated by being an outward fix
with an inward pull to keep it from getting out.

     These mechanisms take priority over all of the PC's considerations and
postulates, so no matter what he says, you can't go ahead and audit over it.
I order to audit him, you've got to be able to put his attention where you
want it.  If there's a distracting noise outside, it's a waste of time to ask
if it bothered him.  You can assume it shifted his attention, so ask, "What
were you thinking of when the noise occurred?" until there's no read and the
PC feels OK about it.

     Anything that happens in the auditing session is the auditor's fault.  If
anything goes wrong in session, it's never the PC's fault.  If the auditor
doesn't tell him how to get his attention off something by some acceptable
gradient, it's not the PC's fault if he can't put it where you want it.
Because you didn't put his attention on the things it's on when he comes into
session, you're slow to take responsibility for taking it off.  But if the PC
doesn't make gains, it's the auditor's fault.

     Just as the PC must be gotten to the point where he is at cause over his
life because you can get him to erase all the aberrated points in an auditing
session, there is another cause -- the auditor.  This is in violation of the
idea that the PC is cause of all effects.  So you've got to be slippy, because
you are being cause over a section of the PC's track.  The only way it can
happen is for him to have some willingness to do what you want him to do.  So
his cause must still be there, and your direction of his cause must be
acceptable to him.  Otherwise, he won't be cause over that section of track
called an auditing session, and if he isn't cause over it, he'll make no
gain.  So, to keep him at cause, you audit him with all his attention on the
auditing, not splintered elsewhere.  He must willingly follow your direction
and have a clear view of what he's doing.  You assume, incorrectly, that the
PC is delicate.  But in fact the only thing you can really do to a PC that's
bad is not to give him a win, which can only be done by violating his
attention factors.  Auditing in the absence of the PC's attention is
no-auditing.  How do you keep his attention?  Keep the ruds in.

     The earliest method of clearing was highly permissive and very delicate.
It amounts to this repetitive question, "What picture would it be safe to look
at?" The reason it was no longer being done by 1950 was this attention
factor.  It hadn't been isolated, so it couldn't be articulated.  Also,
everybody kept dictating what picture the PC should look at.  But you could
clear someone with that process, and it would not be a long route.  You can
speed it up by getting him to use other perceptics, e.g.  "What sound would it
be safe for you to hear?" etc.  People who don't get any pictures are just
stuck in PT to avoid looking at the disaster just earlier.  But you can work
him around until he can confront the bank.  This approach didn't run into the
attention problem because it's so permissive it lets the PC put his attention
where it already is.  It does take gentle, smooth auditing, and it takes quite
awhile.  The "engram necessary to resolve the case" is actually just the
picture the PC is stuck in.  So you are essentially running "What picture
would it be safe to look at?"



                                       79

     Now it goes faster.  You handle his attention, gently unstick it from
PTP's and ARC breaks, give him wins and confidence, don't get into games
conditions with him on goals or terminals.  If the session goes awry, it's
because you missed an attention factor.  Try to get subjective reality on
this.  If the PC says, "Yow!  Yow!  Yow!  ARC break!!", you say, "What was
your PTP?"


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=22/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=43
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-43  PTPs -- Unknownnesses




6108C22 SHSpec-43  PTPs -- Unknownnesses

                           [Details on goals running]

     Normally a PC is ARC breaky because he is being audited over undetected
PTP's, which he will not-is in order to get auditing.  The auditor should
suspect it, for instance, when auditing an executive.  It is problems alone
which give you this terrific timelessness.  They show up as a sticky meter, an
unchanging graph, slow reaction time, not moving around much in life.
Problems stick and float forward in time, and the guy is stuck in a past
moment.  Another useful definition of "problem" is "unknown".  A problem is an
accumulation of not-knowingnesses and a consideration of the person as to the
value of the not-knownnesses.  Remember that the thetan is stuck to his bank,
valences, etc., by mystery.  Mystery is the glue of life.  If you want
freedom, you must restore knowledge; if you want slavery, establish
ignorance.  Create not-knows.  So a common denominator of all problems is an
unknown.  A problem cannot exist in the absence of unknowingness.  As the
dianetic axiom puts it, "Randomity can be caused by a missing datum." [Axiom
105: An unknown datum can produce data of plus or minus randomity.  Axiom 107:
Data of plus or minus randomity depends for its confusion on former plus or
minus randomity or absent data.] Man's difficulties were getting more and more
involved because of the missing data: a technology about Man, based on the
fundamental missing datum, "What is Man's nature?" or "What is Man trying to
do?" When the PC runs, "Describe the problem," he may well be giving lots of
aspects of the basic unknown problem.  If you run unknownness on the subject
of problems, you cut through to this central problem rapidly.  A thetan is a
mystery sandwich.

     Two way comm is an inquiry of the PC as to what is going on and an
invitation for him to look at it.  It should be limited to such questions as,
"How are you doing?  What's worrying you?  What is that all about?" Processes
aren't two way comm.  No process is involved in two way comm except 2wc.  If
you start a process, be sure you flatten it.  This datum has never varied; it
applies to running unknownness of problems.  It's OK to handle a PTP by asking
what unknown is connected with it.  This runs PTP's fast.  Use any version of
the odd-numbered postulates: not-know, forget, doubted, pretended.  Don't use
2wc to handle problems.  You don't have to be repetitive; get all versions of
not-know off of it.

                       [More details on running of PTP's]

     Routine 1A consists of everything you can think of in terms of problems
processes.  It gives a total ability to confront problems without being upset
by the unknownness of them.  Man doesn't like having to confront the unknowns
of life.  It's hard to do, because there is nothing there to confront.  We're
back to processing loss when you process unknowns, since a loss is a
not-know.  So someone with lots of problems experiences a sense of loss.  What
is so maddening about a loss is that you don't know what is happening with
the thing lost.  The PC will misassign causes of loss, too.  Because some
terminal is gone and there is lots of unknownness on it, the guy will go to
the bottom of the Prehav scale and pretend some knowingness and pretend
cause.  The two are closely



                                       80

associated.  It makes someone who is a real inventor feel strange when he gets
down to the Inventor's Club and the others "know all about it" and "invented
it two years earlier".  Someone in that state can't duplicate; if they were
asked, "What did you invent?", they'd answer with some irrelevance, so that's
a good rebuttal.

     Pretended knowingness and pretended cause are blood brothers and
continually come up together.  This is at the bottom of the not-know scale
because it is a substitute know.  The way you handle it is not direct.  You go
at it by way of problems.  The guy has had so many problems, he has begun to
substitute false solutions.  Those are the pretended knowingnesses you see on
the case.  So you don't process the pretended knowingnesses.  You process the
problems, and the PC will fly.  You enter at the level of reality of what a
problem is, and the false solutions and pretended cause fade out.  Flattening
Routine 1A means getting the guy comfortable confronting unknowns.  Then he
won't be obsessively escaping from them and no longer experiencing a lot of
anxiety about them.  [ Cf.  Alan Watts' The Wisdom of Insecurity] Jealousy is
basically an inability to confront the unknown.  The sickness one experiences
with it is not because of betrayal.  It is just another aspect of the unknown
of faithful/unfaithful, or "something they know that I don't," etc.

     Why does a case suddenly dive into the middle of the bank and refuse to
come out?  The guy is unable to not ask why.  There's an unknown in the
incident.  The guy gets some glimmer of the unknown, and he dives into it.  He
cannot confront an unknown and becomes hectic at the idea that an unknown
exists.  The oddity is that all knowingnesses are invented knowingnesses.
With sn inability to confront the unknown, you eventually get an inability to
confront the known.  Then this goes down to an inability to confront at all,
so any little tiny incident of the day becomes a problem he dwells on.  So
don't judge by the apparent size of the problem whether he will be stuck on
it.  If he can't confront the unknown at all, he will be totally glued into
all his unknowns all along the track.

