                                       99


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=7/9/61
Volnum=1
Issue=51
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-51  Reality in Auditing




6109C07 SHSpec-51  Reality in Auditing

     Engrams never ran with the PC out of valence.  All long engram running
stems from the PC being out of valence.  We want him in the body he was in
when the incident occurred.  It's not necessarily "his own valence"; It's the
valence he was in when the incident occurred.  Being out of valence is the
PC's way of denying responsibility for his part in the incident.  Being in
valence just permits him to run the pictures.  As long as he occupies a body
and thinks of it as himself, he's not really being himself.  When the PC who
is out of valence sees pictures, they are small and thin.  They have nothing
to do with him.  If the auditor is not aware of such phenomena, he can make
classic errors.  The PC sees a picture.  The auditor never asks, "Where are
you viewing it from?" or "What body do you occupy in the picture?" Not asking
these things, the auditor thinks it's all going fine, when in fact the picture
is way over there and very thin.  You're not really running the picture the PC
saw; you are running a "safe" version, with the condition that he never view
it from the original viewpoint, so it never as-ises.  Pc's who are run this
way on any process never get anyplace.  Don't pay any attention the PC has
from someone elses viewpoint.  It won't do any good.

     Conceptual processes have the virtue of moving a PC straight back to the
picture he is in -- that is, of charging up the chain he is stuck in, that
makes him out of valence from that point on.  Eventually, he will wind up in
his own valence, in a picture.  If the auditor doesn't make him handle it, he
doesn't know his business.

     There are several approaches to this, if you understand it.  The track is
the series of pictures made by the person from the viewpoint he was occupying
at the time of the incidents on it.  Trying to run stuff from other viewpoints
is just running branch lines, And he won't get erasures.  His "engrams" are
pictures of engrams, and you're trying to erase a picture that never occurred,
though the engram occurred!

     There is a simple method to handle this: "Have you ever seen a picture
from inside the body you were in at the time?" The PC frequently will say,
"Well, yes!" And he tells you about one, or several.  Take one of them and ask
if there's anything about the auditing question he answered which is unknown.
Run all the unknownnesses out of the incident.  You can find out that the
incident has been with him ever since!  There's a fundamental method:  find
out if he has been in one and put him back in it.

     If he's never been in an engram, you can run, "Recall an ARC break." This
will unstack the track to a point where he'd find himself in the upsetting
incident.  Then you can flatten it.  Another one which will do it easily: "Get
the idea of action out in front of you, 200-300 ft. away." "Conceive of an
action 200-300 ft. behind you." What happened to the mass?  It shifted.  You
could follow this through, use processes of inspection at a distance, and
eventually get the guy to where he'd be in the picture he was stuck in.  That
peels down the valence.

     People like repetitive processes.  If the PC has a bad leg but never
mentions it, don't run it, but if he complains about it, there is something
you can run: Ask if he has any odd pressures, which will be his chronic
psychosomatic illness -- probably his hidden standard.  Run this vicious
process: "Who would have an unknown motion around the (leg)?" This sort of
question will



                                      100

knock out chronic somatics if flattened.  It also works on absence of
sensation.  Another thing to do is see on the meter if motion, confusion,
action, etc., reads well.  Then make a command, "Who would have an unknown
(action, etc.) around his (leg)?"

     A PC who will not view his bank has tremendous intolerance of notions and
unknowns.  Motion can become intolerable to someone who is fixated on the
subject of pain.  He believes that all motion adds up to pain.  pain does
involve motion.  The strange thing is that someone who is trying to stop
motion to prevent pain is doing the thing that makes pain occur.  If the
thetan wasn't trying to stop motion around the body, the body would experience
no pain.  Notice, with a pain, how it seems to result from two opposing
motions.  As with all things, people don't like it because they haven't had
enough of it.

     In handling a PC who has no bank visible, these factors must be present:

     1. He has an intolerance of pain, hence of motion and unknowns.

     2. He has a fantastic importance attached to motions and unknowns.

We see this but not-is it: people being very concerned about some particular
unknown area.  The most unknownness there can be -- the most important one, is
the unknownness of motion.  Being hit by surprise tends to give a stuck
somatic because of the unknownness of it.  Those engrams which are most
seriously stuck on the track are the ones composed of incomprehensibles.  The
PC may keep getting fixed ideas about it in an effort to figure it out.
Pretended knowingness substitutes for a non-confront of unknownness.  The
importance of the unknownness and motion depends on the degree of threat to
survival.  This goes back to the idea that one must survive, which is the
basic idiocy.  Any way of getting a version of "unknown" and "motion"
together, combined with valences, gives you a process to get the PC into his
own pictures.

     In space opera, when they're conditioning thetans, there's sometimes a
"tumbler" incident.  This is pretty common.  He's thrown down a shaft which is
lighted at the top and bottom, spinning as he goes.  He gets a lot of pictures
of white spots as he tries to stop himself all the way down.  So he gets
bright spots stuck around him, not very far from him at various distances up
to 100 feet.  If you tell someone to look closer in than 200 feet, he's likely
to run into them.  There are lots of ways to get somebody dislocated.

     A delusory bank, like dreams, is an effort to locate oneself.  This is
why 8-C and TR-10 make him feel better.  Nearly every picture a PC has is an
effort to locate himself at a point where he got dislocated.  Unknown time
plays a major role, tool Having the PC spot unknown pictures shakes up all
these efforts to locate himself by means of them.  He'll get pictures flying
by in all directions.

     A universe could be seen as an effort to locate oneself.  Therefore,
because a thetan doesn't have to be located, it's a dirty trick to give him
the idea he has to be located.  It's a very senior concept in processing: That
a thetan does not have to

     If one could just cog on that out of the blue, he'd be clear.  But if you
did begin to have that thought, you'd probably stop, because the thought would
set unknown motions going.  Trying



                                      101

to locate another thetan must be a basic overt, but one that is prior to the
overt-motivator sequence.  You try to get the concept, "I don't have to be
located," and you run up against the O/M phenomena.  You could run, "Think of
locating somebody." This first runs off as good actions.  Then it goes over
into overts, then into a dispersal where he gets hard to audit.  If you clean
up motion and unknownness well, which cleans up valences, the PC reaches back
and starts changing his mind about these things and we get change of mind
processing.  The route we are looking for is the route to change of mind, the
thetan just as-ising his old considerations.

     What booby-traps this is that the PC must have escaped from innumerable
pictures and gone off the track in numerous places .  He doesn't have a
concept of where he's been and what he's done, and the unknownness of that is
important because if he's escaped from these things, they must have been
dangerous, A thetan proves that things are dangerous by the fact that he ran
away.  People in fact do not escape to the degree that things are dangerous.
They escape to the degree that they are unknown and have unacceptable motion.
Wars are dangerous but known, so people will play that game.  In war, there is
an effort to dislocate and locate by the enemy and by one's own commanders,
One could dream up a substitute for war using the principle of locate vs.
dislocate, fix and unfix.

     The whole idea of power stems from the ability to hold a location.  This
is an idea of thetans which has become actualized in the physical universe.
The ability to hold the location depends in part on one's belief that one can
hold it.  The power of a body of troops on a hilltop depends on their ability
to hold their position and to make the enemy hold his position.  They have to
take responsibility for holding the enemy where they are, but they usually
don't bother to pin the enemy down.  Countries look weak after wars because
one terminal has dislodged the other.  You always get generated energy by
thrusting something at something that won't move.  This applies in the MEST or
the theta universe, A thetan's friction against life and life's thrust against
him does generate energy.  The force of an engine depends on the strength of
the elements that restrain the motion of the piston, eg the bearings, etc.

     To the degree a thetan resists a position, he gets a picture.  To get a
solid 3D picture in a PC, get him to find a time when there were two forces,
each trying to push the other away.  Or find an argument the PC had with
someone.  Girls get the idea that they have to know something about
electricity to understand scientology.  And, since they've gotten out of the
habit of fighting, holding the front line, etc, they think they shouldn't know
much about power, force, etc.  This is not true.  Girls generate more power
and sparks than anything else in this society.  They will get firmly attached
to an idea and not let go of it no matter how much you argue it.

     Banks are charged and bother people to the degree that one has tried to
hold positions and knock people off positions.  A bank is like a mold of what
one tried to dislodge or hold position against.  When one is dislodged, one
dramatizes with a picture from another position, an out of valence picture.
If you try to force someone into the engram, you only restimulate the forces
pushing him away from it.  If you can take him up to it on a gradient, he can
get into it.  You take the PC on a gradient of what led up to the incident or
masses, and it will go back, with confront, into "thenness" and no longer
impinge on "nowness".



                                      102


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=12/9/61
Volnum=1
Issue=52
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-52  Clearing Breakthrough




6109C12 SHSpec-52  Clearing Breakthrough

     [Hubbard adds engram running to Routine 3.  Gives some details of process
sequences.]

     ARCB processes:

           1. What have you been unable to tell an auditor?

           2. What has an auditor failed to do?

           3. What did an auditor do?

                    [More details on Goals running and ruds]

     Engram running is important in clearing because LRH has learned that a
somatic cannot be unburdened.  A somatic is where it is, at the tension and
velocity that it is, and it is nowhere else, It is totally independent of all
other incidents.  It discharges only as what it is and not as any lock.  And
no matter how thoroughly it has been unburdened, it will come on with the
same intensity when you find it where it is.  All the PC's hidden standards
and PTP's of long duration stem from the first engram you will contact after
the prehav assessment.  No generalized process has ever made those chronic
somatics less.  When you run the engram, the PC's PTP of long duration will
vanish, and that is the only way it will be solved.  The is-ness of the
situation is in the time and place of the situation and nowhere else.

     The "engram necessary to resolve the case" didn't resolve the case in
1950 because it was not on the goal-terminal line of the PC.  It wasn't an
earlier incident.  The engram necessary to resolve the case is on the
goal-terminal line of the PC, so unless you found the goal-terminal line of
the PC, the engrams aren't going to reduce rapidly.  If you're not on the
goal-terminal line of the PC and he's not in valence, you're in for 75 hours
of no reduction.  In running engrams in R-3, the engrams run easily because
they're on the PC's goal-terminal line.  You've got the PC in the valence that
was the destructive valence of his case.  What has been solved is:

           1. How do you get a PC in valence on an engram?

           2. How do you find an engram on the case that will run?

           3. What is the engram necessary to resolve the case?

     The reason you've had trouble with engrams in the past is than they
weren't on the goal-terminal line.  The PC was out of valence, and the engrams
were associated with other chains.  Now this is all handled, as long as the
auditor has a reality on what a bank looks like.  If he has this reality,
he'll know, for instance, that the PC's misemotion while running as engram
stems from the engram, not from what the auditor is doing, and why.

     You can get the PC's resistance to the forward motion of the action off
the engram by running it backwards.  Then the PC can confront more of it.

     This data has nothing to do with occlusion of cases.  An occluded case is
just one who is stuck in an occluded engram -- something with a black field.
There is a condition of pretended knowingness which can get in our road.  It's
a super escape factor.  When the knowingness is too horrible and the
not-knowingness is too thick and the person feels too stupid about it, he's
likely to dream it up such that it will have nothing unknown about it.  You
won't get any of these with the prehav technique.  The keynote of an engram
is the fact that the PC knows nothing about it.  Pretended knowingness will
get in your road, and you'll buy garbage.  Then one day you'll invalidate a
PC's data.  But do run the engram.  Don't jerk the PC's attention off the
engram.  when he's got all the unknownnesses out of it, has no more somatics,
have him go through it a few times to see if there's anything



                                      103

missing.  See if he's got sonic and all the other perceptions out of it.
Don't try to force them to be there.  Just note it, so when you've run a few
more, you can go back and run it.  Perceptions are the last thing to turn on.
Just be sure you get all the perceptions out of it eventually.  Don't make it
too real to the PC; let it be comfortably real.  Perception is something which
turns off gradually.  Somatics are right now.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=13/9/61
Volnum=1
Issue=53
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-53  Sec Check and Withholds




6109C13 SHSpec-53  Sec Check and Withholds

     On sec checks, if people argue that rights of privacy shouldn't be
invaded, e.g. in a public meeting, the answer is in the HCOB 8Feb60 "Honest
people Have Rights Too".  This has been so neglected on this planet that only
criminals have rights.  At Saint Hill, among the domestic staff, the ones who
had withholds always got rid of the good staff members.  It always works this
way.  The ones with withholds will tell lies about the good ones and seek to
get rid of them because they can't bend them down to their level.  Good staff
members are made nervous, upset and uncertain about their future in the
presence of insecure people spreading entheta.

     Withholds cause people to get individuated more and more, to the point
that they're not even themselves.  A guy who shoots ducks can't be a duck.
The more individuation occurs, the less likely a person is to be able to walk
out of anywhere.  It's like backing up through a succession of isolation
rooms.  A person, to be in good shape, must be able to be almost anything.  To
the degree that you can't be something, you have overts on it that you are
withholding.  It's well known in the motorcycle world that some people have so
many overts against motorcycles that to touch one produces disaster.  You can
stop automobile accidents by having the person reach and withdraw from a car.
He'll drive better and stop having accidents.  You could also run
start-change-stop on the vehicle.  This process could give you somatics as the
overts start blowing.

     The best way to blow overts is with the sec check, because the overt only
remains bad if it's withheld.  Wars get fought because it's so horrible to
have a war that it gets put on automatic.  That is individuation from a
subject and loss of control of it.

     If you can be something, you won't have to become it.  There's another
mechanism, too: after you backed yourself out of life to the end of the
corridor, you snap terminals and obsessively become the thing you were trying
to leave.  This is valence closure.  It's the withholding of overts that does
it.

     Where you have a PC who's loaded with withholds on a sec check, you've
got someone who can't be.  And you are trying to find valences.  You can't
find valences easily on someone who can't be.  But you can find the fixed
valence he's in, because it's this mechanism -- the mechanism of O/W causing
valence closure -- that has led to his becoming that valence.  So you could
find someone's terminal without completing his sec check.  But he'll be hard
to get into session if he's got lots of withholds, because of the resultant
individuation.  He gets easily upset because he can't be a PC and is critical
of the auditor because he has withholds, You can run, "What are you willing to
be? / What would you rather not be?" Two things will occur if you run it very
much:  It will soften him up on a security check, because beingness and



                                      104

withholds are opposed and one solves the other.  However, it also walks the PC
into his valence chain without identifying the chain, so it can get him into
engrams he's not ready to run.  You must remember that she somatic is where it
is on the track and in no other place and it will release only from that
place.  So you can walk him away from that place on the track, which keys it
out, or you can walk him into that place on the track and as-is it.  That's
all processes can do with somatics,

     Withholds will often soften up and knock out present-time somatics by
walking the person away from the area, and maybe that's a good thing.  He
could be stuck tightly into an engram in life, and you can move him out of it
until you're got him in shape to run it out.  He could be so tightly in it he
couldn't put his attention on the session.  The best approach to this is a
security check.  You could even run it on the basis of his chronic PTP
somatic.  It knocks out his obsessive individuation.  This is an assist that
walks him out of the valence he's been stuck in He's always got the chronic
somatic on the chain of the valence which will be his terminal.  That's why
you have to get the correct goal and terminal, because there's only one
valence chain in which he's stuck.

     The end product of no withholds is good communication, not clear.  Sec
checks can be tailored to hit the area of the person's PTP so as to key it out
so you can make progress with the case.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/9/61
Volnum=1
Issue=55
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-55  Q and A Period: Prehav, Sec checks, ARC Break Processes




6109C19 SHSpec-55  Q and A Period: Prehav, Sec checks, ARC Break Processes

                         [Details on prehav processes]

     With the 5-way brackets and different flows, you are trying to knock off
the PC's obsessive valence, which he's stuck in by some stuck flow.  E.g. a
sergeant always orders troops; no one orders him.  Thus he gets a stuck flow
and eventually does something weird like becoming a troop or inability to
accept orders from officers.  If someone kept giving orders, it would unstick
the flow, eventually.