     You could run, "What unknown about an auditing session could you
confront / would you rather not confront?" You will solve anybody's difficulties
with auditing.  You could run it on an old timer who doesn't much like
auditing anymore or on someone who is having trouble learning to audit, etc.
One old timer would get every PC's somatic -- because it's a mystery!  He
instantly snaps terminals with these unknowns.  This process would blow him
out.  It is a very workable, specific process.  It could be used for anyone
who has left off doing some formerly successful activity, or someone who is
having trouble learning something, e.g. a language.  "What is unknown about a
German?" would handle problems with the German language.

     The treatment of a condition is an attempt to alter a valence without
addressing the valence, and this just doesn't work.  So some process addressed
directly at the condition, unless it aimed at solids, like engrams, won't do
it.  Address the valence; find whose condition it is; handle the terminal
[Cf., again XDN "wants handled" rundown].  Long lists of goals won't be that
useful, but long lists of valences could be.  Out of this, you could get a
process for PTP's of long duration: "W/W would have (condition)?  What isn't
known about that person?  What might you have done to him?  What might you
have withheld from him?" You would strip off valences and get off problems and
O/W at the same time.

     If you run lots of not-know, you've got to remedy havingness because the
whole bank is coming unglued.



                                       81


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=23/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=44
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-44  Basics of Auditing




6108C23 SHSpec-44  Basics of Auditing

     The constants of an auditing session are there: You must start the
session, get all the rudiments in -- at sensitivity 16; we don't use the third
of a dial drop rule anymore now -- flatten the process you start, and end the
session.  To do this, you need to have TR's, metering, etc.  For a PC to be in
comm with the auditor, it is necessary for the auditor to be in comm with the
PC.  An auditor who would make invalidative comments or not get a command
across is not there giving a session and isn't someone the PC can be in comm
with.  So add to the "in session" definition that the auditor has to be giving
a session, i.e. actually running a session.  The way to run a session is to
run a session.  The limitation on telling someone how to run a session
involves the amount of disagreement the auditor has with the forms and actions
he's using to run the session.  One's disagreement with handling rudiments
could be because of the relative ineffectiveness of the processes, but one
could also have far more fundamental disagreements, e.g. that the PC shouldn't
need auditing.  It works this way.  You, using the elements of auditing, could
make anybody an ARC breaky PC by running him with ruds out.  You could get a
lower scale PC and have a propitiative PC.  If you have difficulty or
disagreement with ruds, you could produce considerable randomity.

     The key rudiment is the PTP.  It's sneaky because it doesn't necessarily
fall at first.  The PC may have no reality on something being a PTP to him.
There is an interesting limiting factor on cases: As a result of auditing, the
PC goes into action in his life; he then accumulates problems and now is being
audited with PTP's.  One of the primary characteristics of case gain is the PC
going into action.  He may lose interest in auditing as a result.  You could
expect him to get more problems, not less.  This is the same as with getting
more withholds -- that is another indicator of case advance.  So don't be
lulled by the quiet PC.  As auditing progresses, he may well start having more
problems, which the auditor must not neglect.  The mitigating factor here is
that as the PC increases his ability, he blows these things faster.  If that
isn't happening, it must be because ruds are out.

     An auditor who expects the PC to be doing something besides being a PC is
in trouble.  You must grant the PC his PC beingness.  It's OK for him to have
his case in session.  All a PC is supposed to do is follow the session as
given by the auditor.  This is what the auditor expects of him, that's all.
If you grant the PC this beingness, you'll find auditing simplified because
you won't expect him to report on how things are going or whatever.  It's
necessary for you to find out what's going on.  Scientologists are
understandably prone to run a big ought-to-be.  This is fine anywhere but in
session.  The ought-to-be gets joined up with a "probably is", a supposition
which interferes with seeing where the PC really is at.  The PC could be in a
sweet old lady mockup, but in the valence of a space commander.  If the mockup
is factual and the case isn't advancing, the "factual" presentation must have
some unknowns in it which must be in wild disagreement.  Cases resolve on the
is-ness of the case, not on the ought-to-be's.  The is-ness of the case must
be totally unknown if the case isn't resolving.  And it's not what the PC is
telling you that is causing his no-progress; if you just keep auditing that,
you are in a Q and A, and you won't get a result.  You should question the PC
on the basis of, "What exactly are you complaining about?  What is



                                       82

the is-ness of it?" If something isn't resolving, you haven't gotten the
isness of it.  The first isnesses you have are:

          1. A session.

          2. Ruds.

          3. What you are addressing on the case.

If you've got the is-ness of the session and the is-ness of the rudiments and
the person continues to complain, and you try to help them with a certain
"is-ness", it's just a "probably" and isn't the is-ness if it doesn't help
rapidly.

     The most trouble you'll have is with a PTP LD.  It can be tricky to get
the is-ness of it.  We now have a test to tell us if a process is working.
Anything except 2wc which is just to find out where the PC is at (not the 2wc
process, but just staying in 2wc with the PC) is a process, and you are
committed to flattening what you started, whether it was in model session or
not, whether it's a rudiment or anything else.  So you'd better have a good
grip on what you start before you start it.  Otherwise you'll get unfinished
cycles on the PC.  If you see this, you could run Prehav 13 on auditors, but
there's the liability of livening up levels, which means you're running a
terminal which is in wild disagreement with the PC's case and livening up the
whole Prehav scale.

                [Details on setting the PC up for Goals running]

     The second rudiment is the auditor.  Ninety percent of the charge will be
blown on Routine 1A, but to get the rest, you could take up the subject of the
auditor.  If these things are that important to a case, they're all worth
handling.  They're a preliminary to clearing as well as to the individual
session.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=24/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=45
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-45  Rudiments




6108C24 SHSpec-45  Rudiments

     A valence does not respond well to rudiments processing, since the
rudiments are addressed to changing the conditions of the valence.  That's a
limitation of ruds.  That's one reason it's tough to keep the rudiments in.
It's next to impossible, since the characteristics of the valence are not
owned by the PC.  None of the valence's postulates are his postulates.  How do
you get around this?  The functional ruds processes are those which can shift
or lighten valences.  The PC long ago lost faith in himself as himself and
adopted other beingnesses.  He reposed his hopes for survival in these other
beingnesses, and cannot change the conditions of these other beingnesses.
He's unpredictable to himself because of the valence.  A problem process or
Routine 1A would have a prayer of handling this situation, because all
valences are accepted by the PC as solutions to some overwhelming problems.
That's why Routine 1A works.  Every rudiments process that separates valences
will tend to work.  You can also use TR-1C just to get him in comm with the
environment.  Otherwise, what will you do?  You'd have to clear him to get
ruds in; you have to get ruds in to clear him.  TR 10 would help, but very
slowly.

     So a good valence process for getting in ruds would be, "Who can/can't be
audited in this room?" or "What could/couldn't be done in this room?" Also,
"Who should you be to be audited?" or "Who should I be to audit you?" These
processes key the valences out temporarily.  It's an uphill action, but it
does shake up or remedy havingness on valences.

     Withholds caused him to pick up valences, so withholds work on valences
pretty directly.  But you should whipsaw the withhold question around in ruds
in the effort to make the PC able to talk to the auditor, not just willing to
talk.  So see if the PC feels



                                       83

able to talk to you or unable to and why.  If it is sticky, find W-W would be
able to communicate with an auditor.

     Finding the PC's havingness process can help somewhat.  A common
denominator of valences is matter, energy, space, and time, so any approach to
MEST (e.g. havingness) has some slight power of shifting a valence.

     The only way a PC can get upset with you on a Sec Check is to leave
something incomplete by bypassing a question with something still on it.
You'll lose the PC's respect, lose your altitude.  You should always tell the
PC the question is hot, so that even if you do leave it unflat, the PC knows
you know so there's no missed withhold.  If you can't strip down a question by
the end of a session, let the PC know that you know it's not clean.  If you
let him go with the impression that you have let him get away with something,
he'll be ARC broken and hard to control.  Interestingly, despite the games
condition, the PC knows that when you lose, he loses.  So use prompter-type
questions to get the PC really able to talk to the auditor.

     On "Who would I have to be to audit you?" and "What are you doing?", you
may find the PC doing something else than following the command.  What you
want to find out is whether the PC is willing to be a PC and follow the
commands, or is he going to add something else to it?  During session, you may
observe the PC doing something a bit odd, so you should use some little
rudiment like, "What are you doing?" or "Are you willing to be audited?" A PC
doesn't mind being nagged.  It's all interest, all havingness.  When it gets
grindy in auditing, find out what the PC is doing and what is happening.  You
have to avoid upsetting a PC who is interiorized but if he's all snarled up in
something about the session, you'd better handle it.  Also, pcs sometimes do
self-audit, so, especially with an old time auditor, ask, "Which process you
were auditing yourself on is unflat?"

     If it's very difficult to keep the ruds in, ask yourself if you are real
to the PC or if he feels there's something else in the session he knows
nothing about.  For instance, let the PC know if you missed lunch and that
it's OK, etc.  It's up to the auditor to make himself real to the PC.  When
the R-factor starts to break, the PC will start to ask the auditor a question
about the auditor.  This shows he's out of session.  The fastest way to handle
the R-factor is to put in the R.  It's almost always all right with the PC.
When the R disappears, it's because the auditor is out of session.  The PC
frequently notices it and may well comment.  Then the auditor had better put
it right at once.  It comes as a surprise to the auditor to learn that he
should be real with the PC.  All the rules seem to indicate that he should be
unreal.  But there has to be a person auditing the PC.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=29/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=46
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-46  Basics of Auditing




6108C29 SHSpec-46  Basics of Auditing

     Good auditing is not a question of memorizing the rules of auditing.  If
you are worried about the rules of auditing, there's something basically
wrong.  Per the Original Thesis, auditor + PC is greater than the bank, and
the auditor is there to see that auditing gets done, to direct the PC's
attention so as to confront unknowns, to straighten out the bank.  The less
auditing you do or the less effective auditing you do, the more upset the PC
will be.  When the auditor sits down in the auditing chair and the PC in the
PC chair, what contract exists?  Very simple.  The PC sits down to be audited,
i.e. to get on towards clear, even if he doesn't



                                       84

know it consciously.  He's not there to have ARC breaks run, PTP's handled, or
to straighten out his rudiments.  In fact, ruds go out to the degree that
auditing doesn't get done.  If you use the whole session to put ruds in, or if
you spend no time on it, little or no auditing gets done.  Somewhere in here
is the optimum amount of time spent on ruds -- say five minutes.  If you spend
most of the session getting ruds in, he's got a new PTP: how to get auditing!
He doesn't consider ruds to be auditing, so he's out of session.  He thinks
auditing is things getting done towards going clear.  So your main chance is
to audit the PC, if it gets to a choice between auditing and some obscure rud
that his attention isn't on.  To the PC, auditing is handling anything his
attention is fixed on, e.g. the hidden standard, chronic PTP's, goals, etc.
If you endlessly handle ARC breaks, you get more because you are creating a
PTP, violating the contract with the PC.  He will sit there and endlessly run
Routine 1A, because it's in the direction of his problems.  Do keep the ruds
in, but don't make a session out of them.  The PC will protest strongly
against handling his minor PTP's; he assigns a high value to his auditing time
and wants to use it towards his goal of going clear.  If an auditor takes a
positive, controlling, down-to-business approach, his pcs will swear by him
because he audits.

     Escape as a philosophy is a complicated subject.  It has to do with the
orientation of an auditor; it's the only thing that can get in his road, as
long as he follows scientology and goes on auditing.  All the levels of the
Prehav scale have to do with escape.  If any of them is hot or unflat on a
auditor, you'll get the auditor letting the PC escape because it's his modus
operandi of handling situations.  It's totally wrong-headed as far as getting
the PC clear is concerned.  This is why an auditor doesn't control a session,
when he doesn't.  He thinks he's being nice to the PC.

     Under the same heading comes subjective case reality that is necessary in
an auditor.  What are we looking at when we find a scientologist who has never
seen or gone through an engram, never collided with a ridge, is not aware of
the then-ness of incidents?  If he is not aware of those things, he will
continue to make mistakes, and no amount of training will overcome it.  Just
knowing this will overcome it.  If he has never been stuck on the track, has
never seen ridges, it's because his basic philosophy of life is escape.  He
doesn't have case reality because he's running from his case.  His way to
handle a case is to get out of it, so that's all he does with a PC.  So the PC
is never in session.  It's pure kindness, from the auditor's point of view.
One way to do this is to change the process; another is to Q and A.  The
auditor shortsightedly gives the PC "freedom" at the price of not getting him
clear.  The auditor who has no case reality dramatizes the engram he's stuck
in and which he's trying to escape by not confronting.  When he gets into the
engram, what he'll see is what he looked at to avoid confronting the pain or
unpleasantness, which he suppressed to escape from it.  He escapes mentally.
Unconsciousness is an escape.  It works.  [Cf.  Red Blanchard and his
blackouts.] This person will have odd somatics and difficulties that he can't
account for.  He can't see the pictures because he's putting his attention on
the solution:  escape.  All the mechanisms of not-is will be present, here.
If he contacts the engram at all, it'll be very brief.  He pulls his attention
right off of it.  But he will have a somatic that doesn't not-is.  He's stuck
in "PT", which is really the ends of all his engrams, so he will keep his PC
in PT at all times, because the auditor is in PT.  He won't guide the PC's
attention through an engram because escape is the better philosophy.



                                       85

     There's a direct cure for this -- a one-shot process that gives these
auditors an enormous reality on what we're running, namely:  "What unknown
might you be trying to escape from?" This unstacks all those not-ised
engrams.  You're running the reverse of escape, which is confront.  You don't
have to erase the whole bank.  You can just get familiarity with it.

     The mechanism of escape is one used widely by thetans, of course.  A
thetan would be in a bad way if when his body dies he couldn't exteriorize!
It's not a bad thing to be able to escape, but when someone is compulsively
escaping, he never escapes.  Escape as a philosophy gets in the road of
auditing.  Case reality is necessary in the auditor, i.e. a willingness to
stay there and take a look.  A person who doesn't have reality on the bank has
consistently escaped from bank, he of course does odd things in auditing.
When he audits a PC, he doesn't know what the PC is doing or thinks he
shouldn't be doing it, so we get no clearing.  If you, as an auditor, pull the
PC's attention away from the incident he's running, he gets confused, sticks
there, feels betrayed.  You could educate that auditor endlessly without
producing any change in that philosophy unless you hit the philosophy itself.
You cannot educate an auditor who has that philosophy into giving a smooth
session, keeping the PC in session with his attention on his bank.  When an
auditor makes consistent mistakes, does a lot of Q and A, yanks the PC's
attention to PT, we assume that that auditor has the philosophy of escape.
There's no sense in putting up laws to counter it.  Just spot it and handle
it.

     About responsibility for the session: From the Original Thesis, you have
the law of auditor + PC greater than the bank, and PC less than the bank.
Thus, for instance, self-auditing produces minor results at best.  It just
remedies havingness on auditing.  Self-auditing tends to happen when true
auditing is scarce, for instance by having an auditor whose philosophy is
escape.  To handle this, just audit.  Reestablish the PC's confidence in the
fact that he is being audited and will be audited.  If the preclear weren't
less than the bank, the bank wouldn't give him any trouble.  Even though he's
creating the bank, he's created something out of control.  Someone who's
aberrated is less than the bank; someone who's psychotic is the bank, being
totally overwhelmed by the bank.  Recognizing that one is auditing someone who
is to a degree overwhelmed by his bank, and realizing the laws from the
Original Thesis, we should realize that the auditor has got to be running the
PC at his bank to get anything done.  When the auditor withdraws from doing
this, he collapses the PC's bank back on the PC.  A way to get a major
collapse of the PC's bank is to take a direction of the PC's and follow it.
There are two reasons for this:

          1. The auditor is taking directions from the bank

          2. The auditor has subtracted himself from the basic equation.

It looks to the PC as if only he is confronting the bank.  He loses the
illusion that the auditor is confronting it too, and his bank collapses on
him.  The PC is now just self-auditing.  Pcs do this out of anxiety to get
auditing.  They take over responsibility and try to take control.  If you take
one direction from the PC, his bank collapses on him, no matter how reasonable
his direction may seem.  This is the first time we've really looked at this
mechanism.  It's the primary method by which the auditor ceases to take
responsibility for the session.  This may mean model session should be
rewritten.  It's there to give the illusion of courtesy,



                                       86

that's all.  If the auditor doesn't want the PC to be butchered by the bank,
he'd better stick by his ideas of what he should be doing, no matter how
wrong-headed or upsetting those ideas may appear to be.  Never do what the PC
says, no matter how right he may be or how wrong you are.  If you take the
PC's advice on some direction you've given him, no matter how screwy and
uncompliable with your direction was, you've made a very major error and
collapsed the PC's bank in on him.