     Flows are the mechanism by which someone snaps terminals and gets valence
closure.  You run a body continually; it never runs you.  So you're in a
body.  One day you get a reaction from a body and you succumb.  The stuck flow
has snapped and is making the body and you succumb.  The stuck flow has
snapped and is making the body run you.  If you start consciously driving a
car you've been driving unconsciously, i.e. you start taking the car somewhere
instead of just letting the car take you, all sorts of weird things are liable
to happen.  You might lose your ability to drive temporarily.  In driving the
car unconsciously, you've already succumbed to a stuck flow.  We have the idea
that a skill should be unconscious so one doesn't have to think.  This is a
big reactive trap.  When one has run out all the flows on a terminal that the
PC has as an obsessive valence, you'll have discharged the PC's compulsion to
be interiorized into it, or to command it or be unconscious about it.

     The overt act / motivator phenomenon has to be part and parcel of this
stuck flow phenomenon.  E.g. a sergeant tells his troops they're going for a
picnic.  When they get out in the field, they find they have to build
fortifications.  The lies and prevarications are part of what causes the
valence closure.  If you start teaching a student about scientology and pushed
a bunch of false or misinterpreted data on him, that would be an overt.  In
order for the stuck flow to come about, you have to have an individuation and
unease, an unconscious reaction, plus something



                                      105

unknown, something hidden.  An overt in instruction at Saint Hill, far
instance.

     On the auditor process: a beingness is in the middle of a confusion, so
the process, "What are you willing to be? / What would you rather not be?" is a
limited process.  It picks the stable datum out of the confusion, which is
reverse auditing.  It is very good only on a limited basis.  If you were going
to run a case with this, you'd have to run some 1A processes (Problems and sec
check processes alternated.  See HCOB 6Jul61 "Routine 1A".) as part of the
auditing command.(See also p. 57 paragraph 4 for the theory behind this.) E.g.
for a long run, use:

          1a What would you be willing to be?

           b What would you rather not be?

          2a What would Another be willing to be?

           b What would another rather not be?

          3a What confusion could you confront?

           b What confusion could another confront?

You can use "problem" or "motion" in the confront command, instead of
"confusion", whichever reads best.  To run a whole case with it, add two more
commands: the negative confront parts.  That could run the whole case to
clear, maybe, after a very long time.  If you ran it without the problems
part, it would run the PC right into engrams within a few hours.

     On withholds, you first find some doingness, e.g. fish around for
anything he thought he should tell you that he's forgotten about.  Clean up
with 2wc if possible first, asking, "What was it? when was it?  What sort of
thing would you find it hard to tell me?" etc.  You could use Peter Williams,
version of O/W: "Think of something you've done/withheld," for 3 or 4 cycles,
then, "Is there anything you'd care to tell me?" to give the PC a chance to
get the withhold off.  You could use this latter after 2wc doesn't get it.  Or
you could use, "What is unknown about my reactions?" to shake it out, clearing
the auditor so the PC can talk to him.  You are not trying to run a sec check
on the PC however.  If you get a read on withhold, the PC tells what it was
and it still reads, you release it with, "To whom wasn't that known? / To whom
shouldn't that be known?".  This is the nastiest withhold process ever dreamed
up!

     This process cleans up basic-basic on the ARC break chain:  "What didn't
an auditor do?  When? / What weren't you able to tell an auditor?  When?" You
can clean up the immediate session ARC break with, "What weren't you able to
tell me?" "When?" Or a shorter process," What didn't I do?  When? / What
weren't you able to tell me?  "When?"

     This is the final descendant of the discovery that communication is the
most important corner of the ARC triangle.  As long as you run a recall, it's
perfectly safe to run, "What weren't you able to say?", but don't put it in
the present or future, or it will be an out-of-ARC process, e.g.  "What
wouldn't you be able to say?" This could even be unanswerable.  You can use
the past tense process with specific terminals, e.g., "What weren't you able to
tell your mother?" Psychotics have gone sane on, "Think of communicating with
somebody," run for 25 hours, despite the stuck flow aspect.  But it wasn't
communication that aberrated anybody; it was the not-communications.  So a
recall on the not-communications operates as a very powerful process.  To
round it out as a total valence process, get the other flow, "What wasn't
(terminal able to tell you?  When?" That would be a powerful valence
splitter.  So skip Prehav 13* as a way to clean up PTP's with present time
environment terminals.  Run the above.

* Prehav 13 is a process which combines overt running with prehav assessment
and running of brackets, relative to a list of charged terminals.  See tape
6106C21 SHSpec-17.



                                      106

     There's a booster to this.  The PC is in a position where he is expecting
somebody to do something because he is depending on somebody to do something.
If somebody doesn't do it, he's left in She soup.  So in a session for an
auditor not to have done something and for him not to have been able to tell
the auditor is a frequent source of ARC breaks.  Running that out picks up all
the times he wasn't in session and cleans up past sessions.

     To make a long run out of this, use, "What didn't an auditor do?
When: / What didn't you do?  When?" and "What weren't you able to tell an
Auditor?  When? / What didn't an auditor tell you?  When?" That Would made a
well-balanced process to clean up the PC's auditing track.  She full dress
parade would be to assess all the people who the PC is having ARC breaks with,
take the best reading one, and run it in the above commands.  This moves the
valence out.  Don't run it very long on any of these terminals, or it's
dangerous.  Use it especially on terminals who are connected to the PC but
object to scientology.

     If you put ritual ahead of getting auditing done, you would be wrong
every time!  Form can get in your road.  The time for using perfect form is
when everything is going well.  The whole world of diplomacy is a world of
form rather than doingness.  The idea that the safe thing to do is to adhere
to ritual because then you are not responsible is the whole basis of
diplomacy.  If you think form will get you out of trouble where you need wit,
you are wrong.  Always put getting the job done ahead of doing it by the
rules.  The rules will only fit a majority of cases.  Being well trained to
use form doesn't excuse you from being clever when necessary, staying within
the Auditor's Code.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=20/9/61
Volnum=1
Issue=56
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-56  Q and A Period: What is knowable to the PC.;




6109C20 SHSpec-56  Q and A Period: What is knowable to the PC.;

     Attention, etc.

     Why do you get a reaction on the meter at all?  That which is in the ken
of reaction is in the knowledge of the PC.  That which will react is
knowable.  An E-meter can only react on those things which are instantly and
immediately restimulated by the preclear himself.  The reason why you assess
for an engram is not to find the hottest charge.  The reason you assess is to
find out what is real to the PC -- what the PC can connect with.  E-meters
always used to be backed up with clever interrogation.  This is especially true
in sec checks.  If something reacts, it is real.  Don't enforce a reality on
the PC contrary to what the PC says.

     Groupers give the PC an apparency that all time has jammed.  A grouper is
a number of incidents becoming apparently located in one time instant.  The
"collapse of track" that the PC experiences when they hit him doesn't in fact
occur in session.  It occurred at some earlier track point.

     The anatomy of a grouper is commonly a cold-installed vacuum associated
with implants.  A person who has a grouper has implanted people.  The only
thing which can mash electricity like that is a cold vacuum.  You could
brainwash someone by smashing dry ice in his Face and holding it there.  His
bank would collapse.  Cold is extreme stillness.  Time is a temperature.  No
temperature equals no time equals no motion.  Therefore you must not run



                                      107

no-motion, particularly near a grouper.  So all you can run in the vicinity of
a grouper is motion and time.  It doesn't necessarily work fast.

     Add unknownness to that and it really gets interesting.  You could ask,
"When was the time unknown to you?  What haven't you known about time?  What
time was unknown?  To what person has time been unknown?". "What motion
wouldn't you care to undertake?" gives motion and restraint, or "What motion
was unknown?", which runs surprises and produces mean somatics.  The grouper
will look like it's stacking up and getting worse no matter what you are
doing, but it's not.  That's just the apparency.

     You could relieve the grouper by running out the auditor and the session
where he hit it.  All you have to do to free up a grouper is to find the
picture that the PC isn't grouped in and run it.  This rehabs his confidence
in his ability to run pictures.

     What does a grouper look like?  Like an art gallery, all of whose
pictures were thrown in a heap and glued there.  The incident which produces
one is like this: a rocket jockey lying on a bed.  being hit by electronic
rays, so as to prevent him from exteriorizing and going back to running one of
those planes that's been strafing the capitol.  They do an implant in which he
thinks he's being hit by moving rays, when implant they move in a cold vacuum
on him and plow it straight into his body.  A thetan doesn't move out of that
easily, especially if he's done it to others.  The incident is of a person
lying on a bed with pictures flying at him.  In running it, keep the PC's
attention on the bed, not the pictures.  Find whether he's administering the
implant or getting it.  Keep his attention on the bed and off the pictures.
Use, "What don't you know about that patient?", etc.  You can unveil a grouper
by running ARC break straightwire.  Flatten this before starting to run the
grouper.  And always assess engrams.  Don't take one up just because the PC
seems in it.  Don't run the grouper.  Get the PC out of it.  A PC is so
fixated on it; he is so sure it happened in session that he thinks the session
should cure it.  It was intended when put there to keep the person from
getting out of it.

     What kind of person applies groupers?  Just about everyone in space opera
is liable to decide the enemy's habit of exteriorizing from a body that's been
shot down, getting a new body, etc., must be stopped.  He must be made to
forget the information.  Specialized implanting was the answer.  The most
antipathetic things about the implant are that it's cold, lonely, black, etc.
Put those things together and you get a grouper.  Someone who's alone in his
scout craft for a few years has only his own pictures to look at; he'll
self-audit.  Space itself does a lot of brain-washing.  You hit a meteorite
shower and suddenly you're in space falling into the sun, having just been hit
with a red-hot object.  This mades a hefty engram.  When they implant the guy,
it's presented as a big ARC break, betrayal, etc.  He gets the implant and
never knows if they are his pictures or theirs.  The pictures will all be of a
class.  He'll be sure they're not his, which is a nice trick.  He disowns
them; he takes no responsibility for it.  He dramatizes the irresponsibility
by saying it happened in the session and he can do nothing about it.  But you
can always find other pictures he can run, and some day he'll run the overt
side of it.



                                      108

     A grouper turns on with a big somatic that makes the PC very
uncomfortable.  This somatic can be turned off with, "What was unknown about
that pain?" That's a very good assist, too.  A PC who's gone into a grouper
can be hard to audit, so it's a good thing to find out what he's in.

     When running engrams, look at why you're running a particular engram.
It's on a terminal chain and should be run as, "What don't you know about
it?", etc.  You're trying to get the PC, as "you" to run a package called a
valence.  The engram is the engram of the valence the PC is in, so you should
mention it while running it.  If you found as a terminal "a looper", you
should use that in running it as, "What wasn't known to a looper?" This also
applies to running groupers.  It's a more serious problem when you have a PC
who's in a grouper and you don't know his goal or terminal.  Well, go ahead
and find the goal and terminal.

     Running engrams in scientology, you run them more symbolically than
verbally.  The same mechanisms are present as in Book I:  bouncers, groupers,
deniers, call-back, etc.  You should use this trick when you find a still
picture: direct the PC's attention to the motion on the other side of it, or
just before or after.

     The Egyptian area is a bad one to get into, because it's confusing and
violates the pcs' beliefs.  It was space opera from one end to the other.  It
was a battleground between two space groups.  Pcs have trouble running it
because it violates their reality, as gotten from history books.  LRH ran an
incident of Egyptians printing books of orders of the day from the invader
force.  He knew there must be motion, and sure enough, he found a battle after
the death of the Pharoah.

     Always audit the motion, the heat.  Never call for the still or the cold,
and you'll keep your PC out of groupers.  It is what happens in the picture.
The picture is held in place by an avoidance of motion or a not-knownness on
the subject of motion, not by someone saying, "Stay there." You audit the
motion, not the words and not stillnesses.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=21/9/61
Volnum=1
Issue=57
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-57  Smoothness in Auditing




6109C21 SHSpec-57  Smoothness in Auditing

     If an auditor keeps going for total perfection in his auditing, he will
miss the state of acceptable mediocrity in his frantic figure-figure
desperation for technical perfection.  It is better to do some personalized
auditing with a majority of rightnesses and have wins.  The PC forgives
anything but no auditing.  If the auditor is worried about the ritual instead
of getting in comm with the PC, the PC has no person to talk to and goes out
of session.  If the PC is already starting to tell you about his case before
you get him in the chair, don't worry about the formal procedures; just audit
the PC.  The session starts when the PC recognizes you as the auditor, not
when you say, "Start of session!"

     Difficulties in starting sessions always come because the auditor doesn't
recognize the start of session.  The PC may be leery of going into session
because he's been denied sessions too often, but you can handle it with ruds.
If you see that a PC is interested in his case and starting to talk to you
about it, you'll see he's in session.  If if happens in public, say, "I'm
sorry.  Here's my card.  Come see me at 2:00 Tuesday ." This will work to have
him not be ARC broken.  LRH's difficulty is getting people out of session, not
into session.

     If you work very hard to start a session, you'll have a



                                      109

corresponding amount of trouble doing it.  How do you handle the situation of
the PC telling you before you've "started" the session, about his case?  You
hear him out, but not all the way.  There's a difference between just
listening to the PC and auditing the PC, The liability of letting a PC run on
and on is that he'll lower his havingness and slip downtone.  Auditing
consists in directing the attention of the PC.  Your questions are what direct
his attention to where you want him.  How do you interrogate?  You should have
knowledge enough of the mind to know what to ask.  Be smooth; don't ARC break
him.  If he's nattering away about something, you want to get him to look at
his own overt.  You don't get far with a direct, "What did you do?" You can
always ask, "When did it all start?"

     You don't want to shift the PC's attention too abruptly.  You can ask him
a question he can't answer immediately and put him in the chair during his
comm lag.  You've got to size up the situation, obnose what needs handling,
and direct his attention there.  You'll seem very smooth to the PC if you can
shift his attention deftly, without his awareness of being pushed around.
This gives you altitude.

     You may be weak at directing the PC's attention because you have low
reality on the PC's ability to direct it himself.  His attention must at one
time have been a restraining factor for keeping things from coming in on him.
When we get on the subject of something he's been restraining from coming in
on him, the PC's attention wanders or disperses because he can't control it,
because it has been overwhelmed.  That's what aberrated him.  If the auditor
doesn't direct his attention, it will be directed by the valence he's in.  And
the valence will do God knows what with it.  If you leave a session on
automatic, you're asking for it to be taken over by the valence.  Don't blame
the PC, who has very little energy to exercise at this point, for what goes
wrong in the session.  You can almost predict how he'll react, once you know
his terminal, if you lose control of the session.

     How do you direct the PC's attention?  The PC has put his hope for
survival (which is totally useless, since he can't help surviving) in a
beingness, a valence, to do it for him.  So these beingnesses have a lot of
survival mixed up in them.  Once you have survival on a via, however, it
becomes succumb.  A valence's actions are usually out of time.  It is
incapable of change because its characteristics are all set for survival, i.e.
continuing unchanged.  Past civilizations have tried to use punishment to
change a valence.  That doesn't work.  If you do break the valence, you have
nothing, not even a person.  An operating valence is better than nothing, but
a person is far better.  A genetic entity is a super packaged valence.

     A meat body isn't necessarily a bad body form.  It should be possible to
smash it into a wall without even bruising it.  If you can heal a body with an
assist, it must have been the thetan who was perpetuating the process of
destruction.  There's no real liability in running a meat body in our
mechanized society, unless one is in a body oriented to fighting lions.  A
fixed condition of a valence which is unchangeable and out of date, will make
an unhappy person.  Medicine has never been able to handle a readjustment of
beings or handling valences.  Processing does have an effect of valences,
which will object to it.

     The most basic processes don't clear someone unless his valence gets
audited out.  The PC is unaware of being who he is being.  The valence is of
no help to him.  It is an addiction to some skill and beingness package.  You
can't excel when operating as a valence because it is a non-sentient
operation, an operation



                                      110

in the absence of knowingness.  When a thetan is overwhelmed and has totally
given up, so that he becomes the valence that did him in, he can't even do a
good job as that valence, because of his own overts against that
valence/beingness.  The PC's basic impulse toward the valence is destruction
of the valence.  Every time the thetan wakes up even slightly, in a situation
requiring decision, it will be a destructive decision for the valence.