     You can also put a PC at responsibility for the session by considering
that pcs ought to do such and such.  That makes the PC responsible for the
condition he's in, in session.  This makes for the equation: (no auditor) + PC
is less than the bank.  This is a failure to grant beingness to the PC in
session.  A PC is doing what he is doing, and he should be doing what he is
doing.  [Auditor's Code No. 14] Considerations on top of this about what the
PC should be doing interrupt responsibility for making the PC do something.
As long as your intentions are wrapped up with what the PC ought to be doing,
in inspecting pictures and so on, you are making this occur.  The error is
that instead of making the PC do or become what you want him to, you add the
sneak consideration "The PC ought to...." This faintly implies, "I'm not
responsible." This winds up with a collapsed bank.

     The most prevalent kind of Q and A is where every time the PC says
something, you follow it.  This lets the PC spot what you should be auditing.
You are thus dropping your responsibility, and you have permitted him to
escape from the original question.  The PC never wants to handle what you want
him to handle, but he has been running away for trillions of years and knows
quite well that he has to face up.  He just needs some backup on it.  This
doesn't mean you must be totally unreasonable.  If the PC wants to go to the
bathroom, you can let him.  It's not a session direction.  But if he wants to
go again five minutes later, it's an escape, so you say, "No."

     Invalidation is the basic overwhelm.  The PC says, "It's my father." you
say, "It can't be!" You could run a whole case, probably, with "Who has been
invalidated?" What is death, sickness, or punishment but invalidation?  You
are taking him on a tour of the bank -- getting him familiar.  He'll come out
the other end not afraid.  Don't let him escape with ruds or his own
directions about what to do, etc.  An auditor would win, even if ignorant of
fine points of tech, if he followed these principles.  The PC must feel able
to talk to the auditor, so you don't shut him up when he tells you that
something is wrong with the process, or whatever.  [Auditor's Code No. 16]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=30/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=47
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-47  Auditing Quality




6108C30 SHSpec-47  Auditing Quality

     If you pass up any reading rudiment and try to go on with the session,
when the PC has his attention on something else, even if it is not-ised, you
will set up trouble in session.  You'll get ARC breaks stemming from the PTP.
It may not be a PTP stemming from the environment.  Sessions can be PTP's.
Also, asking for PTP's can restimulate one that had been dormant until looked
for.  So rudiments can be dangerous ground.  If the PC's PTP is the session,
he has already postulated that he can't have a session, otherwise he'd just
relax about it and not have the PTP.  He's got such a scarcity of auditing
that he has to get the most session he can in that unit of time.  He presses
at it; gives himself more commands; substitutes a process he can do for one he
can't In all this, the PC is just trying to make a session out of it.  This
creates a PTP for the PC.  New pcs especially have a scarcity of



                                       87

any treatment because they've had so much ineffective treatment.  They feel no
treatment is being offered anywhere, so they get a can't have on treatment.
This gets carried over into auditing; it produces a scarcity.  The PC will
demand auditing and won't have it when he gets it.  This all stems from the
PTP of scarcity of treatment.  Handle it with any PTP process, once you get
the PC to see that he has it, using innuendo to get him to cognite that
auditing is scarce.  Use something like, "What auditing sessions have you been
unable to confront?" or "When has there been no auditing?" or "What unknown in
an auditing session would you want to escape from?" This would cure the
phenomenon.

     The PC who has continual PTP's has obviously not told you anything about
his PTP, because those things that are known are not aberrative.  So if he
says, "I know what's wrong with me:  it's my mother," you can write it off.
Those things that are half-known can still make trouble from the unknown half,
so the second the PC says, "I know all about it," that does not necessarily
mean he's recovered from it, if he found out about it in auditing.  It may not
be fully known.  Never believe a PC, except on goals and terminals.

     To the PC, auditing is handling of his fixed attention on the track.  So
you needn't quail at getting in a rudiment if that's where the PC's attention
is fixed.  You do have to find the root of it, the thing he's really stuck
on.  Auditing is what the PC considers frees up his attention.  So ask enough
questions to find out what he's doing and where his attention is.  If the
auditor sits there running the process and doesn't know what's happening with
the PC, he has a big not-know on the session.  The PC can also not-know what
the auditor is doing.  He can feel he's got a withhold because the auditor
never asks what's going on.  You can ask pertinent questions in any number.
Get very certain on what he's doing, how, what he's looking at, etc., etc..
It keeps the PC's attention on his case to keep asking about it.  It also
keeps his comm in, and it gives you a chance to guide him into doing the
command the way you want him to.

     A PC who goes anaten has suffered a drop in havingness.  His primary
havingness is havingness of an auditor.  So, if he's gone anaten, he's lost
the auditor.  You could ask, "When is the first time you lost the auditor?" If
you don't give him back an auditor, he'll continue to go anaten.  The PC with
the most anaten has the least auditor.  The things that cause him to lose the
auditor could be what the auditor does (e.g. an error), or just the PC hitting
some incidents and losing the auditor.  The PC starts going anaten, and the PC
is alone.  That's all.  Find out where he is; he's doing a retreat.  Anaten
and boil-off on the part of the PC indicate that, from the point of view of
the PC, the auditor isn't there.  If you find out where the PC's attention is,
you free it which is the goal of auditing.  If you are interested in the PC's
case, it helps hip to be interested in it.  You can just sit back and give the
command and never find out what the PC is doing, and it will work.  But
compared to what happens if you really do a Cook's tour of the bank, getting
the PC to tell you what's going on all the time, it's an inferior type of
auditing.  If you don't do it that way, the PC will hit the thing and bounce,
hit and bounce, leaving a bit stuck here and there.  The PC will eventually
come out fine.  It just takes longer.  The reason LRH hasn't insisted on
auditors doing it this way is that they can be so knuckleheaded about it.
They dc some escape mechanism by asking a dumb question.  As long as an
auditor experiences impulses, no matter how obscure, to rescue the PC from the
dangers of the bank by pulling him



                                       88

away from it, it's not safe to have him asking questions.  That's the bug in
back of it.

     The bank is as it is because of the confusion and randomity in it.  If
you don't keep the PC confronting the randomity, he won't clear up, that's
all.  That's the source of the 5:1 ratio in length of time needed to produce
an auditing result between others and LRH.  Ron has no allergy to action, but
has no must-have on it either.  You don't audit the quiet points of the
track.  Although a scarcity of action is what is wrong with the PC, we have to
ask, "How did this scarcity of action occur?" It occurred because of the
unpalatability of action.  Stillness is preferred because it keeps you from
getting hurt.  You may find the PC complaining of the boredom of life.  If you
suggest, "Let's go join the Marines!", the PC will say.  "Well, no." Action
has become discreditable.  Society at this time has the opinion that action is
a bad idea, at least as represented in literature.  Why should this be?  If a
PC is so starved for action, you would think that the scarcity of action just
stemmed from his situation in life.  But how did he get himself in that
situation?  The faster you get him over the idea of the discreditable nature
of action, the sooner you'll get him unstuck from the quiet areas of his
track.  The blood and guts are there, a moment before and after.  It's
fascinating to find out what PC's think pictures should be, too.  They may
have weird ideas about what they should have, all backed up with the
discreditability of action.