     This should make your job as an auditor very easy.  You'll also
understand the activities of men better.  And what you are trying to do is to
direct the PC's attention toward eradication of all the points on the track
which made him a slave to a valence.  If you fail to direct his attention,
there's nothing else there.  If you overwhelm him, he'll dramatize the
valence.  The more you know about the valence, the easier it is to audit the
PC and to predict what the valence will do.  So when the PC does that, you
know you'd better get ruds in.  You need ways to observe the PC to know better
when he's out of session.  If he's in the valence that he dramatizes, he has a
rudiment out.  You don't necessarily put ruds in at the exact point you see
it.  If he's in the middle of some engram, you'd do better to direct his
attention to keep control from the valence.

     Anything you're doing which detracts from directing the PC's attention,
overcoming valences, rehabilitating the thetan so he can operate again, is
utterly unnecessary.  Don't worry about directing your attention and your
technical perfection.  Do direct the PC's attention.  Fortunately, auditor and
PC very rarely have the same terminal.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=26/9/61
Volnum=1
Issue=58
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-58  Teaching the Field -- Sec Checks




6109C26 SHSpec-58  Teaching the Field -- Sec Checks

     One can always add to sec checks, but never subtract from it for a given
person, depending on his interests and activities.  This gets complicated
enough to be real to someone who's having difficulty in life.  There are lots
of different sec checks.  For instance, you could use the children's sec check
to help restore a person's memory of childhood and get all the results
Freudian psychiatry sought.

     If an auditor can run some process with great confidence of good results,
have him run that on every PC, regardless of what the PC needs.  You try not
to give him a PC who can only be run on something else.  On sec checks, you
get fast wins.  This gives an auditor reality fast.  Any auditor who has
gotten tired of auditing or upset with auditing has had a lot of loses.
Someone who doesn't want to learn how to audit has had a long series of
disasters with trying to help people.  An auditor who has an exaggerated idea
about what ought to happen in session, who gets frantic, changes processes
continually, has had loses with auditing.  So you want to give him something
that gets a fast result in order to restore their confidence in their ability
to help.

     A sec check is a good way to get results on PC's who just never cognite;
who never give you a, "What do you know!" about their cases, especially if you
use sec checks that hit on the PC's particular areas.  You can even cure a
psychosomatic illness by using the PTP of long duration as the subject of the
sec check, looking for hidden standards, which is the one thing on which his
attention is fixed.  You pay attention when the PC tells you what would have
to happen for him to know scientology works, which could be something on any
of the eight dynamics.



                                      111

     When you get one that is extensional, i.e. where something would have to
happen to someone else, you'll find that it is easy to audit this on a sec
check.  You get all their overts on the other terminal with it.  This works
very well because you're separating valences and terminals.  Withholds add up
to lots more than just withholds: overts, secrecies, individuations, and games
conditions.  We're asking the person to straighten out his relationships with
another terminal.

     The normal sec check is addressed to the individual versus his society or
family, because it's what people would consider reprehensible that makes it a
withhold.  You could have special mores between husband and wife or auditor
and PC.  If a person transgresses against a moral code, he individuates; if he
individuates too obsessively, he snaps terminals and becomes it.  The security
check clears this all up.

     To get rid of a chronic somatic, you must first find something the person
really thinks is wrong, that he wants to recover from.  You can't assume that
if it's wrong, he wants it fixed.  It could well be a solution to some other
problem; it could be a service fac.  This generally starts somewhere 'way back
with some series of withholds.  Illnesses are protests against life, so you
can tailor a sec check to reach the areas of life the person is protesting
against and run it.  The psychosomatic illness will disappear.  It does take a
lot of figure-figure and detective work, the sort of problem about a case that
many auditors just love.

     So get the thing the person wants to handle, trace it back to some area
or activity.  You are looking for activities which had to do with changing the
position of mass.  The massier it is and the more change of positions, the
more aberrative it is.  Sec check the person's handling of masses and changes
of space.  If you have no clue on that, go into his most confused motional
areas.  If he's now motionless, find what he was doing prior to becoming so
motionless and find an area of intolerable activity.  Run a sec check on that
area of activity.  Get all the items and terminals in that area and invent all
possible overts against them.  A crude way to do it is to use a modification
of an existing sec check.  It is better still to mock up a new one using all
the crimes you could do in an area of tight mores.

     You could handle someone whose goal is to fix up his memory both by,
"What wouldn't you mind forgetting?" plus O/W on various terminals with
deficient perception plus find who didn't remember well or who insisted he
remember and sec check him on those people.  This will spring him into his
"What do you know!" on the subject.  You can assume if he doesn't cognite that
he's really pinned down on the area by withholds from you, from the area, and
even from himself.  The sec check will increase his freedom to know, which is
the opposite of the not-knowingness enforced by O/W.  So make a list of all
the items you can think of from his area of difficulty, ask if he's done
anything to or interfered with those items and activities.  His cognition may
come out little by little, or at last with a bang.

     The rule is that any zone of life with which a person is having
difficulty is a fruitful area for a security check.  Any area where the person
is having difficulty, he's stupid.  Stupidity is not-knowingness, which occurs
through overts.  But the overt has to be hidden, so it's withheld, so
withholds add up to stupidity, so he has trouble in the area.



                                      112

     You must always assume a psychosomatic difficulty is a solution after the
fact of a confusion.  A confusion consists of change of position of particles
in time and space, predicted or unpredicted.  If they are unpredicted changes
in space, you'll have a confusion.  The PC puts attention on one particle as a
stable datum.  This is fine, except that he ends up with a psychosomatic
complaint.  To resolve the complaint, find the prior confusion and do a good
security check on the things in the vicinity of the confusion to get off the
overts that made it necessary to pull in the somatic.

     All sec checks add up to very thorough key-outs.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=27/9/61
Volnum=1
Issue=59
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-59  Q and A Period: State of Beingness




6109C27 SHSpec-59  Q and A Period: State of Beingness

     An overt act is an effort to individuate or withhold self from
something.  You cut comm with the thing, postulate separateness, use effort to
withhold self, get involved with it, and become it:

               1. Cut comm with something.

               2. Postulate separateness.

               3. Use effort to withhold self.

               4. Get involved with it.

               5. Become it.

     Whenever you are avoiding something, you'll be making energy pictures of
it whenever you see it.  So the bank gets full of the thing you are avoiding
and you'll start being it.  You never look at the pictures of the thing, so
they don't as-is, so they can become rather dominant.  You have to have
postulated that the thing can overwhelm you before this sequence can start.

     When you start auditing somebody, he can't see that he has done anything
to the objects he is being, but as he confronts more, he can individuate
himself from his pictures.  Valences start to separate, and on sec checking,
he will come up with more withholds.  An individual is not responsible for the
things that have overwhelmed him to the point where he is being them.
Processing lets him as-is some of his pictures so that he can stop being the
thing and see that he has overts against it.  So getting more withholds on
subsequent sec checks is an index of case progress.

     A theta clear is someone who operates exterior to a body, without need of
a body.  Theta clears are clear on all dynamics.  The state of MEST clear has
been upgraded because of the stability of the state.  Operating thetan is a
different state.  A clear would be someone who didn't have a bank troubling
him and was not influenced in favor of one dynamic over another and not
dependent on MEST for survival.  OT would be someone who is in a state of
being quite manipulative of MEST, a starter of whirlwinds, etc.  This doesn't
necessarily mean he's un-aberrated.  The best statement of this definition is
that OT = someone who has no consequences connected with creation.  It has
been a state which others have feared and have sought to suppress.  There's a
fourth state, which is release.  This is when you've found the PC's goal,
terminal and level and run a sec check on him.  When a release has the idea
that his new freedom is really a betrayal, he hasn't quite made it.  He must
know he won't get any worse.  A MEST clear is one who has completed Routine
3.  He has a persistent F/N.  He'd have to have had his PTP of long duration
handled.



                                      113

     The common denominator of all cases that have bodies is that their
attitudes of havingness are incorrect.  They have anxieties about getting
food, air, etc.  You clear a clear of hunger.  A clear tends to go onto the
fourth dynamic with a crash; he gets very aware of the need to do something
about it.  Clears tend to lead and infect people with their enthusiasm.  The
only problem is that the clear's reality is beyond that of the surrounding
populace.  The most you can realistically do is to get them started and have
an HGC to clear them.  The clear will go on past awareness of the problems of
the fourth dynamic to the fifth, seventh and eighth, then back to the sixth.
By this time he'll be upwards towards theta clear.  If at this point he felt
there was a need to do something about Mankind, he'd do it, e.g.
straightening out people's games conditions, etc.  The best thing you can do
for a society is to rehabilitate knowingness, so people can work things out
for themselves.  Those solutions which restore comprehension are the only ones
which really work, in the long run.  The more people who are responsible, able
to decide, able to tell right from wrong, the better things will be.  A person
has as much power as he can trust himself to have.  At the lower and of the
spectrum, you have a criminal who responds only to exterior stimuli.  In this
case there's no sentience left, so where many people are at this level all you
get in a confusion: the randomity of MEST.  The police make the error of
granting him more beingness than is warranted.  The trouble is that society is
rigged for people to be responsible in.  If there are large numbers of people
being irresponsible in it, it's hard to see how it can go on running.  If you
want to disestablish a chaos, all you need to do is to return responsibility
to the area.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=28/9/61
Volnum=1
Issue=60
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-60  Grades of Auditors




6109C28 SHSpec-60  Grades of Auditors

     [Describes three classes of auditors.  For details, see p. 152, below,
and HCOPL 29Sep61 "HGC Allowed Processes".]

     When you run into the imponderables -- the PC whose case doesn't move --
you're tempted to use some extraordinary solution instead of finding the gross
auditing error.  This permits the error to go uncorrected.  You'll be adding
new errors to old ones.  The error may be that the PC isn't doing the auditing
command, which could involve the PC doing something different or doing
something else in addition to it.  If the PC has a hidden standard, he'll do
something else to produce an effect on his hidden standard.  When a PC has a
PTP of long duration, he'll always try to create an effect on it with whatever
auditing command has been given, so you can't just audit over it.  You have to
get ruds in and also be curious to know what the PC is doing with the
command.  The PC with a PTP of long duration will apply the auditing command,
not to his terminal, but to a terminal of his problem.  It is a good idea to
ask the PC what his idea is of the terminal he is running to be sure it's the
one you assessed.

     Now that you have the rule of the prior confusion, you have an undercut
to the PTP of long duration.  The terminal the PC is complaining of is the
solution to the prior confusion and is a stillness, a no-motion point.  You
don't audit stillnesses anyway.  You get rid of the chronic somatic by finding
the prior confusion by assessment.  Take the personnel of the prior confusion
and sec check them.  This is a bit similar to



                                      114

doing O/W on the terminal of the PTP, but better, since it is auditing a
confusion, not a stillness.  This might even apply to engrams.  You could find
where the fellow is stuck, assess the prior confusion and sec check its
terminals.  That's just a guess, at present.  Don't Q and A with the PC
telling you he can't confront the confusion.  Get the terminals involved and
sec check them on a check made up to apply to the possible overts.  General
O/W may be too permissive to get him to confront it.  So that's the anatomy of
a stuck point on the track.

     This also predicts that a lot of confusion went on before the person
picked up the valence he's in.  There's a possibility that you might get the
valence and goal to blow by looking at it, but it's not likely.  The earlier
on the track they were, the beefier they were as thetans and the more
confusion there would be.  It gets pretty unreal when you get them looking at
it now, if they can even confront it at all.

     Other gross auditing errors which could be preventing the PC from making
progress could be grossly out ruds, or the auditor having an attitude that
drives the PC out the bottom.  Or try to audit a scientologist who has been
around awhile without sec checking him on the auditor's sec check and the last
couple of pages of HCOWW Form 3.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=4/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=61
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-61  The Prior Confusion




6110C04 SHSpec-61  The Prior Confusion

     A chronic somatic is the stuck point on the time track which is the
stable datum of a prior confusion; so is a hidden standard.  It's easy to miss
this because the confusion is earlier and is confusing.  The stable datum
isn't in the middle of it if it's aberrative.  You can always adopt a stable
datum in the middle of a confusion.  It's the one chosen later that sticks you
on the track.  This isn't necessarily logical.  It is true because it is
observed to be true, not because of any theoretical reason.  The way to blow
the chronic somatic is to blow the confusion immediately before its start.  It
may be tricky to get the PC to look at the confusion, not at the stable datum;
his attention bounces to later periods.  The confusion has a lot of
unknownness in it, which may be masked by a lot of pretended knowingness.

     When looking for the prior confusion, don't get just whatever was there
right before; it may be six months earlier.  Lots of odd forgettingness turns
up as you look.  Forgettingness is caused be inability to confront a motion.
The confusion area is a not-know area, which the guy handles with a know
later, even if it's stupid and painful.  It's still a knowingness.  All
psychosomatics and hidden standards are a cure for mysteries.

     One can get a feeling of relief following a confusion that isn't really
much relieved.  It can be just from getting a knownness following a
confusion.  A chronic somatic can be a knowingness.  If it's being used as a
hidden standard, it is being used for knowingness.  There must have been some
confusion before it.  [This could be an explanation for the phenomenon of
getting somatics following misunderstood words.]

     It can take some time for the PC to sort out when the somatic started and
what the prior confusion was about when it started.  You can ask, "When did
you notice it earlier?" or, "What happened before you noticed?" It's not a
repetitive command.  You can even, by assessment, get the PC to look at the
confusion accurately enough so it will as-is and blow.



                                      118

     Where the PC is not making progress on Routine 3, you can bet that the PC
has not done and is not doing the auditing command.  The PC may be being the
auditing command.  He does the command and applies it to some area of the mind
or body and looks at it to see if anything happened.  You are auditing a PC
whose attention is fixed on some special area and is doing something extra
with the command.  It indicates out-ruds, since the PC isn't under the
auditor's control, but is putting in a self-audit step on each cycle.  Any PC
who hasn't gone clear in 150 hours is doing this.  He may resist telling the
auditor what he's doing, also.

     If you ask him, "When did you start to notice the (thing he's complaining
of)?" and he gives a non-sequitur answer, you can see him bounce out of the
confusion and up to PT.  This tells you that you are on the right track.  You
have to direct his attention to the right area to get the confusion; don't
just give him carte blanche to natter about the terminal he's fixated on.
Keep guiding him to the occluded area that precedes the somatic, or whatever.
Ask about confusions or upsets or whatever you can get.  This sounds like a
long process.

     This phenomenon can show up when you run an engram.  You start with the
motionless point and search around to find the earlier action parts.  Just
auditing the motionless part with the chronic somatic in it won't resolve it.
Even when running an ordinary engram as part of Routine 3, if part of the
engram sticks, get the earlier part of the engram.

     A more basic question arises here: "How does a person get stuck on the
track in the first place and why is one on a time track at all?  Could it be
that there's a confusion at the beginning?  What is time?" Maybe it's a
retreat from a confusion we did not care to confront.

     A person's ability to confront confusion could just blow chronic
somatics, but it's not to be counted on.  It might be necessary to get several
hidden standards out of the way.  So it might be well to clean them up well
before getting into prehave levels, using prior confusion assessments and sec
checks.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=4/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=62
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-62  Moral Codes: What is a Withhold?




6110C04 SHSpec-62  Moral Codes: What is a Withhold?

     No one is non-security checkable.  It's just necessary to find the areas
where he has what he considers to be overts.  If he doesn't read on a standard
sec check, it just means those things aren't transgressions against his moral
code.  A criminal's moral code is about the reverse of a law-abiding
person's.  All pcs have moral codes against which they have transgressed.
You'll only get withholds off a case when you locate the code against which
the PC has transgressed.

     A withhold is an unannounced transgression against a moral code by which
the person was bound.  A moral code is that series of agreements to which a
person has subscribed in order to guarantee the survival of a group.  Man has
learned, down the track, that where he has agreed on proper conduct, he has
survived, and where he hasn't, he hasn't survived.  So people agree on what is
moral, i.e. survival-conducive actions.

     The U.S. was founded on an agreement, the Constitution.  Wherever it has
been breached, the country has gotten in trouble.  The reason for the trouble
is that there aren't any other agreements than the basic agreement.  There
aren't modified agreements.  You start with a moral code, which eventually
gets interpreted and altered, and people no longer knew what was moral.  It
thus



                                      116

got to be a confusion.  People tried to enforce it, but the confusion
increased.  Finally, people dispersed and left the group and formed or entered
other groups.  There, they got new moral codes, which eventually got diluted.
Time marched on and more confusion entered, etc., etc.