     You can direct the PC's attention by asking him questions; as long as
your questions do not yank his attention off the subject on which it is
operating, he'll get into no trouble at all.  Finding out what he's doing,
what he's looking at, etc, is beneficial.  And whenever it seems he's just
escaped, find out about what is unknown about what he just left, [Cog: This
would also be the mechanism of blows on misunderstoods: a person cannot
confront the unknown.] or if there's anything else in that.  Keep putting his
attention back on the thing he bounced out of.  Don't do this forcefully, but
use pointed questions.  Eventually the whole thing is sorted out and he's not
stuck on it by all the effort to escape and the mystery and the unconfronted
action.  Furthermore, he knows he's getting auditing because he gets his
attention freed from the spot where it was stuck.  He winds up with action not
being discreditable and being able to have it.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=31/8/61
Volnum=1
Issue=48
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-48  What is Auditing?




6108C31 SHSpec-48  What is Auditing?

     There are two stages of poor auditing:

          1. The auditor audits naturally.

          2. Then learns the rules and audits all thumbs with the rules.

Eventually, the rules fall back to where they belong and he does fine.  The
basics of auditing are what they are.  You are auditing a human being.  The
auditing is addressed to a case.  Auditing must be done.  What is auditing?
Auditing is the PC in session, willing to talk to the auditor and interested
in his own case, and able to talk to the auditor.  Interested in own case does
not mean interested in session.  The session itself should never be
interesting.  Witch doctors maintained such a compelling presence that the
patient couldn't help being interested in the session.  This was the wrong way
to operate.  There was such complexity in the tech that it took half a
lifetime to learn.  E.g. the technique of a piercing scream followed by a
silence, then an hypnotic command, then resuming



                                       89

the scream at the same pitch and volume, or the ability to leap with a back
somersault through the smoke hole of a wigwam or lodge and sit on the trees, so
as to apparently disappear, then talk down through the hole in "spirit
voices".  This would be so interesting that the patient would come back to
life.

     In scientology, you walk into these expectations of what a healer is
supposed to be and do, but the fake is the guy who doesn't know model session
and can't do this or that, so he isn't an auditor.  You've got the
now-I'm-supposed-to's.  They've got potent reasons in back of them, but they
also become a badge of being a pro.  His ease in handling the form impresses
the PC and has a magical effect.  Omit some of the forms and the PC suspects
that there's something wrong with your auditing.  This can be ridiculous --
form for the sake of form and magical effect.  It's good to know and use the
forms, but auditing comes back to something else: running cases.  It's always
more important to run cases than to run according to form.  The form just
makes it easier, as a guideline.  When you're really expert, the form won't
even be apparent.  It'll just look like you're doing something effective.
This requires real skill.  You have to be completely comfortable with what you
are doing, making it look utterly natural while doing it utterly by the
rules.  In this respect, auditing is like doing Japanese paintings.  Doing it
by the rules makes it harder, because you have to be natural while doing it by
the form, which is artificial.  If you fall short of appearing totally
natural, you will fall short of total control.  There is a real art in using
rudiments without the PC noticing the order you're using, so he complies
because it's so natural that it must be addressed to him.  It is communication
that is compelling.  It must sound so casual that it sounds perfectly relaxed
and there's no question in your mind about what you are doing or where you are
going or what you are going to achieve.  And this very casualness seems to
speak of reserved power, like a Rolls Royce idling at the curb.  Ease is
power; strain is never power.  A quiet voice is more commanding than a loud
one.

     This is based on the effect scale, naturally.  It's easy for you to audit
a PC with tremendous control if you yourself are not anxious, if you are
confident you can control any part of the situation.  You are not trying to
interest him in the session, and he feels there's nothing for him to look at
but the bank; nothing to see but his case.  The ease with which you can do it
is based on confidence, which is based on wins and ability.  When you have
ideas that you won't win, your confidence drops.  The reality factor has to be
in, and if you are anxious about somebody's case, you'll appear anxious about
his case.  "I handle it another way.  I say, 'Gee, I sure am worried about
your case these days.'  The PC says, "Really?  I haven't been worried about my
case.  Why are you?' Well, you never say, "Gee whiz!  I just realized....'
You just keep on running this thing." This creates a much higher reality than
a robotic "I-am-going-to-audit-you-now-do-fish-fly?" If you look confident but
feel unconfident, he's likely to respond to your anxiety.  The more he
withholds this, the less he'll go into session.  It doesn't help the PC for
the auditor to be an unknown factor to the PC; as long as the auditor stops
short of eval or inval or Q and A, the auditor should keep the R-factor in.

     The reality factor begins in your command of your information.  If you
don't feel you have a command of the information, and you pretend to have a
command of your information, your session will come a cropper every time.  You
cannot help it no matter how hard you try.  A session goes to pieces only on
these points of



                                       90

unreality in the auditor in the auditor.  You can find the points of unreality
by asking, "What did you disagree with in that session?" You'll find that's
where things go awry, because there's no R in the session.  If there's no R,
there's no A or C.  Don't think there is any lag on this.  When the R goes,
the others drop at once.  You may become aware of them later.  The unreality
entered into the session by the auditor causes the auditor to get peeved with
the PC.  A session is basically an ARC activity.  If there's been high ARC in
the auditor, it will materialize in the PC.

     A PC can look at his bank as well as he can communicate.  A good auditor
has a highly perceptive PC.  The same PC, audited by another auditor with low
ARC, is not as perceptive.  These factors have always existed.  If you feel
annoyance or anxiety with the PC, that will drop the R and cut C.  This can be
destructive to the PC, because the auditor projects a low perceptivity.  This
is one of the first factors that got in the road of dianetics.  Auditor
presence in the session varied.  An auditor who is confident creates an
auditing environment in which it is safe to depart into the never-never land
of the unknown.  So it's the auditor and the emotional tone of the session
which determine what takes place.

     When you've been auditing a long time and haven't cleared somebody, you
aren't operating on a very high level of confidence.  When you've seen
somebody get cleared, your confidence level goes up to hopeful.  When you've
cleared somebody, you get confident.  When you've cleared a string of them,
you get insouciant.  But that in itself is a reality.  When you've not gotten
results, you feel less confident about pcs, so you're auditing in an
environment which has low ARC in it.  A false note in the auditor's confidence
is always detectable.  The PC's attention goes off his case onto the auditor,
because he feels there's something here he doesn't know and there's something
unknown in the session.  Unknownness is the keynote, here.  The auditor
doesn't know whether he can produce a result or what he can do, or whether
he'll get the PC through, etc.  He has no determination of the final result.
To the PC, it adds up as the auditor not knowing, so there's a mystery in the
session.  The PC may try arduously to spot the not-know, because of the
mystery which sticks him.  The auditor can't keep the PC in session because
the PC's attention is on the auditor.  How much mystery does he smell?  LRH
would disabuse him of any mystery he can -- how long the session will be, if
that's relevant.  Any mystery about what's going on.  Just destroy it.  You
tell him what you are going to run, if you're going to ignore something, etc.

The ARC break disappears because so much R has been thrown into the session.

     Always try to make the PC right; never make the PC wrong, but don't make
the PC right at the expense of making yourself wrong.  If challenged because
of a legitimate flub, LRH would normally catch it before the PC does.  If he
doesn't, he figures he's slipping.  You should know more about what's going on
in the session at any given moment than the PC does; therefore you have more
R, therefore more control.  If the PC is telling you what's going on,
something is seriously out and probably has been for weeks.  The PC is not
always right, but the auditor doesn't have to tell him he's wrong.  There's no
need to prove anything to the PC.