     The cycle of action of civilizations is:

           1. An agreement on optimum conduct

           2. A disbanding of the group

           3. A formation of a new group with a new agreement on optimum
              conduct.

           4. A disintegration of this agreement.

           5. Etc., etc.

The disintegration occurs because of the individuation that results from
overts.  Moral codes can also disintegrate when attacked by another code that
gets imposed on them, e.g. by colonialists on native peoples.

     One reason auditors find scientologists harder to audit than
non-scientologists is that when you flub you've transgressed against the
survival codes of the group.  This is why the last two pages of HCOWW Form 3
straighten out old-time scientologists who natter about scientology.  The most
important code to the person is the one by which he is currently living.  If
you transgress against the code of your group, you tend to feel like an
outsider.  If the group is scientology, the transgression prevents one from
making progress in auditing.

     A transgression of a moral code separates the transgressor from free
communication with the group.  The seriousness of the transgression is
monitored by the degree of cut comm and impossibility of communicating, which
is accomplished by pretending to be a member of the group when he's
transgressed.  He individuates and thus the group disintegrates.

     Another element of this is co-action: mutual action toward a common
goal.  The crew of a ship is no good until it has been through some common
danger.  A business group could get cohered if management let everyone in on
the attacks against them; otherwise not.  A group becomes a group when it
encounters danger to its survival.  The common denominator of the moral codes
and of transgression is, "One must not injure the survival of a fellow group
member."

     Therefore a manager or leader of a group tends to be isolated from the
group because of the occasional necessity for injuring the survival of a group
member who has transgressed against the others.  If the leader has led a
slightly detached life so he hasn't been affected by the offender's
transgressions, he commits an unmotivated overt when he kicks him out.  He
gets these undisclosed overts against ex-group members.  He seldom tells the
group why the ousted group member has to be ousted.  because he thinks it will
be too enturbulative.  This is so widely true that man has accepted the idea
of the loneliness of command as natural when it isn't.

     You can change a group's leader, but if the new leader changes the mores
of the group, there will be trouble.  The leader of the group can destroy it.
This leads to the popularity of such things as socialism and communism.

     Why is the old soldier always degraded?  It's not because the military in
itself is bad; it's because he's a group member who is no longer part of the
group.  His old mores no longer



                                      117

apply.  He is degraded not even because of his overts.  He is degraded because
when a person is no longer a part of a group, he feels automatically that he
must have overts against it and was driven out of it, even if he didn't have
any overts.  Because the result exists, people feel that the crime must have
existed.  people will feel responsible for effects they haven't really
caused.  This is the same mechanism.

     So you'll find yourself processing someone at times who feels he has
tremendous overts against a group which you as an auditor can't find on the
meter.  It's simply because he is no longer a member of the group, whose
purpose may have ended.  He'll be very happy to get off his transgressions,
because it will make his no longer being a member OK.  It justifies the state
he's in.

     What actions are necessary to cohere a group?  Co-action in the direction
of survival with two or more people inevitably results in a social more.  If
one of the group dies, the other (in a group of two) will feel he must have
transgressed and will be glad to find what his overts were so that it makes
sense to be no longer a member.  The co-action doesn't even have to be toward
mutual survival.  It can be opposed, e.g. two fighter pilots who are enemies.
They will have a certain fellow-feeling, and if they withhold their failure to
kill the other from their own groups, they've got a bit individuated from the
groups, etc.  So this gets complex, on the basis of agreement.

     What is agreement?  It is two or more people making the same postulate
stick.  If they go into mutual action toward survival, they have co-action,
and they confuse one with another.  They don't quite distinguish whose is
whose, and they misown action in their vicinity.  Engine drivers start
sounding like engines after awhile.  They can be un-identified by having them
get the idea of mutual action with the motor.

     That is the source of overt acts: you have mutual action with something
else, you do something cruel to that with which you have mutual action, and
you experience the somatic.  That's the exact mechanics of the overt-motivator
sequence.  After you've had a lot of group co-action, you embark upon a cruel
action to that with which you have co-acted, and you will get the somatic.
The group dramatizes it with, "You must be punished for your act," but that's
not part of the mechanism.  Religionists who push the Golden Rule are forcing
into existence something that already exists.

     Overt/motivator sequences become very pronounced when cruel actions
against one's group members ars engaged in while withholding.  One is really a
member of the group but engages in a cruel action against another member and
tries to back out.  Why does one try to withhold?  It is because he doesn't
want the effect of the co-action.  He tries to individuate, disowns the
co-action in an effort to avoid the motivator.  He doesn't want the somatics
of co-action that experience has taught him will inevitably occur.  We're down
to fundamentals of non-differentiation and identification.  He identifies his
action with every group member's action, so he withholds self in an effort to
escape.

     If you ask him to recognize his co-action with the group member he has
injured -- the co-action prior to the overt, the overt will blow.  The more
commotion, action, withholds, and nonsense preceded his overt act, the more it
will hang up and the more he will try to withhold it.  He can only suffer from
his overt



                                      118

because of former co-action.  Because he is involved with mutual action toward
survival, every time he has tried to back out of mutual action, he has sought
to deny the mutuality of the action.  He thinks he can avoid the
overt-motivator sequence by denying it, so he individuates.  You have to knock
out the individuation before he can walk out.  The action he takes to escape
punishment is the action which settles in the punishment.  Withholds and
overts will become visible as you uncover the confusion and co-action which
preceded the overt.  When he blows the withhold, he can move again on the time
track.  Every time he withholds, he parks himself on the time track, so it
eventually becomes one big Now, which is the Reactive Mind.

     He has never really succeeded in individuating from any group he has
belonged to.  Therefore all groups newly formed are formed by transgressors,
so if scientologists could get off that mechanism, they could form the first
true group since the beginning of the universe!

     One reason a withhold sticks on the track is that it's a no-action -- a
no-motion point.  When the PC has a picture where nothing is happening, get
the earlier commotion or confusion, and the overt will show up.

     One can withhold oneself as well as data, thoughts, or deeds or objects.
Withhold of self is the commonest.

     When you clear somebody, you clear the identities which the person has
teamed up with and their withholds and now-I'm-supposed-to's.

     There's a process that hits at this.  Find something the person has
identified with something.  Tell him to think of a mutual action with first
the one thing, then the other, and the identifications will spring apart.
Fifteen or twenty other subjects will emerge as you go; don't Q and A with
them; stay with the original two.  A broader, simpler process would be, "Tell
me a group you are no longer part of."


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=5/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=63
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-63  Sec Checking -- Types of Withhold




6110C05 SHSpec-63  Sec Checking -- Types of Withhold

     Punishment following the revelation of withholds is a mechanism of older
groups by which they sought to enforce their mores.  It is a bad mechanism,
since it encourages withholding.

     If you, the auditor, are worried about your own withholds or trying to
present an image of sinlessness because you're a scientologist, you'll Q and A
at times with the PC's withholds and start mutual avoidance of certain
subjects.  The auditor must have the courage to ask the sec check questions,
no matter how crude and nasty it seems to do so.  It's rough enough if your
withholds are off.  If they aren't, you'll back off the subject altogether.
Auditors, instructors, etc., can back off from being sec checked because of
fear of loss of reputation or image.  They'll then slack off sec checking
other people.  If you find someone who is ducking being sec checked, he will
also duck sec checking.  But it is not true that to be a good auditor you must
never have done anything wrong!  If you let yourself take that viewpoint, you
are surrendering to an ought-to-be, which action would slow the progress of
scientology by putting every good auditor in lousy case shape, along with
every good exec.



                                      119

     The mechanism by which Man has been governed had in it the idea that Man
was evil and therefore has to be held in line by evil practices.  They never
noticed that the evil in the world stemmed from holding men in line.  A
society without ARC is a society which will inevitably have crime.  Man is
good, but only to the degree that he is in ARC with existence.  The primary
mechanism someone uses who is out of ARC with existence yet trying to survive,
is to withhold.  Society is forced apart to the degree that people are made
guilty.  To prevent murder, don't hang murderers; make it unnecessary for
people to resign from the human race.  People get grievances about things.
There's no agency in society to remedy the grievance, and they end up
committing desperate overts.

     The unintentional withhold is something that occurs when the person is
not able to tell anybody, though he's willing to.  This could be because no
one is there, or no one is listening.  It happens in insane asylums all the
time.  You get this peculiar kind of withhold which you mustn't overlook in
sec checking.

     Then there is a kind of withhold where the PC knew that he was
withholding because he'd be punished if others knew.  Or there's a withhold
which would damage his beingness or reputation, not necessarily a doingness
that's withheld.  It could be a beingness.

     A group is based on communication.  Withholds all add up to cut
communication, so it falls apart to the degree that there is no
communication.  Up to a point, withholds appear to cohere a group.

     A sec check is dedicated to the restoration of communication.  If comm
were restored totally in any past group, the PC will no longer be hung in that
group.  He will not be parked on the track, so he will be more able to be a
part of his present group.

     The group you are most concerned with in auditing isn't the group called
scientology; it's the little group which is the session.  When the individual
is too individuated, end develops an unintentional withhold in that group, or
the auditor conducts himself in such a way as to bring about punishment
because of a withhold or crime, or demands specious reactions from the PC, the
auditor has shot the session group.  Auditing is a third dynamic activity.
For the session to be a good group, you've got to get all three kinds of
withholds off:

          1. Unintentional withholds.  When no one will listen to the PC.
             Hence the process, "What weren't you able to tell an auditor?"

          2. Reputational withholds: a defense of one's beingness.
             E.g. one's family came from the wrong side of the tracks.

          3. Withholds for fear of punishment.

     The only thing that can deteriorate a graph is ARC breaks.  The basis of
an ARC break is being made to have an unintentional withhold from that
immediate group.  That's more serious, evidently, than an intentional
withhold, as far as session results go.

     Then there's the enforced withhold on the basis of improved state.
Someone who is pretending to audit gets no result but seeks to convince the PC
that he's much better.  Here, the PC thinks he'd better not say otherwise.
Then you've got the withhold of protecting beingness.  This is the
reputational withhold.  It's



                                      120

pretty rare on this basis.  But you can also have the propitiative PC who
tells the auditor it's all fine because he doesn't want to make the auditor
feel bad, when actually, he still has his headache, or whatever.

     Rudiments are aimed at handling these withholds.  The ARC break questions
ask for unintentional withholds: "What couldn't you tell an auditor?" and
"What didn't an auditor do?" The latter question is going after an auditor in
a games condition.  Unintentional withhold and games condition questions go
together.

     Compartmenting a question: You take the words, get the charge off them,
you get reads off any phrases in it, then if it still reads, the read is on
the question.

     Never leave a question still reading.  It will throw the PC out of
session immediately.  You can leave it for the next session, but tell the PC
that that's what you are doing.  Another important point is to select a sec
check relevant to the PC's activities.  Sec check against the reality of the
PC, taking into account the moral codes by which he lives.  Never treat sec
checking as a repetitive process.  It's for getting off withholds, so vary the
question and be real.  Be inquisitive, nosey, and imaginative.

     There's an overt act consisting of enforcing the mores of a group to make
others withhold.  That's the make-guilty action which also acts as a
withhold.  E.g. a girl says, "No, I never raped anybody; I've been raped," and
the question keeps reading.  Don't Q and A by auditing out the rape; get the
overt, which is gotten by, "Whom have you made guilty of rape?" You'll find
the make-guilties lie on an actual "done" anyway, so always come back to the
original question, with the same wording as you first used.  If a PC thinks a
question is insulting, he is telling you that he has done the thing.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=10/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=64
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-64  Problems Intensives




6110C10 SHSpec-64  Problems Intensives

     "Supposing that dianetics and scientology did everything they were
supposed to do.  What would your problem have been before you came into it --
your own personal problem?" That is the approach you should use on a PE
course.  Give all the "firsts" of scientology and dianetics; give a very
broad, complete description.  Then ask, "What is the problem that would make
you come into scientology?" This is assuming that everything that was said
about scientology was true.  You restimulate their PTP of long duration, then
ask, "What is your problem?" The problem is now staring them in the face and
in some percentage, they will, for the first time, recognize the source of
some discomfort.  Then give them some data about processing and get them into
the HGC.  That should be the first lecture on a P.E.  course, because it gives
a stable datum, a conditional but desirable stable datum.  On a certain
number, you will produce a startling change.

     There's a new addition to a PC Assessment Sheet.  It gets you a list of
things.  You take the best-reading and run a list of processes on it.
Reassess the list of thinks and repeat the process.  It gets the prior
confusion and handles it with ruds, problems processes, and sec check on the
personnel in the prior confusion.  The first list asks for times the PC's life
changed.  Ask when the changes occurred.



                                      121

Each of them will be handled with the problem that existed just prior, as well
as the prior confusion.  The change was a solution.  Get the changes of
life-style also.  The "when" doesn't have to be very precise.  Now get the
best-reading change and ask, "What problem did you have immediately before
that change?" Get him to state the problem, not just a fact.  It should have a
a question, a mystery about it, a how, why, or what.  Then just run the
problems rud process, until flat e.g. when the somatic that got going quiets
down.  It gets at the PTP of long duration, which gives hidden standards.  Run
it by the TA.  After it is flat, ask, "What was the confusion in your life
just before that?" Then assess the people in that confusion.  The idea of
listing and asking for another person in the confusion will put the PC back in
the confusion and stop him from skidding forward, and you'll wind up with a
list of personnel.  You sec check the list.  This requires some acumen to mock
up the sec check.  It's really a glorified O/W, and you could just run O/W
except that it has some danger, since it's running against a terminal which
hasn't been assessed.  So it's better to sec check.  If a terminal is not on a
goals line, running it can beef up a case unless run on a sec check.  The sec
check needn't be awfully extensive, though doing it very thoroughly will give
a better result.

     You continue the process with the next best-reading change, etc.  When
all is done, we could say that the person was a release and has no hidden
standards and would do auditing commands.  This fully supplants Routine 1A as
a way to handle problems.

     The reason you are handling hidden standards is not because the
individual has his attention stuck someplace, nor because the PC vias your
auditing commands through it, though these things are true.  You are running
it because to the PC it's an oracle.  He's not really analytically checking
his eyesight every session to see if auditing is making it better.  His
eyesight somatic knows, and that's the only data there is.  Observation and
experience have no bearing on his knowingness.  It's more than a PTP of long
duration of a specialized sort.  It's a pretty vicious proposition.  The PC
does it every command or every session.  If he does it every command, it knows
and he doesn't.  So he has to consult it to find out.  He does it in life all
the time, too, unbeknownst to you.  He judges goodness and badness, truth and
falsity by whether he gets a somatic which comes from some circuit or other.

     A criminal knows right from wrong because a circuit is restimulated or
not.  Therefore the cops are crazy, because the little green light in his
skull lit up when he was about to commit his "crime".  He's baffled when he's
arrested.  He "knows" nobody can tell right from wrong, or he knows by the way
he feels whether he's doing right or wrong.

     The way people get that way is thus:

          1. They are a thetan, as themselves.

          2. They get so invalidated or invalidate others so much that they
             get overwhelmed with their own inval and they pick up a valence.

          3. Somatic overwhelm.  While being the valence, he got a hell of a
             somatic.  An impact is easily substituted for knowingness.

It can also seem to be punishment for some unknown crime, so he's got a
terrible problem: What has he done to be punished for it?  He doesn't know; he
just feels guilty.  Anyway, impact seems like knowingness.  One's own
knowingness as a valence is in validated so he's got an impact knowingness
which he keeps



                                      122

around, which is part of an engram on his goals-terminal chain.  The engram
presents a problem because it is not reachable, because it's in the middle of
the goals-terminal chain.  Since the PC's own knowingness has been
invalidated, he can only go on being validated in his knowingness as a
circuit.  But he has to be careful because it knows more than he does!
Superstitious peoples, who have very little and have been knocked around
badly, have catalogs of superstitions, which are sort of third dynamic
circuits.  This moves out into a secondary state: the circuit is now audible;
it dictates to him, gives him orders aloud.  This is the final result of a
valence which has been overwhelmed by a somatic, which has been overwhelmed by
another thinkingness, etc.  [See Fig. 4].  It is not an endless number of
valences, but there can be a nearly endless number of hidden standards.