     To prove is one of the basic games of the thetan, so the PC can easily
get into this games condition.  But if he does, something earlier is out --
some R-factor.  "I would never audit someone to electrify the community.
We've done it, and it's never



                                       91

been effective." It's the old "prove" game.  You don't use scientology to
prove it works, because you've gotten into a games condition before you start,
and an auditing session is not a games condition, and you should know it.
Every homo sapiens is in a games condition.  This could easily take precedence
over a session, so just don't play, because if you let it be a games
condition, you'll both lose, since the PC won't let you get him better.  At
the least whiff of a games condition, the PC will take off in that direction.
As soon as you agree to have a game with the PC, auditing does not exist.
When you drop out R, you've entered an ingredient which can lead to a games
condition.  You're withholding something from the PC, so obviously there's a
game.  Just the fact that you are doing this causes this atmosphere.

     Auditing is an activity of an auditor taking over control of and
shepherding the attention of, a PC, so as to bring about a higher level of
confront ability.  He has got to be able to confront more of what he has done
and is doing, etc.  You're not really changing the PC.  You may remove
valences, etc., which makes him appear to have changed.  But what you are
really doing is to extend the PC and to familiarize him with himself and his
bank and the universe on various dynamics.  So his attention has to be
shepherded, and not all by the automaticity of the auditing command, because
the PC is going to duck.

     You can count on the fact that every stuck picture is in some degree held
there, but the PC can look at the action surrounding the stuck point if he can
look at the stuck picture.  The indication that he can regard the action is
that he can regard the stuck picture which is blanking it out.  The PC is the
one who brought up the stuck picture.  Changes on cases which are rapid and
beneficial frequently come from shepherding the PC's attention, not from
permissive grind grind grind.  If the PC offers up something his attention is
on and the auditor refuses to help him look at it, the PC can get upset.  The
PC doesn't know what he's looking at.  He needs to be guided into looking at
what he hasn't confronted.  The PC often indicates he's in trouble by
sweating, screaming, writhing, etc.  The only fast way the auditor can get him
out is by not letting him escape.  The auditor shouldn't Dress for anything
except case gain.  Don't change a process because it isn't going fast enough.
Change the PC's attention.  The way out is the way through.  So if he's stuck
in something, move him through it.  An auditor can't do this if he has no
reality on what the PC is doing.  If the PC is looking fixedly, the way to
handle it is to get him to look a little further.  The stuck picture is a
stable datum which he's busily looking at to avoid looking at the confusion
around it.  When you get him to look at the confusion, the stable datum can
blow.  With a case that has a black field, ask what's on the other side of
it.  With an invisible field, or an "invisible" case with no pictures, get
which way he is looking and get him to look in a different direction.

     It's up to you to direct the PC's attention.  Why?  Because he himself,
in that very bank he has been in, has his attention fixed on these objects
solely for one reason: Because he has been powerless to direct his own
attention in that particular bank and in those particular situations.  If an
auditor doesn't do any attention-directing, the command alone will do it, but
far more slowly.  But there will be no ARC if the PC believes the auditor
doesn't care.  If you want fast clearing, you'll just have to get down to the
fundamental, which is that the auditor is someone who directs the PC's
attention through his bank.



                                       92


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=5/9/61
Volnum=1
Issue=49
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-49  Principles of Auditing




6109C05 SHSpec-49  Principles of Auditing

     There is no substitute for understanding and there is no understanding
without experience.  In an auditing situation where there is no understanding
or familiarity, there is likely to be established only the reality of war, and
if the auditor does not have understanding of and familiarity with the PC and
his bank, he will be at war whether he likes it or not.  The anatomy of hatred
is based on the anatomy of non-comprehension.  Non-comprehension is based on a
lack of familiarity and observation.  If you want to not comprehend something,
by all means don't look at it.  Another condition applies: a tremendous amount
of pretended knowingness and pretended understanding can arise after one has
not observed.  Psychiatry and psychology got nowhere because they mostly
observed dead tissue, when they observed anything.  The reason LRH made
progress in the field of the study of the mind was his novel introduction of
the study of living beings.  You'd have to be able to confront motion to do
that, and you would have to be a man of action.

     An auditor has two sources of familiarity in processing:

          1. Subjective reality.

          2. Observation of the PC and meter behavior while he audits.

He can also live and observe life, though this universe is rigged so that if
you do too much living in this particular society, you wind up with too many
withholds, and after that your auditor has a lot of trouble trying to get you
in session.  There possibly is some phase of life that is not punished, but if
so, LRH hasn't discovered what it is yet.

     Certain rules govern auditing, but they can go only so far in guiding you
along the road to making clears.  The great oddity is that it can be done at
all.  No number of rules can give you familiarity with what is going on in the
PC at any given moment.  You should experience it yourself to gain knowingness
on it.  At that point, you will see the reasons, value, and importance of the
rules.  About 30% of all cases in scientology have never seen a mind.  That's
the only source of bad auditing.  Why are auditors difficult to train?
They're only difficult to train in those areas where they don't have
familiarity.  So what's needed is a process which gives familiarity, with the
bank and all its aspects, and at the same time, you'd pick up all the
hang-fired clear cases.  They are hanging fire because they are not going
along the line they should, in auditing.  They're walking the far edge of the
crater so as not to fall in.  An auditor who doesn't have familiarity with the
mind will applaud this tightrope walk, and makes sure the PC never falls in
because the thing to do is to keep out of trouble.  All of man's wars,
sicknesses, economic disasters, political chaos, etc. come entirely from one
thing: keeping out of trouble.  You are not supposed to keep the PC out of
trouble if the trouble is in his bank.  A PC never protests at getting into
trouble if it gives him potential familiarity with the bank.  He protests
measures that prevent him from becoming familiar with his bank.  He protests
no auditing.  To audit without curiosity about where the PC is and what he is
doing is a sure-fire way to keep him from getting into any trouble.  If you
never find out what's going on, you never have to confront his bank and he
doesn't have to confront his bank.  The time can go up to light years and
nobody gets any auditing done.  As a general rule, any mechanism you introduce
into a session which permits a PC to avoid confronting his bank or takes the
PC out of session is going to produce ARC breaks, heavy problems etc.  All a
PC ever objects to is not



                                       93

being audited.  It has to be the PC getting none, not thinking he isn't.  Say
the PC has a continual PTP with his wife, who denies him auditing.  This
creates the ARC break.  How she denies him auditing can vary, but the
prevention of auditing makes the upset.

     The reason she does it is interesting: it is because she can't have
auditing.

     So the grades of cases are:

          1. Those that can't have any auditing.

          2. Those that consider their auditing is being prevented.

          3. Those that can have auditing.

On the first two classes, you won't get any clearing.  So you must remedy
havingness of auditing.  Some of the prevention of auditing can result from
non-comprehension of what it is -- missing data of one kind or another.  Those
who can't have auditing come under the same heading of scarcity of auditing.
Either it doesn't exist because they have no understanding, and therefore it
isn't anything, or, if it did occur, there would be too many social
repercussions because they have too many withholds.

     The PC who is ARC breaky or who has PTP's is being denied auditing in
some way.  This sounds very monocentric, since auditing is a new subject.  But
adequate treatment has not hitherto existed on this planet.  Everyone's
reaction to getting sick or injured is, "Oh, no!  I'll have to get treatment.
God forbid!" The only place where regard for treatment has been lower is in
the Markab Confederacy, where medicine was taught with dried tissue samples as
the only mass.  There it got so bad that you weren't ever permitted to get a
new body.  This was typical of many space-opera societies.  This society is
moving in the direction of replacing parts with mechanical substitutes.
Because treatment is so ineffective, it has to be delivered by callous people
who make nothing out of their patients.  Otherwise the treatment would be an
overt.  They are lessening the overt.  And preclears have been educated into
the attitude that there is no effective treatment.  Nevertheless, a large
percentage still hopes treatment can take place, amazingly.  The hope must be
rather thin by now, so if the auditor makes a move in the direction of no
treatment, the PC ARC breaks.  So at first you are doing a cheerleader's job.
Then, when you have him in session, let him have treatment.  How could you
prevent him from getting treatment?  First, don't let him put his attention on
his case.  He never protests crude fumbling with his case, as long as you do
guide him into it.  All protests and difficulties of the PC stem from no
treatment, no auditing.  You get the violence of an ARC break if you prevent
the PC from getting auditing because auditing is painful.  And the basis of
the pain is that there is no auditing.  So irreparable damage might occur.
The PC believes now that auditing can cure any damage, but if there is to be
no auditing, then the damage isn't curable, so he is in a state of anxiety as
soon as you violate in-sessionness.