     A real hidden standard is something the PC consults with each command or
each session.  "Consults" is the clue.  The hidden standards key in because of
problems of magnitude or because of prior confusion.  The usual course of
human events is:  The individual went through a lot of trouble and a lot of
confusion.  He couldn't quite figure any part of it out, and it left him hung
with a problem, which he up and solved by changing his life in some way.  He
may get the idea when there's a change, there must have been a problem
before.  There isn't always a problem.  Other-determined changes don't
necessarily have problems before them, but they won't assess on the meter.  He
solves the problem with a hidden standard.

     Where does a circuit come from?  They're different from valences.  A
valence answers the question of who to be or how to be right with a
beingness.  A circuit answers the question, "Without changing a beingness, how
do you know when you're right?" A circuit furnishes information; a valence
furnishes beingness.

     A circuit can step up from furnishing information to furnishing orders,
and then it can step up to furnishing orders below the level of consciousness,
always expressed faintly at least in somatics.  Most people live in haunted
houses.  They think there are other thetans in their bodies because of the
commands of circuits.

     A circuit can be set up easily and isn't a bad thing unless it's out of
his control, forgotten as to authorship, etc., controlling the fellow, with
him taking no responsibility for it.  A thetan can do anything a circuit can
do, and more.  The basic of circuit trouble is setting something up and taking
no responsibility and leaving it on automatic.  If he's done this, he has some
God-Awful problem just before he did it.  Just before he has the problem, he
was in fantastic confusion, and before the confusion, he had fantastic numbers
of withholds from the people in the confusion.  Those conditions must all be
present to get circuit trouble, and you have to pay attention to all of them
to unravel the circuits.

     To get into that state, he'd have to have been pretty active, and to have
started withholding everything from everybody, he was in contact with, about
everything, or about something special.  He's not free to communicate.  Things
start going wrong, since his comm is messed up.  Life got very confused,
eventually became an awful problem.  Then he solved the problem.  If he had
enough overts and withholds, he'd blow, which brought about a change.  The
change is now the tag you can use to get back to all the stuff behind it.



                                    FIGURE 4

                     DWINDLING SPIRAL OF CIRCUIT FORMATION

1. The thetan being as himself.

2. He gets invalidated/overwhelmed as himself.

3. He picks up a valence.

4. The valence gets overwhelmed by a somatic.

5. The valence's knowingness is invalidated.

6. The PC, as the valence, sets up a circuit to use the "impact knowingness"
   of the somatic as a senior source of knowledge, so he can go on being
   validated in his knowingness.  The circuit now does the observing and
   knowing.

7. The circuit becomes audible.

8. The circuit gives orders.

9. The circuit gives orders below the level of consciousness, always expressed
   at least faintly in somatics.



                                      123

     The point of change is a withdrawal; so is the original O/W.  Both key in
circuits.  [Cf. page 47, where LRH points out that circuits are a substitute
for confront and gives more data about what circuits are used for.] The whole
story is repetitive out-of-communication, with a periscope that looks for him
and tells him.  That's the hidden standard, seen as a circuit.  Experience
must not approach this person, and since auditing is an experience, he never
allows it to approach.  You are trying to audit the person, not the via.  Thus
case gain is slow at best.

     The Problems Intensive hits all this and knocks the circuits out of the
road.  It can be done with imprecise auditing, and it starts with a PC
assessment which is less accusative to the new PC than a sec check
assessment.  He gets familiar with sec checks on a gradient, dealing with
specific people, interesting areas to him.  It makes practically any level of
case processable and can be done by the most self-conscious auditor.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=11/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=65
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-65  Problems Intensive Assessment




6110C11 SHSpec-65  Problems Intensive Assessment

     The PC assessment form is of vast use to the auditor to know what is
going on is the PC's life.  If you have a new PC -- new to scientology, do
one.  Even if the PC is just new to you, do one.  It gives the PC some
confidence to know that his auditor knows something about him.  It should be
done by the auditor who is going to audit that PC.  This will relieve the PC's
sneaking suspicion that the auditor knows nothing about him.  If the PC knows
about something, it isn't aberrative, so this is a negative assessment, since
whatever is known there isn't aberrative.

     Number of times divorced is an important one, especially if it doesn't
correlate with number of times married, since you've then got big withholds to
get off.  Educational level is another area for withholds.  Pcs can be ashamed
of how little or how much they've had.  Jobs, accidents, illnesses: this
starts to get into an interesting zone: engrams he never mentions.  Watch out
for restimulation in these areas, if you ask any details about them, This can
throw the PC right into engrams,

     The auditor gets data while doing this form that tempts him to take
things up with the PC, but don't do it!  Acknowledge and go on without
creating an ARC break.  Don't let the PC talk his havingness down, in the
accidents and illnesses area.  If the PC is very chatty, give him an R-factor
beforehand that you only want to know briefly about each thing.  The some
applies to the present physical condition.  We're very interested in whether
there are any withheld physical conditions or worries about health they
haven't told anyone or diseases they'd hate to have anyone know about.  Pump
the PC; get all the withholds off, because this is a serious withhold on the
case.  On mental treatment, be equally sure to get off any withholds.  It
would be not OK to be getting other treatment, physical or mental, at the same
time as auditing.

     The usual cause of high tone arms on pcs who leave with low TA and come
back with high TA is some withhold about their physical condition or
concurrent mental treatment or some bug on the subject of the mind.  Get the
withholds off on the subject or you won't be his auditor, because he won't be
willing to talk to you.  If you do get them off, you'll be his auditor because
you know things about him no one else knows.



                                      124

          [Details on how to find changes the PC has had in his life and
          running them.]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=12/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=66
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-66  Problems




6110C12 SHSpec-66  Problems

     Rockslams always take precedence over other needle phenomena.  A rockslam
is a very badly overrun flow.

     A rise, on the other hand, means nothing because you don't know what
turned it off.  It's a latent response to something that exceeded the PC's
reality, so you can't tell where it come from.  The rise means something: it
means the PC isn't going to confront something, but you can't spot what, so
it's not worth pursuing.  Also, the PC wouldn't respond to auditing of it
anymore, since it's beyond his reality.  Sometimes, when the PC has an ARC
break, all the needle will do is rise.  When you get ruds in, the needle won't
rise much.

     Note that, on running a problems intensive, you get the problem before
the change, it can turn out to be a problem he's had for hundreds or millions
of years.  So don't ask for the confusion before the problem.  You want the
confusion before the this-lifetime change.  You must realize that the only
reason that people move slowly and get parked on the track or anything else is
that problems become timeless.  The timelessness of problems composed the
reactive mind.  People and organizations are slow he degree that they have
problems they can't solve; they are inactive to the degree that they have
problems they can't solve.  Most of their actions are reactive.  Every new
action adds into the old problem, to the point of feeling it doesn't matter
what we do.  Also, the magnitude of the problem can make any other
non-connected thing seem very trivial.  Other people's reality is viewed
apathetically, since he's so overwhelmed that he can't look at it, no matter
how immediate it is.  Such people react to everything in life this way.  It's
an apparent apathy which is apathy toward life, the person being in terrific
agony about the problem.  He can't even articulate what the problem is.  If
you ask him to take his attention off the problem, he knows it'll eat him up.
He has no attention to spare for you or for auditing.

     You often have a PC who is escaping from present time by being in the
past.  You can make a mistake by believing he'd audit better on his terminals
line, so you should skip ruds and any this-lifetime difficulties and just go
back on the line.  No.  The PC is back on the line because it's safer.  One of
the symptoms of that is the PC who never gets a picture.  Pictures are
dangerous.  They became dangerous at some time in the past, possibly during a
session.  Getting rudiments in on someone can turn on his pictures.  Rudiments
can show someone who has never had auditing that life is solvable at these
little finite points.

     It's a characteristic of a PC who is in apathy that he has got to solve
it all at once, now.  Move the apathy off and you'll get the franticness.
They won't do the available auditing command you've given them.  They'll take
it and make it something to resolve their whole case by one answer.  Why?
Because their whole track is collapsed.  The fact that problems are timeless
and problems join to problems makes it all a timeless explosive stratum.  And
anything that explosive about which they worry that much, must be solved
explosively: A desperate solution for a desperate problem, which occurs at one
point.  People look for one



                                      125

command -- one magic word which will make the PC go clear.  This becomes what
the PC wants when he can't do any of the little things.  In desperation he
will have to do one of the big ones.  Auditing, however, is done by gradients;
it depends for success on reaching a reality a PC can tolerate, getting to a
picture the PC can see at this moment of time in session.  What the PC really
can do are little gradients.  You've got to find the gradient which is real to
the PC.  Something confrontable, not the explosive, right now effect.

     There are people with a frantic desire to have lots of money right now.
They may have fantastic schemes to get it, very unworkable ones.  If you asked
them, "How much money could you have?" and sorted it out on the meter, you'd
find that while they said, "Oh, millions!", the amount that would be real to
them would be a farthing, a nickel -- something so small that they don't make
that coin.  It's the other side of the circle.  They think in terms of
millions, while they get poorer and poorer and poorer.

     The case that has to have total change now and the case that makes no
change now are almost the same case.  The case that just sits there
apathetically knows that there can't be a big enough change or a big enough
effect right now to solve his problems, so he's given up on the idea that
anything is going to happen at all.  He has cancelled all this out.  He is on
a lower rung than that.  He can't have a change, because there's no change
tiny enough, until you figure out what it is.

     How did he get into this state?  By having problems that were so
overwhelming that he must keep his attention on them all the time, and he
knows nothing could be done about them, but they are terribly important, but
you have to do something about them, but nothing can be done about them, so
that everything else in life is trivial, including your auditing command.
Your command has nothing to do with his problems, unless you have his exact
problem, in which case your commands will have something to do with his case.
That's actually the only process that will work on him.

     The whole of this problems intensive is to find where the PC is stuck and
what problem he's looking at.  The trick is: he doesn't know, or he wouldn't
be overwhelmed with it.  The problems he glibly tells you aren't it.  A proper
assessment will get you the right one, not one with a lot of figure-figure and
must-have-been.  The clue to this is that he's figuring from a different time
band and the real problem is this moment in time, the time band of the PC;
it's now.  If the PC were looking at the problem he is stuck in, he wouldn't
say, "A person who would have had that problem then," because he is in "then";
he's in that problem and no other.

     A PC who is ARC breaking or getting apathetic during a goals or terminal
assessment is doing it because you're taking his attention off the only thing
it's safe to keep it on, which is the problem he's stuck in.  If his ruds are
very well in and he has a lot of confidence in the auditor, you can do it and
he'll feel fine, but he still has his attention on the problem.  Now when you
try to run his prehav level on the terminal, it takes too much attention, so
he puts that on a via so he can keep his attention on the problem.  He is ARC
breaky and gets upset, or he's apathetic and just grinds, if he's lower on the
scale.  In this case, he'll be running with his attention at monotone, because
most of his attention is glued to a problem so horrendous that if it were
solved, the whole universe would blow up.  It's even too much effort to say
what the problem is, so it all operates



                                      126

as a withhold.  Every time you have an ARC breaky PC, you have violated to
some degree fixation of attention on problems.  You've asked him to do
something he doesn't consider safe, and he is protesting having his attention
shifted.  If someone is in this state, you have to work like mad to keep his
attention centered where it is centered and not shift it around.  So it's
about the hottest thing you can do with a case to give a problems intensive.
We're getting the backtrack problems which slide up and become PT problems of
long duration, the problems which underlie the hidden standards and the prior
confusions which made the hidden and the problems necessary.  It works because
you are putting his attention where it already is, so it goes easily.

     Auditors blame themselves because PC's ARC break.  So if you can get a
certainty as an auditor on exactly why a session goes wrong and see the exact
mechanism and its magnitude, exactly when and why a session detours; if you
can see that the PC's attention is fixated on a problem of great importance to
a degree that any shift of attention causes him to go through this ARC break
phenomenon, you will see that all you have done is to disturb his attention.
You very often have been running pcs with PTP's without recognizing any part
of it.  Very often a PC has unknowingly to himself stated his problem to you
many times, and you have never heard it as a problem, so you go ahead and
solve it.  A problem is a problem.  It is what the PC is worried about, and
feels he has to do something about or that he can't do anything about.
Auditing the problems intensive, he may give it to you again and you'll
suddenly recognize it as a problem.  Don't feel silly about it.  But do
recognize that there aren't problems which should be solved as opposed to
being run, as far as PTP's of long duration are concerned.  Furthermore, the
problem you think you see, some usual problem, may well not be the problem at
all.  E.g. the instructor who has a problem with students that turns out to be
the problem of not believing auditors can audit, including his present
auditor, so how could he get auditing?

     Problems about scientology are of the order of magnitude of withholds on
the subject of scientology, in terms of stopping case gain.  The fact that
he's in a session acts to restimulate the withhold or the problem, and
everything you are doing restimulated it.  Don't solve his problem about
auditing by giving him more or better auditing.  The PC has a PTP and will
behave like a case with one no matter what you do to solve it.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=17/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=67
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-67  Problems Intensives Procedure




6110C17 SHSpec-67  Problems Intensives Procedure

     Heroic measures have been used, on the time track, when lighter efforts
to get into communication have failed.  Brutality follows failed
communication; overts are always to be found in the wake of no-communication.
The auditor who gets annoyed with the PC has just failed to audit the PC; he
has just failed to get the PC to communicate.  He has had no methodology, or
he hasn't applied it.  If this were widespread, scientology would go the way
of all former religions -- towards ritual and brutality.  The real overt is
not bad auditing, it's bad dissemination, i.e. bad teaching, bad comm of how
to apply, not insisting that it be done right.  It's your inability to get
information from PC's which leads to your not trying to get any, which drives



                                      127

you into a vicious frame of mind about PC's, which drives you into not wanting
to audit any at all.  The auditor who has withholds won't ask for withholds.
If on top of that, he can't get information from the PC and doesn't know how
to go about it, he'll end up not auditing.  That's why any auditor who is not
now auditing, isn't auditing: he's lost his confidence in his ability to
obtain the information necessary to resolve the case.

     As long as you have social mores, people will violate them and go out of
comm with the group.  The auditor-PC relationship is a group, and if they are
out of comm with a group, they will tend to be out of comm with all groups.
You've got to raise their group consciousness before you get an auditor-PC
relationship.  So, by using the White Form, you get the withholds off from the
sections where they are likely to be concealing anything: present physical
condition, 2D stuff, crimes, past mental treatment, etc.

     All societies set themselves up to be ill, because as soon as you have a
bunch of thou-shalt-nots, you will get the two phenomena of withholds and make
guilty.  So you get people out of comm, no as-ising of those conditions, so
civilizations grow ill and die.  When mores are your sole method of being
civilized, you'll get destruction.  Scientology is the first civilization not
to operate this way.  As long as you can get people to talk, so that they can
as-is sin instead of repressing it, you can truly handle the ills of
civilizations.  Up to now, repression was the only available method.

     Someone could prove that civilization was made possible only by this
mechanism of withholding and making guilty, but only as long as his premise
was that Man is basically evil.  You have to process somebody and find they
are nicer people than you thought previously before you can accept the idea
that another basis for civilization is possible.  Otherwise you'd think that
if you freed Man, he'd become more evil.  If you audit someone and see him
becoming more vital, active, polite, and freer, you don't get the impression
that he's more evil at all.

     Where an individual has withdrawn out of earlier groups, he becomes
harder to process in the group called auditor-PC and harder to get along with
in the group called scientology.  A failed group member doesn't make a good
group member.  This applies to this lifetime; former lives have an effect, but
the force comes from the this-lifetime groups that he has left.  You could do
a sec check on each of the groups they had left to get them going into session
more easily.  Pay particular attention to this with people who are renegades
from groups which intended to help:  doctors, psychiatrists, etc.  Run out his
O/W's on that earlier group.  You have to be clever to do it, because you have
to find out the mores of the earlier group.  So do get all you can on his
former groups, at least as to what he's been in and left.