     Another phenomenon is involved in this: he is looking at an engram.  The
only space in the engram is brought about by his attention on the engram, and
until the engram is desensitized, he will have to keep some space in it to
keep the engram off the end of his nose.  So if you distract him suddenly from
an engram, the space may disappear from out of the engram, and he finds that
engram on the end of his nose.  You let the engram bite him by taking his
attention off the engram.  He can get somatics.  Then he compounds it with an
overt against the auditor.



                                       94

     There are many ways one can let the PC's attention be yanked out of
session.  One is choosing an auditing room which has action of activity in its
vicinity, because you then set up auditing as the stable datum around which
action is occurring.  You can get away with a lot of this, but don't try to
audit in the middle of a busy street.  You can run out past auditing in busy
areas by asking, "What has been unknown about the activity of an auditing
area?" This is to handle the 50 cubic yards he was aware of, whose motion
pinned him down into the half a cubic yard of the session.  So, ensure that
the session won't be interrupted.  An auditor who chatters at a PC about other
things than the session is setting the PC up to pull his attention off his
case.  In the session itself, an ineffective process is no auditing.  Almost
anything we have now, run smoothly, would keep him in session.  Tech is not a
source of auditing bust-ups, since it is auditing.  But the administration of
it is the important one.

     The prediction factor involves surprise.  What is a surprise?  People
with low tolerance of unknowns can be surprised more easily than you'd think,
and the degree that a person can be surprised is in proportion to his
tolerance of unknownnesses.  The less he tolerates the unknown, the more be
can be surprised.  A surprise is not having known, a past tense unknownness.
"What isn't known?" doesn't run surprises; "What wasn't known?" runs
surprises.  The fact had existence before he found out about it, and he is
shocked that he didn't know about it when it was going on.  The anatomy of
surprise is unpredicted change.  It registers in the mind only if there was a
knownness present which the PC didn't know, and then finds out later.  He
tries to go backtrack into all that unknownness and gets the impression of
floundering around during that time in a not-knownness, which is an
invalidation of his knowingness and his permeation.  That is the only thing a
thetan ever objects to: an invalidation of knowingness.  He objects on the
basis of surprise.  So he gets a future which looks like this:  All sorts of
things going on in his vicinity which he doesn't know about, that he will
maybe find out about and they will be a terrible shock to him.  So he starts
living in a state of anxiety, because he's had it demonstrated that facts not
known to him which are quite destructive can exist in his environment without
his awareness.  He's sucked back into the whirlpool of unknown yesterdays.
The truth is, he knew his environment in those yesterdays, but he looks back
on it as not knowing his environment.  So things of horrible portent could be
going on at this very moment.  So that's what anxiety and nervousness is.  He
gets very alert so as not to be surprised.  This destroys I.Q.; I.Q. goes down
in direct proportion to the amount of unknownness he conceives the environment
to hold.  This will apply to a subject, too.  Someone who gets more
unknownness in the environment than he can tolerate may manifest the insanity
of putting a known [delusory] terminal there.  That's a pretended knowingness
on the environment.

     This applies directly to sessions.  Most of what a PC is going through is
accumulation of unknownnesses that he suddenly found out, and nearly
everything he's got in the bank is a prevention against being caught unawares
again.  So when a PC finds out something from the auditor which existed before
he discovered it, here's what could happen: he's interiorized into his bank,
and the auditor fiddles with the cans and says, "The meter is out, so we'll
have to stop the session." The PC is given the data that the meter was out
when he didn't know it, so there wasn't a session when he thought there was
one.  He doesn't know how long this was the case, and the mystery pins him in
the session.  Or the auditor stops the when the PC thought he was doing all
right.  That gives him an unknown.



                                       95

     Surprise is based on change.  We're interested in the unknown factor,
which is what sticks PC's in it.  You can change a process fifteen times an
hour on a PC without damaging him, but you can suddenly change a process on
some consideration he doesn't know about and ARC break him across the boards.
The PC will accuse the auditor in an effort to solve the unknownness which
existed before the change.  You could advise the PC well in advance of what
you intented to do, so long as you don't yank his attention off what he's
looking at.  If you start running a process without clearing it first or
letting him know you're going to do it, you'll probably get away with it
unless the process doesn't work well, in which case he'll think you are
impetuous.

     A PC is only one kind of victim -- a victim of no auditing, no matter how
many motivators show up on his case.  That's the only one that can cause
auditing difficulties.  He feels an unknown exists he doesn't know about in
the session.  That's why you've got to keep the R-factor up and the
knowingness factor in.  Pc's sense the unknowns.  When one is about to occur,
turn it into a known:  warn him.  Don't try to gain auditing time by omitting
these things.  You can audit a PC without his agreement, but you can't audit
him without his knowingness.

     ARC breaks clear up most rapidly on not-know processing.  Run it always
in the past tense, not the present, because that's where there was an element
of surprise, the unknown which preceded the found outs.  Model session also
provides a known structure.  You can jump it -- as long as you tell him.

     The unknownness of the PC's bank really impinges on him.  If you, the
auditor, have no reality on its components, no knownness on its components,
he'll sense you don't know your business.  Your Ability to control the session
depends directly on your knowingness of the parts of the mind.  This is of
course why LRH audits so effectively.  The PC feels you see all, know all when
you, seeing where he isn't looking, direct his attention to it.  Get familiar
with the mind and make the session familiar to the PC, and you'll be a bearcat
of an auditor.

     To handle ARC breaks, you can ask, "What didn't I know about what you
were doing?"


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=6/9/61
Volnum=1
Issue=50
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-50  Subjective Reality




6109C06 SHSpec-50  Subjective Reality

     An auditor who believes there are engrams, who has an intellectual
understanding of the time track, who has the idea that there are such things
as masses, and who is aware of pcs having been out of present time, but
himself has no slightest idea of ever being in another time stream than Now,
that auditor is a dangerous auditor, because he is escaping from Then.  Now is
only an escape from Then, by definition.  This auditor will allow pcs to
escape from Then.  This is directly opposed to clearing, which is showing
someone he doesn't have to escape from Then because he can confront Then, and
when he confronts Then, he is no longer stuck in Then.  He must see that he
can survive in spite of his demons; that they were the shadows of life, not
its substance.  If you are showing him how to escape from life, you're
teaching him to be worse off.  An auditor who is letting the PC escape from
the bank will make mistakes in auditing.  This is the most fruitful source of
mistakes, the PC feeling no confidence, ARC breaking, etc.  The PC knows down
deep that it's wrong not to confront the bank, so he objects because he
vaguely knows he's not getting auditing.



                                       96

     Understanding is built on observation and familiarity.  A person who has
had no experience of a reactive mind trying to get someone to handle a
reactive mind makes a dog's breakfast out of it.

     You hear at times that a scientologist is harder to audit than a raw-meat
PC.  There are several reasons for this.  He knows how it ought to go; he is
accustomed to handling an auditing session.  So, as a PC, he is more
accustomed to handling the session than an inexperienced PC would be.  He
audits faster, but he also ARC breaks more.  He is more critical as a PC,
because he cannot permit himself to duplicate a bad session.  All his training
tells him not to duplicate bad sessions.  So his havingness of the session
vanishes when he recognizes it to be different from what he conceives it
should be.  The amount of ARC break here is not a case indicator.  Nothing
shows up faster in an auditor than unfamiliarity with the bank.  And if the
scientologist who is familiar with the bank is being audited by someone who
isn't, you'll never get a session.  There's out-R, so you get ARC breaks.  One
way to audit out a bad session is, "What about (the session, the auditor,
etc.) would you be willing to be / not be willing to be?" It is this
unwillingness to be that makes it impossible for the session to occur.