     Only take self-determined changes for the problems intensive processing.
They don't give you anything to handle, e.g. graduation.  But, e.g., dropping
out of school you would be interested in.  What you want is his solutions to
problems he didn't know he had.  Other determined changes aren't his
solutions.  You'll get reads on them because they are charged, but they are
not what you want.

                   [Details on running the process]

     Stable datum: If you have to remedy havingness a lot, ruds are out.



                                      128

     Never run a stop.  Avoid stills.  Unless you've got movement in the
command, the mechanics of the prior confusion will hang you up in the
stillness.  If you can get the PC to restate it so it's got action in it,
great.  A "preventing" type action is questionable, but it will run, perhaps
slowly, but better than a stop.

                          [More details on procedure]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=18/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=68
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-68  Valences -- Circuits




6110C18 SHSpec-68  Valences -- Circuits

     "Are all thetans equal?" some pcs ask.  All cases are rough, but some are
rougher than others, regardless of equality of thetans.  However, we find that
all beings in this area of the universe have the same type of aberration,
differing only in magnitude of aberration.  This is contrary to Kraepelin's
index of insanity, which points out its many different manifestations.  The
only question answered by such a classification is that of how aberrations
manifest themselves.  But all aberrations arise from the same causes, having
only different manifestations and magnitudes.  The reason why we are clearing
people is that we are taking people out by the same route they went in.  So
you have to parallel what the mind is doing.

     It works like this: a thetan, being and acting in this universe, loses
confidence in himself, in his ability to do and to survive.  Having lost that
confidence, he then assumes an identity which he considers will stand instead
of self.  He himself goes down into degradation.  What he is overwhelmed by,
or what he has overwhelmed consistently, is adopted by him as a package of
behavior, and that is a valence.  A valence is a substitute for self, taken on
after the fact of lost confidence in self.  As a thetan sinks into degradation
and lost confidence in self, he goes down into personal oblivion so that he
has no further memory of self but only memory of a valence.  Having taken on
this valence, he then carries it on as a mechanism of survival.  He does a
life continuum, actually, of what he has overwhelmed or what has overwhelmed
him.

     At the point of degradation, you will find it backtracking this way: just
before he assumed the valence, he has a problem concerning his own survival
that he himself could not solve as himself.  Just before that problem, there
was a tremendous confusion in which, by process of overts and withholds, he
became enturbulated at himself.  These overts and withholds were against the
various dynamics.  That was the route by which he went in.  He missed his way
and had overts and withholds against the mores of the group in which he was
operating, and he lost confidence in himself completely.  He felt he couldn't
go on as himself, which gave him a tremendous problem relating to survival.
He felt he couldn't solve this problem, so he adopted an identity he thought
would stand as a solution to this problem.  Then he went on as that identity.
Now that identity was in turn submerged by the same cycle.  As the identity,
while a member of the group, the thetan committed overts and had withholds
from members of the group, which produced an insoluble problem.  The thetan
usually "solved" the problem by the acceptance, not of another valence, but of
a change to another status.  The cycle is always the same.  While a member of
a group, having certain goals, he commits overts and has withholds from other
group members, from which arises a confusion.  This confusion summates into a
problem, which he



                                      129

then solves by _______ .  The _______ is the only variable.  Early on the
track, the thetan always used a valence.  But the common denominator of all
his solutions is change.  This has always been an element.  That is equally
true of the first assumption of a valence and of every new lifetime, etc.

     The whole of the Buddhist concern was the life-death cycle.  The goal of
the Buddhist is to escape the cycle; he's afraid of change because he could
become responsible for wider changes.  This is almost on the principle that
"If I shirk enough responsibility, I'll just float out of my head."
Unfortunately, it doesn't work.  It is true that occasionally, accidentally, a
thetan can sit down and go out of his head, sproingg!  The way he does it is
that he has set up an escape mechanism to spring him out of dead bodies like a
fighter pilot ejection seat.  Usually they don't work.  Every now and then one
works.  It's actually a mocked up heavy-energy guillotine.  Pcs think that if
they feel enough pain they won't be able to think, so they set this up to be
triggered by pain.  At a certain time, they get enough pain and the guillotine
is supposed to knock off the body.  So people wind up by now with the belief
that you have to kill a body to get out of it.  Actually, unless you had
overts on the body, you would practically float out of it.  People who are
going around sick may have triggered the ejection mechanism and had it fail to
kill the body or eject them.  It's a failed solution.

     One of the mechanisms of the series of truths the Buddhists believed was
that the world was horrible, poverty stricken, etc.  The basic truths they put
out were so interlarded with these other exaggerations, overts, and unkind
thoughts, criticisms, and so on, that it operated as a self-trapping
mechanism.  If you get a guy to be still long enough, you will key him in like
crazy.  All the motions of the past will come in and kick him in the head.
Why do you find a PC sitting in the middle of a problem, sitting there with
that solution.  And why is it such a still solution?  It's a still point on
the track, and every time the PC has tried to rest, he's practically been
overwhelmed.  When you get the problem out of the way and look back for the
motion and confusion, the motion and confusion run and the still spot
disappears.  The still spot is held there by the pressure and duress of an
active spot behind or earlier than the still spot.  So when the PC tries to
rest, the motion threatens to overwhelm him as it gets restimulated, so it's
upsetting to him to be still.

     There's nothing to do, once one has blown out of one's head, so the goal
of the Buddhist must have been to do nothing.  That is the defeatist goal.
People in defeat will say they want to do nothing, in some variety of ways.
Of course the nothingness is the point of overwhelm.  So people who yearn for
nothingness inadvertently yearn to be overwhelmed.  So every great culture
strives for peace.  They get so much peace; there's so much peace everywhere
that some barbarian comes along and knocks the whole thing off.  They achieve
perfect no-motion, which is death.  So a thetan's ambitions can often be
contrary to his best interests.  This is not surprising, in view of the fact
that there are no real liabilities to being a thetan, except the liability of
no interest, inaction, nothing to do or have or be, nowhere to go.  When you
see people preaching these, you see people in the finest possible games
condition.  They are playing a game of seeing other players overwhelmed, using
the mechanisms of the track which would most easily overwhelm the other
players.  It is not really in the best interest of the other to advise rest,
peace, and inaction.



                                      130

     The proof of this are all over the place.  E.g. a soldier gets wounded,
gets front-line first aid.  Result: a lower death rate for wounds treated
there than for similar wounds treated at the base hospital.  Society
subscribes to the idea that someone can kill himself with work.  This is a
complete red herring.  How does a thetan get sick?  You know that when you
release the still he is stuck in, he'll get well.

     What has happened to a thetan that he doesn't just heal up an injured
body on the spot?  He has been leading too quiet a life, that's all.  People
in circuses take falls that would kill a regular person.  The only reason an
injured body doesn't spring back into shape is that it's held out of shape by
stills.  Things wrong with people are held wrong, with considerable energy.
The effort it takes to stay crazy must be fantastic.

     The best way to get sudden recoveries is to run withholds, because
withholds are the motion before the still that was going on while the person
was not participating with the motion.  He was withholding himself from the
motion, so he was already being slightly still.  He eventually withdraws so
hard from the motion and commits so many overts against the other participants
in the motion that he backs out all the way and becomes still.  When you
haven't any right to be part of a motion any longer, you have only one other
choice -- to be still.  That's the mechanism by which you can get confusion,
overts and withholds becoming a problem: a problem is the still.  After the
problem comes the solution to the problem.  Of course, since the problem is
motionless in time, the solution becomes continuous in time.  Now the thetan
has the problem of how to get some motion.

     Although motion is evidently "bad" for a thetan, he nevertheless likes to
move and insists on doing it.  If he hadn't done so much motion in the past,
his present "still" would be OK.  But as with a car, having its bumper up
against another car's bumper should do no harm, unless it was previously
traveling at 165 miles per hour.  It's the motion prior to the still that
produces the impact.  There's nothing wrong with a still if there hasn't been
some motion.  And motion is fine, if a still doesn't occur.  If you can
tolerate both motion and stillness, you won't have any trouble but there are
certain motions and certain stills a thetan cannot tolerate.  You could move
insane people up the track just by giving them a huge boulder in the middle of
the courtyard to look at, to familiarize themselves with a still.

     If we look at how a thetan got aberrated, we see that it's a cycle of
action:

           1. Overts against co-action

           2. A confusion leading to

           3. A problem, which is a stop, leading to

           4. A change to solve the problem.

The cycle keeps repeating itself.  The thetan keeps picking up new bodies, who
are somebody else.  This really makes it complicated, since each of them is an
identity.  He doesn't stack up any new valences, however, because the basic
valence is in there so solid that transient valences don't overwhelm it.  The
basic valence, motivated by the basic goal, is the biggest single change that
takes place in a lifetime that is available to an auditor.  It is available on
anyone with whom you can communicate.  If you can't communicate, you can still
use CCH's.  They aren't used otherwise, now that the problems intensive can be
used to get off hidden standards.



                                      131

     What other changes besides valences are available?  One is a new body.
Every death is preceded by an unsolvable problem to which death was the
solution.  A new body is a solution to death, which left the thetan in
inaction.  All illness evolves from unsolved problems; it's always a gradient
scale of dying.  People even get sick when they win a prize or get new
possessions beyond what they feel they should have to survive.  It can be too
much change and too much havingness -- unsafe because of one's liability to
being attacked.

     Thetans aren't stupid.  One of their aberrations may be a stupidity, but
according to the computation on which they are living, what they are doing is
very clever.  You'll always find that the very stupid have a great belief in
their cunning; often, too, the very bright consider themselves to be stupid.

     How many changes can occur just after a problem?  In terms of mental
changes, very few.  They could suppress or enhance certain characteristics,
get rid of or adopt certain manifestations, and that's about all.  The
earliest step is taking on a valence.

     A valence both limits and exaggerates a person's own skills.  A thetan
can only set up a valence or a circuit to do what he can already do.  A thetan
can, without a body, walk out on a stage, pick up a 1000 lb weight, turn it
around and drop it.  But he's so dedicated to the idea that it takes a strong
man's body to do it, that he only does it when he's in a strong man's body.
Then it gets to the point that he can only do it when in condition, when he's
well, when he's employed to do it, when he has no problems with his manager,
when he believes in himself and feels powerful.  These are all vias.  The
basic truth is that he can just do it.  Each of the limitations and vias he
puts in there is a solution to a problem he couldn't otherwise solve.  The
problem got there because he was trying to get something done as part of a
group, and in that motion has overts and withholds, and these resolved into a
problem.  The whole cycle has to take place every time to wind up with a
solution like that.

     The problems and changes you are interested in as an auditor are not very
many.  You are not interested in his being in a body; he has been in and out
of bodies before, or he wouldn't be here.  But what is he doing with this
body?  He isn't being the body he is in; he is being a valence which is in a
body.  In other words, he's a failed thetan being a failed valence in a body.
Up to this point, he'd be easy to communicate with, but new problems and
changes interpose such things as constant somatics.  Then you are auditing him
through the problem which is the constant somatic.

     A circuit is like a subsidiary valence.  It is a mechanism which modifies
a valence, a solution to the realization that the valence can often be wrong,
so it needs to be dictated to or to have things hidden from it.  So when the
thetan, as a valence, runs into a problem where the valence has failed, he
sets up a valence that can think and a circuit to modify the thinking of the
valence.  After the thetan has failed, everything he adopts after that is
subject to failure, and each one of them becomes a barrier to processing.  A
circuit modifies the thinkingness and doingness of the valence; it is a
dictational machine.  Circuits slow down or speed up, show things or hide
things, etc.  If they get too wild and complicated, the person can modify the
circuit with a somatic.  When you get this much bric-a-brac, somewhere along
the line you could get a hidden standard, which knows more than the valence,
which knows more than the thetan.



                                      132

     A hidden standard is just something which knows better, to which the
thetan is paying attention.  The thetan's concentration on this item can be so
great, the dependency on it so heavy, that the thetan only knows if it knows.
If it tells him, it's true; if it doesn't tell him, it's not true.  When you
are auditing him, he lets it tell him.  He pays so much attention to it he
hardly sees you at all.  To some degree, everyone's attention is absorbed in
some part of the bank, but where a total overwhelm exists, attention is so
absorbed that only it knows.  People run totally on social circuitry.  For
instance, parents often have totally unreal ideas about their children, whom
they have never observed at all.  Circuits are often so idiotic that when they
are activated by what they are set up to produce, they criticize as if it
weren't there.  E.g. one has the circuit, "A child's appearance should be very
good." So if a child's appearance in the vicinity of someone with that circuit
is very good, he's criticized; if the child's appearance is very bad, he's
ignored.  This confuses children and causes them to feel betrayed.  Most
things that a person protests against he will do himself.  We call this
hypocrisy; it's caused by circuits.

     Circuitry is an escape from knowing and confront, vias used by the thetan
to divorce himself from life.  When you audit him, you are a part of life, and
you will hit his interpositions.  You will thus be auditing a circuit, which
prevents him from being able to go clear on straight Routine 3.  If you get
off his PTP's, ARC breaks, objections to the room, etc., he is less likely to
interpose vias, and you can then talk to the PC, not the circuit.  But people
have problems of such magnitude on the recent backtrack that they set up a
permanent circuit, so you are always auditing away at the circuit and making
slow progress.

     The problems intensive directly handles and knocks out circuits so that
you can audit the PC out of the valence he is in.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=69
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-69  Q and A Period -- Flows




6110C19 SHSpec-69  Q and A Period -- Flows

                   [Pointers on running problems intensives]

     Any auditing command has the potentiality of flows in it.  If the PC is
running a command with the flow always from A to B, the PC could go into an
occlusion.  You could then have him run it the other way a few times, and it
will un-occlude.  All stuck flows give stuck needles.  You see this in
withholds, too.  A withhold is a non-permitted flow, so anything going in
against it sticks; nothing can backflow.  You'll see the TA rise and the
needle stick.  The more you make him conscious of it, the more tightly he
squashes himself with the withhold.  You finally trigger it.  This reverses
the flow and you get blowdowns.  In a withhold, the PC regrets the backflow.
E.g. he should not have back-flowed the bullet when he killed the king of
France.  He shouldn't have backflowed in the first place, so he is withholding
it.  He can receive everything you tell him about the king of France, but
nothing can come out about the king of France.  Watch the needle go up and
stick.  The more questions you flow in, the more he packs it in.  When he
stops withholding, the T.A. goes down from reversing the flow.

     There are lots of directions of flows, but five, or ten, ways seems
pretty adequate.  If you only run PC to another and another to PC, you can
start getting the other person's flows jamming, and you will again get a stuck
meter.  This doesn't pose



                                      133

a problem if you are running it for a short time only.  You can overrun a flow
on a prehav run, or all flows can run out.  [?] You can run a flow too long
in one direction and get a high TA.  Then it can blow up with a blowdown.  You
can overrun it, in which case, the more you run it, the more stuck it is going
to get.

     The mind is capable of a considerable resurgence.  By getting in ruds,
you give the mind the freedom to look at PT.  With that freedom comes the
ability to as-is.  This makes it possible to use a five-way bracket instead of
a 32-way bracket.  Auditing is not an absolute practice, fortunately.  If
everything bad that ever happened to the PC had to be audited out, you'd be at
it forever.  If you pull certain pins, enough will blow so that the mind can
resurge, if the ruds are in.  A problems intensive is run so that the mind can
resurge enough to let you run goals easily.

     Auditors can have trouble with the idea of flows if they don't realize
that the mind is full of particles.  Thoughts get connected with the particles
and the particles get connected with solids and masses.  So the PC tries to
think and runs into solids.  You try to audit him and run into particles.
There's nothing wrong with the PC's thinkingness per se; the trouble is that
it gets joined up with energy, space, time, and particles.  So he can't think
of time without getting space, or of a thought without getting particles or
masses.  He can't differentiate amongst these things or amongst the dynamics.
The preclear identifies the sixth dynamic particularly with with all the
dynamics, and the seventh dynamic gets identified with the reactive mind.
Thinkingness only goes haywire when a person can no longer differentiate where
he should or associate where he should.  He identifies even on a semantic
level, e.g.  "He road a boat." You can get some amazing results with
semantics, like the airline pilot who came in looking for the phrase that gave
him a compulsion to have accidents while flying.  His mother has said, "He's
no earthly good," which reactively made him fly, even though he hated it.
[Leukemia was once found to be caused by the mother's phrase, "It would turn
your blood to water!"] But auditing by phrases requires a very good auditor,
and it doesn't work on everybody.  If it worked well and easily, we'd still be
doing it.

     It is a mistake to let the PC run only one-way flows.  The PC has been
motivating for years and years, not just in session.  What is holding it
pinned is lack of any reverse flow.  It looks moral to the PC, but it's not.
It's that he started an outflow along a certain tone level, making a line
along which an interchange could occur.  Having done so, he can be inflowed on
at that level.  This is all based on the horrible fact that a thetan can never
be inflowed on until he has outflowed.  How could he have been located by
someone else otherwise?

     This leads to the "safe" solution of never being anywhere or saying
anything.  Of course, then you'll never do anything or see anything, and
nothing will ever happen ever.  The police evidently operate on this, since
it's being there and communicating that are punished.  Someone in apathy has
solved life this way, and he's easy to inflow on, so he gets kicked.  If he's
not careful, though, he may get a reputation for being a good listener.  Yet
people get taught this, "Be a good listener; don't be obtrusive; be a little
late," but it backfires.

     When making up auditing commands, be sure it is understood and that it
reads on the meter, and that it is explicit, and that you get it answered
every time.  And don't set up a stuck flow



                                      134

situation.  Even a flow of giving punishment to someone will violate games
condition because it is giving something to an enemy, so it makes one feel
degraded and start figuring on it.  War is degrading because soldiers are
always giving things to their enemies.  This sets up a bad games condition.
An auditor shouldn't run a contrary-to-games-condition process which is all
give or one that violates flows with all receive.  There are wordings that
allow for any flow, e.g., "What was happening?" or "What was unknown?  If the
PC can't run "unknown", you can use "forgotten", the lower harmonic of
"unknown".  Use any of the not-know words if necessary; don't leave the
problem unrun.  If you start getting into a stuck flow on a process, you can
just end the process without too much fuss and add another flow to it, e.g. by
saying, "Now we are going to add another side to this...." If your intention
is to get auditing done rather than to follow a ritual, it'll go down just
fine.  Anything that goes wrong to a PC in session is registered by him on the
basis of a scarcity of auditing and is best remedied by giving him auditing.
If you run withholds a lot (e.g. unkind thoughts), you can wind up with a
stuck flow unless you run the overt as the outflow.

     [In the problems intensive, the O-section is a list of self-determined
changes the PC has made in this lifetime.  The list is assessed out by
elimination, and the item is then handled in the P-section.  The auditor gets
the problem that preceded this change; he runs it on, "What is unknown about
that problem with (the terminal in the problem)?" or some such process.  Later
version omits running it.  Then the confusion prior tc the change (later --
prior to the problem) is located, and the dramatis personae of the confusion
are sec checked, getting off all the O's and W's in the area of the confusion,
until the problem no longer reacts.  Then another self-determined change is
assessed out, etc.  A later version of the Problems Intensive is given in HCOB
9Nov61 "The Problems Intensive -- Use of the Prior Confusion"]

     The number of problems a person has determines how fast or slow he will
audit, and his speed of accomplishment in life in general.  So he'll speed up
in life when you get his problems out of the way.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=24/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=70
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-70  Clearing




6110C24 SHSpec-70  Clearing

     Auditing is a third dynamic activity.  Most aberration stems from group
mores, because there was an agreement (agreement is high on the reality
scale).  As an individual agrees to something, then disagrees to it, he runs a
contradiction on his own postulates.  When a thetan becomes a member of a
group, he agrees to certain things, then finds he can't uphold them and
disagrees with those things.  This activity is high on the reality scale.
Having agreed to something, then disagreed with it, the thetan doesn't
normally as-is his original agreement.  Thus he finds himself in disagreement
with himself, since it was originally his own agreement.  This is apparently
the first and foremost invalidation of a thetan.  He invalidates himself by
first agreeing, then disagreeing with his own agreements.  In between the
agreement and disagreement, we get a further set of agreements and activities,
all of which are lesser in value, but which bring about complexity.



                                      135

     So you get an area of mutual motion with the group, and even a confusion
of ownership of motion.  You get a whole series of problems from this.  This
gets us back to something that has been a question since 1948: If the thetan
was making his pictures, why did he create the particular ones he's got?  Why
his proclivity for morbidity?  We find the answer in the fact that he can't
differentiate between his own actions and other people's.  He's not sure who
caused these communication lines and actions.  All motions are, of course,
caused individually.  There is no such thing as collectively caused motion.
Governments err by thinking that there's some entity called "the people", when
in fact there are just individuals.  But in his third dynamics, the PC got
into this confusion of mutual motion.  He then defends himself by backing out
of it.  He says, "Well, it was all bad.  Here I am outside of it.  At least I
am still an identity." A thetan has gone through this over and over.

     The dynamics give us an excellent picture of the confusion of mutual
motion.  The sixth dynamic is exclusively a co-motion, an undifferentiated
one.  All the collective, undifferentiated co-motions of the past become
matter, energy, space, and time -- the sixth dynamic.  Nobody can say what he
did.  A thetan in this universe can only say, "That was our activity." This is
OK until you get a failure.  For instance, it's "We built this bridge," until
it collapses, at which point it becomes, "They built this bridge." When mutual
co-motion comes a cropper, people deny their part in it.

     At any given time, an individual is a member of at least two or three
groups.  He has been on the track for +200 trillion years, which makes a lot
of groups.  So it is impractical to run out his co-action with all his
groups.  For instance, every time he died, he left a group.  But we are
assisted by automaticity.  All overts and withholds are preceded by
co-action.  You can straighten out the people involved by running O/W, or you
can free the effect of the O/W by differentiating the co-action.  This is a
basic discovery: that you can knock out the co-action preceding the O/W.  He
can't face the co-action sometimes until you get off some of the withholds and
overts.

     A body of agreement has been violated and thereafter will remain
aberrative.  That's where you get the packaged "Now-I'm-supposed-tos", the
packaged postulates -- valences enforced by group mores.  Someone who is
withholding himself from his former group can't even tell you what really went
on in it until he his gotten off some of the O/W.  His withholding is not only
in the physical universe but in the mind also.  You could have a group whose
mutual action is all mutually destructive, at first glance.  When you process
the PC, you are just asking him to stop withholding himself mentally, just
because he is withholding himself physically.  He'll resist because it feels
like being asked to return to it physically.

     The reason you have to have ruds in in order to find a goal or terminal
is that you are asking the individual to walk very closely to the fact of an
identity from which he is withholding himself while being the identity.  He's
not executing the goal while executing the goal.  You are asking him to look
at something that he is in the middle of.  When you run groups, you are asking
him, "What group co-motion are you still in the middle of that you're now
having nothing to do with?" This confuses him, but it works out very well.
You go back through his O/W's to co-action.  Eventually you could even get the
mutual agreements.  Each step asks him to confront a little more than he would
be comfortable



                                      136

confronting.  So you'll find his goal and find his terminal.  Fine.  That's
oriented towards the future and away from the unpleasant past.  But then you
ask him to go back over the past, and suddenly you get all the reasons why he
doesn't want to go clear.  Facing all those prior groups and people and
activities is something else.  Yesterday should remain buried.  This is the
most critical period of processing.  For one thing, if you have the wrong goal
and the wrong terminal, you will throw the PC in over his head and it will
take experts to bail him out.  It's not a light thing to attempt.

     The PC doesn't want to face what he has left, so you had better be
prepared for evasions, ducks, and dodges, ARC breaks, etc.  Even if he's
aberrated now; he knows he's alive.  He's not so sure he will be alive if he
confronts this.  He died last time, didn't he?  A PC can also slide out from
under the terminal up into degradation.  This is an alarming fact of running
terminals.  The PC looks very pitiful as he comes through the degradation and
may not feel at all like going on.  But all his escape mechanisms are
reactive.  By keeping rudiments in and carrying on straight ahead, you will
succeed, because the PC himself is really with you all the way.  The
objections are all reactive.  You may have a smooth trip through it, too.  Not
all pcs go through degradation.

     Degradation is a lower harmonic of apathy and is the first emotion the PC
encounters on the road up, even if he's below it.  He goes through the band of
death on the way to apathy, then on up the tone scale.  There's a sort of
hurdy-gurdy that goes on.  There's the PC and the valence, and the PC is as
overwhelmed as the valence is high toned.  During processing, the positions
reverse.  At one point, they are level.  At this point, the
"now-I'm-supposed-tos" don't work well and the PC still doesn't decide well
what to do.  Then the valence goes down and the PC up.  The PC and/or the
valence may hit the boredom band.  It is important not to leave it there, but
to continue.  [See Fig. 5]

                                    FIGURE 5

                                 TONE LEVEL OF

                                 VALENCE AND PC

                              [GRAPHICS INSERTED]



                                      137


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=26/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=72
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-72  Security Checking -- Auditing Errors




6110C26 SHSpec-72  Security Checking -- Auditing Errors

     All the heretics the Catholic Church has had trouble with were produced
by the mechanism of incomplete confessions.  This is poetic justice, since the
Church buried most of the earlier knowledge that had been around.  So a sec
check, the very thing which is supposed to prevent dissension, upsets, and
slowed cases, if badly done restimulates a heresy of some sort which
eventually brings about an overthrow of the group, sooner or later.  The cycle
is that this overt, not being pulled, but restimulated, causes the PC to
lessen it by running down the target of the overt.  This is a new overt, which
then makes him also run down the group that failed to pull the withhold.  If
you fail to pull the withhold, you will get the effect of the succeeding
overts, as the PC makes nothing of the people who might find out.  This is
part of lessening the missed overt.  It also serves to make it such that no
one would ever believe those people if the overt ever does come out.

     The amazing thing is that the withhold, as it's pulled, transmutes from a
smoking volcano before it is pulled to a limp dead fish as it's gotten off.
So, if you start to release it but don't carry through, you've left the PC
with a live head of steam which will frequently explode.

     The way to have accidents with a dangerous object is to know it's
dangerous and not know how to handle it.  We've tended to tell students that
you can't do anything wrong with auditing, in order to inspire confidence, and
to a degree it's true, but now that we have accomplished a speed-up of getting
rid of the basic core of reactivity, we've paid for it with a loss of the
safety mechanisms of older processes, like conceptual processes, objectives,
etc.  Now we have to run things that make people pretty uncomfortable when it
is done wrong.  This is not permanent, but it can be quite uncomfortable at
the time.  Part of the trouble, too, is that the auditor can be looking very
pleasant, doing his best (though he has make GAE's) so that the PC, when he
finds himself looking awful, blames himself for it and feels it couldn't be
the auditor's fault, when in fact it is his fault.

     The common denominator of GAE's is some degree of no auditing done.
Where there have been errors, it is mostly incomprehension of auditing
directions.  Examples are leaving a withhold question unflat, doing a wrong
assessment or using a wrong assessment, running a prehav level until the TA
is moving and leaving it, failing to continue to sec check a PC as his case
advances.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=31/10/61
Volnum=1
Issue=73
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-73  Rudiments




6110C31 SHSpec-73  Rudiments

     Those things that are closest to present time have a greater influence on
the PC than the whole track, in his estimation.  So you have a PC who is
convinced that anything wrong with him must have happened in this lifetime.
This is one of the things wrong with him -- that he thinks he can get this
aberrated in fifty years or less.  As far as the basic seat of aberration is
concerned, it is all "way prior to this lifetime.  To the PC, what has
happened in the last twenty-four hours is more important than what has
happened in the past month, but it isn't, really.  From the PC's viewpoint
what has happened in the session is more important than what has happened in
this day, hence the violence



                                      138

of session ARC breaks.  Because of this evaluation of importances, you can't
audit over the ARC break.  As it recedes into the past, it loses importance.
The analytical mind fixes its attention closest to all of the havingness,
which is in present time.

     So there's always the disagreement in the session that what's really
wrong with the PC is in the yester-lives, but the PC thinks it's something
wrong right now.  If you treat what is wrong with him now with heavy actions,
as if it were a tremendous barrier, the PC will think so too.  Thus you can
validate the PC into out-ruds.

     An auditor has to adjudicate whether it will do more damage to get the
rudiments in or to audit with them out.  A goals run is very difficult with
the ruds out, but you can attack ruds with such ferocity that the PC gets
convinced that they must be really out, so they go more out.  If the TA starts
going up while you are getting ruds in, lock very pleased, as if you'd just
gotten ruds really in, wind up the ruds and get back on the goals terminal
line.  Ruds a bit out is better than ruds 'way out.

                           [Details on goals running]

     You will sometimes find the PC planting his heels in.  Examine the case
from the aspect of its goal; examine the goal from the aspect of what dynamic
it is an overt against, and you will find out how a PC got a goal in this
solid.  He had this goal as a perfectly honest goal, perhaps, and nobody
wanted this goal because it didn't fit in with certain dynamics.  They
invalidated it, and he reasserted it, etc., etc., to the point where he pretty
much dropped it.  When you first pick it up, you find it behaves like an
overt.  You can run it as an overt, which is why the two-way flow run on it
works.  You can ask, "What would the goal _______ do to a group?" and find how
it could be lots of overts against groups.  This means it has been invalidated
a lot, which is why it goes out so easily.  Any goal that isn't an axiom is
out of agreement to some degree with groups the PC has been associated with.
Thus it has been invalidated on other dynamics and so becomes a source of
invalidation.  He uses it to invalidate and others invalidate it.  So if you,
as the auditor, invalidate it even slightly, out it goes.  The terminal, being
an outgrowth of the goal, is similarly fragile.  Not accepting the PC's
handwritten list resulted in the goal getting lost.  The PC didn't mention
when the auditor got a new goals list with the meter.

     Don't run any processes, e.g. sec checks, on any specific terminals other
that the goals terminal line terminals, except O/W, and when the PC runs out
of O/W against the terminal, don't force it on the terminal anymore.  The PC
will ARC break as his attention is newly forced on the terminal.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=1/11/61
Volnum=1
Issue=74
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-74  Formation of Commands




6111C01 SHSpec-74  Formation of Commands

           [Details on formulating commands for goals processing]

     You can have difficulty with some standard command like, "Think of a
_______ ."  In About 50% of cases, the PC won't make sense out of "think" and
it won't read.  You could clear the word very carefully, get all his
considerations, process the condition, etc.  or, better yet, find a substitute
the PC can understand.  Often, "Get the idea" will work, but if the second
part of the command has it in another form, then what?  Well, square it around
so it makes sense. (Cure for inability to think: "Look around and find
something that's not thinking.") Be sure it's clear to the PC.  Don't find
that you are having trouble with it after you have run it for three hours.
But don't go to the extreme of clearing the



                                      139

same command every session either.  Just clear it when you first use it.  Even
if it looks fine to you, see if it makes sense and is answerable to the PC.

     Mental concepts can exist in the absence of words.  When you are forming
commands, it's concepts you want to communicate.  Words express the form and
character of the think.  A thetan, in order to communicate, goes through MEST
and, to hear, takes the communication out of MEST.  That's how he keeps off
other thetans.  The whole business of forming commands uses that mechanism.
The command should, of course, always be duplicated.  That's a havingness
factor, as well as not attracting the PC's attention, and it makes him think a
repetitive thought which will eventually as-is his circuits.  Don't get
pedantic about it.  Process in the language he speaks, including dialects and
colloquialisms.