     If an auditor who is familiar with the bank flubs, he'll know what
occurred, so he can repair it, and the ARC break doesn't last long.  An
auditor who has no familiarity with the bank will put the PC's attention on
the flub, won't find what the PC is looking at on the backtrack, so in trying
to handle what he thinks (wrongly) is important, he will pile up more
no-auditing, thus creating more ARC breaks.  He thinks the PC is just sitting
in a chair in PT, nastily having an ARC break.  You can make lots of flubs if
you have an understanding of the PC's reality, because you can fix them.  But
a person with no subjective reality on the track won't realize that the PC
isn't in PT and will drag him up to PT, collapsing the track in PT and
disorienting him.  Disorientation is, for one thing, a source of dreams and
delusions.  The thetan, in the skull, can't find out where he is when the body
is asleep, so he puts up some false knowingnesses of where he is, making a
dream or nightmare.  That's all a dream is.  When you disorient a thetan, you
have given him the only real shock he can get.  You have chosen him out for
your randomity and told him to get lost and get confused.

     In auditing, you are in direct communication with the thetan.  He has
problems, most of which are disorientation problems.  He is down the track,
trying to find out where he has been.  If you spring a surprise on him, his
first reaction is not to know where he is.  His next action is delusory
knowingness.  He will tell you he doesn't know something, like what you are
doing.  He actually means that he doesn't know where he is.  He will put up
delusory arguments to account for the shift.  The real reason for it is the
auditor's lack of reality on the PC's bank.  The PC is putting up delusory
knowingness when he criticizes your auditing.  He is trying to find his
unknown, but, of course, he is in the unknown of thinkingness, because he is
confused enough not to be able to confront the unknownness of whereness.
Unknownness of where requires more of the PC than the unknownness of idea
because solids take more confront than ideas.  If you don't put him where he
is in a hurry, he will keep adding delusion and significances in an effort to
orient himself.  All the auditor has to do to shut it off is to find out where
the PC has been and where he is.  But the auditor would have to have reality
on the is-ness of the bank to know that that's the obvious thing to do.  Don't
pull the PC's attention to the ARC break.  It just disorients him more and ARC
breaks him more.



                                       97

     If you have trouble with nightmares, figure out how the nightmare located
you.  And figure out where you are.  Locate yourself [Or run locational.]

     If you give the wrong command, let the PC answer it, then ask him the
right command.  Don't yank the PC up to PT.

     To give an auditor a reality on the bank, you could run, "What unknown
would you escape from / attack?"  (Use any verb form that gives reach and
withdraw).  As a valence process, you could run, "Think of an unknown.  Who
would escape from it / attack it?" or "Think of a being.  What unknown would he
escape from / attack?"

     When you find a person who has somatics and has no reality on the bank,
he is of course not in PT.  He has escaped by total withdrawal from some
ancient environment.  This process gets them to do what they are doing: escape
from and attack what they are in, which is the unconfrontable past
environment.  You could use another process, "Who would escape from / attack
things?" You can run, "Who would you be willing to be / rather not be?"

     The reason why a beingness is functional is that part of a valence
package is a track.  So every now and then someone runs on a track that's not
his own.  He sees himself always from the outside and gets thin impressions of
himself.  He has the bank of each person into whose valence he's gone.  This
is disorienting; it gives him an unreality of location.  A valence has a bank,
skills, disabilities, etc.  The person entered it on the basis of being unable
to control the valence or terminal, so of course he can't have or control any
of the mechanisms of the valence.  So you cannot move that bank.  He hasn't
enough ownership of it to run engrams, etc.  There was a point where the PC
got the valence.  That's the only point where the valence will break.  By
auditing beings, not ideas or pictures, you'll get the valences blowing off.
Routine three is very effective, but a shortcut would be any beingness
process, e.g.  "Think of a being."  This will give his his own track back.
Sometimes you'll have pcs with tremendous numbers of pictures they dimly
recognize as not theirs.  The pictures are not familiar; they are thin.  This
gives an unreality on past lives when that's the quality of the pictures off
the track.  Of course, in his past life, he was another beingness.  People who
have had valence trouble go out of valence easily, so they have lots of wrong
pictures.  So you take an incident of vast confusion and motion one is not
willing to tolerate because it occurs with a target that isn't appropriate to
the motion, and it causes disorientation as you protest.  A valence could
occur in that way.  Ordinarily, one who was there would pick up the valence of
someone else, so that all subsequent track is seen from the wrong point of
view -- and it all stems from total disorientation.  An auditor who has too
much valence trouble has no great reality on somebody else's bank because his
bank isn't really his; it's a very thin set of pictures.  Run him back and
you'll hit some tremendous explosion when twenty spaceships collided.  That's
the type of incident which makes a valence transfer, not some mind incident.

     An auditor who has no reality on past lives hasn't collided with his bank
very hard.  It's not reprehensible; it's just a symptom of valence and bank
trouble, so the guy doesn't get his own pictures and has no conception of
being stuck in pictures.  He'll worry about his auditing flubs and why he
can't quite handle his pcs.  He'll worry about his ability to audit.  He's
trying to orient himself with a datum.  The datum he's looking for is this:



                                       98

as long as he has low subjective reality of a bank, when a PC gets into one,
his reality is not instantaneous, so he will do a little fumble or comm lag,
which causes an ARC break, because the PC loses confidence in the auditor's
ability to run the session.  It's not that the person was trying to do
something bad to the PC, or that he didn't know scientology.  It's just that
his mechanisms of handling life have been escape from self into others, and
not getting in contact with the horrors of thenness.

     The difficulties you encounter all come under the heading of auditor comm
lag.  An auditor's fumble is the unreality he has on what the PC is doing or
going through.  You don't have time to remember the datum; you have to know it
and act instantaneously.  The only thing that teaches this is experiencing.
Fumbling is not overcomable with rules and texts.  Drill might help, but it
probably wouldn't, because of out-reality.  The only real cure is to audit the
person enough to give him the reality.  However, an auditor doesn't have to be
cleared to learn to audit.  It would be nice, but it's not absolutely
necessary.

     The escape mechanism, where a person never tours the track, surrenders
fairly easily to auditing, because it is based on another idea than that which
degrades or aberrates a thetan.  Escape is simply a method of handling a bank,
not a method of getting aberrated.  A case deteriorates when the individual no
longer has confidence in himself as himself and thus adopts another packaged
beingness to handle the situation.  Then this beingness turns out not to be a
solution, so he gets another, etc. etc., and your backtrack of clearing could
not be followed by the idea of escape, because that's much too simple a
statement of the situation.  A person can find himself inadequate in numerous
ways besides the fact that they are trying to escape.  Also, there are
situations when escape is wise.  But deterioration of confidence in one's own
ability to handle life leads one to believe he must have another beingness in
order to handle things for him.  Now he starts living life on an
irresponsibility.  Eventually, his adoption of new identities goes into the
life/death cycle, which is not at all usual [in the life of thetans].  Life,
invalidating the body and the valences, gets down to the idea that the best
thing to do is to chuck the mockup.  That just makes a failure.  A person ages
to the degree that he feels invalidated.  The age of a man in any lifetime is
directly proportional to the accumulation of unknowns, which, of course, is
invalidation.  Children probably grow up fast because they are moving through
so much unknownness.  They have hope and confidence because they are growing
up.  This hope is not necessarily justified.

     A person with valence trouble is especially effected by invalidation and
is likely to have long lists of goals and terminals or to have a more
submerged goal.  There is a positive correlation between the roughness of a
case and the length of time it would take you to find a goal if you didn't
take up the inval with rudiments.  Invalidation could be said to be the basis
of aberration.  How much inval a person feels determines how aberrated he is.

     Give the auditor with a slight reality on the track some auditing aimed
at fixing his reality, and his auditing will get better; his invalidatability
will decrease.  Now he knows what he's doing, and it was that which was in his
road.