     If you are trying to compose commands without a knowledge of the basics
of scientology, you'd do better to go hang yourself.  One of the basics is to
make sense.  Remember that if a word was something the PC was quite rational
about, it wouldn't read in the first place.  And it's not up to you to run a
language school for a PC.  Often he will cognite on what it means as you run
it.  But if you have to change wordings to make the command grammatical or
sensible, be sure to get one that reads and has the same sense to the PC.
Your commands are always being formed and cleared up against the raw stuff of
which aberration is concocted.  As a result, it becomes a tricky and vast
subject.  The fundamentals of the mind are simple and not very many.  The
difficulties of clearing and forming commands can cause the auditor to give up
and just take commands LRH has given.  Even if you do this, try at least to
understand the thought behind the command which is meant to be transmitted to
the PC.  if it doesn't transmit because of some weirdness, fix it up so it
fits and transmits.  LRH expects that you would make sure it's answerable.
Don't change any commands that you are already running, no matter how much
better you now see you could make it.  Realize that commands are
communication, not semantics.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=2/11/61
Volnum=1
Issue=75
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-75  How to Security Check




6111C02 SHSpec-75  How to Security Check

     The answer to why the bank beefs up when non-goals-terminals are run is
this: When you run the terminal which is not the goals terminal, his attention
is too bound up in his own terminal and goal to as-is the collapsing mass.  So
the mass the auditor pushes in on the PC, connected to the new terminal,
doesn't get as-ised.  The PC doesn't have enough attention units to as-is
anything except the goals terminal, so the bank beefs up.  Similarly, your
E-meter starts up, the TA rises, to the degree that the PC is not as-ising
what you are throwing in on him.

     The worst thing about E-meters is TR-0.  TR-0 goes out and the meter
doesn't work.  An E-meter is a deadly weapon.  You can slaughter a PC if the
E-meter is not used correctly.  You do this by missing instant reads.  If, in
addition, you took up latent reads and let the PC get off other people's
overts, the session itself would be an overt, and the PC would feel worse
afterwards.  A more dangerous mistake is missing an instant read and leaving
the question live, which can often result in the PC nattering, criticizing you
and the organization, etc.  Very funny.  If you miss the question, he doubts
you, your ability, the tech, etc.  When you clean it up by pulling the
withhold, the natter stops.

     A latent read has a comm lag of 0.5 sec or more.



                                      140

     You could sec check a person into a high TA by making sure all the ruds
were out, so his attention would be dispersed.  Audit what the PC is stuck
in.  When a PC's attention is too bound up in one area, the PC cannot as-is
anything else, so the TA goes high and sticks.  It's not that the TA's going
high should be utterly avoided.  But the TA goes high because more is being
thrown in on the PC than the PC can handle or as-is.  If, during a run, the PC
hits an engram, he may not be able to as-is it, if you start directing his
attention to all the details, etc.  and start running the engram.  So just
acknowledge it and carry on [with the goals or terminals run you were doing].
The auditor can push mass, circuits, pictures, etc., in on the PC and can move
his track more easily than the PC, hard though it may be for auditors to
recognize this.  So your interrogation of the PC can pin his attention on the
track.  It's Ok to be curious enough to find out what he is looking at or
doing, but not to start running it.  Of course you can move him out of it by
asking for earlier or later incidents.  The reactive mind is always keyed to
other-determinism and never to self-determinism, so the auditor can always
move it around.

     High TA is often cured by getting off a withhold, even a small one.
Getting off any withhold will make the TA go down.

                       [Data on sec checking by dynamics]

     The trouble with the sec check is usually that the auditor is working
from his own viewpoint and not from the PC's.  A thetan is not natively a
member of any culture.  Thetans have come down the track accumulating various
mores and civilizations and group ideas.  Some have come down the track
without finding out that groups exist.  They've collected various things, but
their mores register on the dynamics [rather than relative to groups.]

     Make sure you sec check what the PC considers an overt, even if to you it
seems trivial.  People are different.  Men are so busy being ordinary that
they don't recognize that every one of them is slightly, somewhere,
extraordinary.  This professional ordinariness is a great repressor; it
not-ises the differences.  Unless you can re-establish difference, you can't
re-establish differentiation.  The easy way out, the easy solution, is to say
that it's all the same; they are all alike, all bad, so now I'm warned and
safe, if miserable.  That's such stupid reasoning that it's no wonder
countries go down the drain of "all people are equal, but some people are more
equal than others".  Perhaps thetans were all equal at the beginning of the
track, then became unequal and masked it with a pretended equality.

           [Details on problems intensives and sec check procedures]

     It is interesting that you can sec check out of existence every
out-rudiment: the room, PTP's, the auditor, ARC breaks.  Just get the prior
confusion .  A rudiment can't hang up unless there's an unknown, and an
unknown can't exist unless there's a withhold.  Here we have a class of things
that all go together: unknowingness, forgettingness, stupidity, and
withholds.  They are like A, R, and C in the ARC triangle; they go up and down
together.

     You are not likely to get a factual answer to the question, "Have you
ever made someone guilty of something?" The thing that is wrong with the PC is
that he has never successfully made anybody guilty and he is still trying.
The basis of his aberration is the effort to made someone guilty, not the
accomplished fact.  You should ask, "Have you ever attempted to make anybody
guilty of _______ ?"  The only reason anyone has a victimish, motivatorish
attitude is in an effort to make someone guilty.  It may have even been a
successful effort, but the person making the effort doesn't know about it.



                                      141

     It is a debatable point whether you should ever take an unkind thought as
an overt.  Sometimes it does seem to be the only available overt, and the
person does feel friendlier and better for having gotten it off.  But there
appears to be evidence that a person with a body of unkind thoughts against
someone or something has an actual overt which is being withheld.  The unkind
thoughts are evidently just evidence that overts exist.  So if you don't get
the overts, you are leaving them with unflat sec check questions.  Critical
thoughts don't aberrate people.  But the PC may not be able to reach the
underlying overt.  So if he can't, make a note, so that you can return to it.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=8/11/61
Volnum=1
Issue=77
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-77  Checking Case Reports




6111C08 SHSpec-77  Checking Case Reports

     [Details on running Routine 3A. See HCOB 7Nov61 "Routine 3A".  Also see
6111C08 SHSpec-76 Routine 3A, which was deleted from the SHSBC Checksheet.
See definition of Routine 3A in the tech dictionary.  Routine 3A involved
finding a modifier for the goal, a modifier being "that consideration which
opposes the attainment of a goal and tends to suspend it in time.  Example:
goal, "to be a willow wand"; modifier, "so as never to be reached."]

     There are two or three civilizations, 'way on the backtrack, where the
language was English.

     Never be ashamed to be clever as an auditor.  It is not the same as being
a squirrel.  A squirrel doesn't understand any of the principles, so he makes
them up to fulfill his ignorance.  If you do know the principles and never get
clever, you're a knucklehead since there aren't textbook solutions for every
situation.  After the PC has told you fifteen or twenty times, "You keep
asking for the modifier, but I just can't reach it," ask him if "but I just
can't reach it" is the modifier.

     When a PC is ARC broken, he gets into a kind of numb games condition,
where he has no fluidity of mind or flexibility.  If you try to audit a PC in
a wooden, sullen state, you are highly unlikely to get anywhere.

                    [More details on running of Routine 3A]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=9/11/61
Volnum=1
Issue=78
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-78  Effective Auditing




6111C09 SHSpec-78  Effective Auditing

     There is only one thing that can make an E-meter lie and that's a bad
auditor.  Where an auditor has withholds, he won't want to get others'
withholds off, so he won't want to believe the meter.  Auditor diffidence is
also based on a fear of what they might hear from pcs, such as gossip about
themselves.  Pc's do appreciate auditor control in session.  On a sec check,
the PC may not know what it is that's giving a read.  At that point, you get
helpful, ask a lot of various things to help him locate it, compartment the
question to see where the read is coming from, etc.  But if the PC is
resisting, not even trying to look, acting resentful, etc., don't be a softy.
Get as tough as necessary to get the withhold.  The PC has gone into a games
condition, and you have got to get him out of it.  You have to be able to
judge what's happening to the PC and not expect there is a ritual way to
handle him.  The technology and procedures of scientology are to assist you to
audit the PC, not to hide behind.  There is no substitute for a live auditor,
particularly in sec checking.  This doesn't mean you should always he sweet.



                                      142

     Don't overwhump the PC, creating missed withholds of nothing.  Don't be a
robot.  Don't ignore the PC's answers, creating an enforced withhold.  Don't
do something that suddenly shifts the PC's attention, like going from no
interest to enthusiastic interest in a jump.  It takes a certain amount of
auditor to make an auditing session.  Some auditors can put too much there,
with distractive comments, and so forth.  If the meter breaks in mid-session,
don't do anything at all about it except carry on with the session, until you
can declare a break.  Then fix the meter and restart.  Never distract the PC's
attention out of session.  Fiddling with the meter can cause the TA to climb
as much as two divisions.

     Don't develop a nice calloused death mask in lieu of TR-0.  Process the
PC in front of you.  Just get brave.  The way to get your ruds in, as an
auditor, is to just relax, look over the situation, even if it takes a bit of
time.  Find out what is going on by asking, "What is going on?" You ask him.
That's different from a ritual.  Do you know that with one single question
that is heartfelt and meant by you, you can put all the ruds in, just like
that?

     How do you run a sec check on a tough PC with lots of withholds when the
meter is broken?  You don't.  You run some havingness and confront and end
session and get a new meter.  But never distract a PC's attention from the
session.  You can be as interesting or as interested as you please, as long as
it's relevant to the session and to what the PC is doing.  What upsets the PC
is an irrelevancy to his case.  It's not what you do; it's how relevant your
actions are.  You must have your attention on the PC.  The auditor could dance
a jig as long as it is relevant to the pcs case.  You'll drop some of your
shackles and death masks when you learn this.  Differentiate between what you
can get away with and what you can't.  All the PC demands is that the auditor
be effective and his attention relevant to the PC's case.  That's what the
auditor violates when he gets in trouble with the PC.  The whole pattern of
ARC breaks is that the PC ceases to believe that the auditor's attention is
relevant to his case.

     Per the Philadelphia Doctorate Lectures, the highest level [of reality]
is conviction.  This is above agreement, communication, above mechanics.  It's
a belief.  The PC must stay convinced that the auditor is interested in
auditing him and interested in auditing his case and doing it effectively,
with attention on the PC.  This conviction takes something to achieve.  It can
be accomplished, if you know enough about the mind and have enough reality on
its mechanics.  Knowing these things, you are never debarred by the mystery of
it all.  The PC looks like something that can be resolved.  If you know the
mechanics of how he operates; and if you know all the parts of his mind, you
understand enough of what he is doing to form ARC with the PC.  Now your
interest and attention is on the particularities, the specifics of his
difficulties.  If you are comfortable with the basics and the mechanics,
you'll be able to handle people's upsets effectively.  Somebody who
understands life can talk about life, and other people know he understands
life even if they don't know what he is saying, oddly enough.

     So if you, who could be looking and interested, aren't doing it with the
PC, he has been out.  It's upsetting that you don't do what you could be
doing.  People do not forgive no auditing or being ineffective.  So audit the
PC and be effective.  The PC



                                      144

wants your attention cn his case.  If you start to tell him about your case,
forget it!  No matter how kindly your motives are, just be sure you are
effective and that your attention is on his case.
                             [Details on modifiers]

     The ARC the PC forms with the auditor is not just from sweetness and
kindness.  It's from auditor control, interest, and effectiveness.  Student
auditing can well be slow because the PC can feel the student is auditing in
order to learn about it, not because of interest in his case.  If an auditor
goes and carelessly sleeps with the PC, he'll get no auditing done
thereafter.  He's no longer interested in the PC's case, he's interested in
the PC's body.  Being complimentary to your PC goes only so far; then it
becomes interest in the PC's body, not in his case, so it is no longer
effective.  Out of session compliments may be fine.

     Every skill you have in auditing routines: sec checks, model session,
problems intensive, has a certain form which rather guarantees interest in the
PC's case.  Don't let it ride on automatic, however, or it compounds the
felony.  You get the situation where the ritual is interested in the PC's
case, but the auditor isn't.  The PC gets a weird unreality about the whole
thing.  The auditor has to be interested in the PC's case and determined to do
something effective about it; then, through the media of E-meter and
procedure, he gives the auditing commands.  The commands are vital but
secondary.  They do nothing by themselves.

     In sec checking, if the auditor does not become visible and real to the
PC, no withholds will read.  You get reads on the meter in direct ratio to
your reality to the PC.  This is true in assessment, too.  Your presence is as
poor, in the PC's opinion, as you have to keep the rudiments in.  The auditor
is as real and has as much presence to the PC as the ruds stay in.  Interest
must be present to get reads and restimulate the PC.  The more presence you
have, the more you can get out of the PC.  It can disturb a PC to have some
overt or partly known thing and to hear, from some non-present and non-located
terminal a question about it that doesn't restimulate it.  When it's a thetan
to thetan question, there's live interest and communication and you get reads
and answers.  The bank is responsive to your presence.  You can handle it
better than he can.  If you never order his bank around, nothing happens.

     The way to get a PC into session is to audit him.  Do something
effective.  Beware of mechanical distractions of all kinds.  Pcs who are ARC
broken about "unflat processes" are really upset about moving off an effective
process to something ineffective.  If it's effective, run it through to the
end, even if it's rough.  The only sin is not auditing, especially when you've
started auditing.  If to be effective, you have to throw down the meter, OK.
And that's sometimes what it takes.  Put your attention on the PC and what
he's doing.  The PC will even forgive something like this, "Just sit there and
shut up for a minute and let me think.  You've presented me here with a rough
one and I'm not quite sure which way I'm going on the thing, so just be quiet
for a moment and lemme figure this out!  Shut up, now?  Jesus, you've got a
rough case! ... All right.  This is what I'm gonna do...." The PC will accept
this because you are going to do something about his case.



                                      144


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=16/11/61
Volnum=1
Issue=81
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-81  Points in Assessing




6111C16 SHSpec-81  Points in Assessing

     Assessment by elimination started because auditors had trouble
differentiating which read was biggest.  It was found that you could assess
down to one item left.

     The phraseology in the modifiers gives the illusion of elsewhere, and the
PC responds with a total dramatization of the modifier.  A call-back like,
"but I will leave and come here" gets the PC in PT.  Anything you can give
which acts as a command to move in some direction will be a bouncer.  A denyer
is something that denies knowledge of something.  Stickers, formerly called
"holders" park the person on the track.  It's an oddity that these modifiers
exist and are appended to the goal.

     [More details on running Routine 3D. See 6111C14 SHSpec-79 Routine 3D,

L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=21/11/61
Volnum=1
Issue=82
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-82 Running 3D, HCOB 20Nov61 Routine 3D Commands", and HCOB
3Dec61 "Running 3D Levels"]




6111C21 SHSpec-82 Running 3D, HCOB 20Nov61 Routine 3D Commands", and HCOB
3Dec61 "Running 3D Levels"]

     You'll find that the majority of the skills a PC has in this lifetime are
those of his goals-modifier terminal.  He'll push his education just as far as
it would be needed by his goals terminal.  Even though it's no longer an
existing doingness.  A goals terminal, when found, is only the total answer to
the current case from the mental aspect basis.  It will take care of so much
in a lifetime that it would be easy to make the error of considering that one
goals run of Routine 3D and one level knocked out should resolve the whole
case.  Not so.  It will go a long way, and it looks as though the case should
be resolved, but the PC will still have chronic somatics, circuits, and a
whole new goal-valence chain to get out of the road.  You've just gotten off
the most available series out of 12, 15, 20.  They resolve the case, not just
the first one.  After all, how did the PC get in such lousy shape that he
could get this valence?  A PC will try to make an all out of a valence, when
there's really a whole series of layers.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=22/11/61
Volnum=1
Issue=83
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-83  Reading the E-meter




6111C22 SHSpec-83  Reading the E-meter

     It is a horrible fact that the request for the extraordinary solution if
prompted always by the gross auditing error.  Your sense of propriety may be
so violated by the magnitude of the outness that you don't see it.  For
instance, the auditor runs a session with the E-meter broken, or no sessions
are given at all.  Not reading the E-meter is a GAE.

     The early E-meter (1951) wouldn't read because the electrodes were little
quarter-inch bars.  Soup cans were substituted and then you could see that
something was going on.  British meters started being supplied with aluminum
pipes.  They aren't as good as cans for a can squeeze.  The meter was first
used for dating incidents on the track.  Ron found that the on-the-beach
incidents gave 16-dial drops.  At that point, he still thought that the higher
the TA went, the clearer the person was.  For the first five months, LRH had
no reality on the meter and would take his own judgment instead of the
meter's, every time.  For the next three years, LRH had to get used to every
new meter.  They were variable.  That is why they are made standard, now: so
you don't have to learn each one's idiosyncracies.



                                      145

     One reason why E-meters weren't used in the mid "50's was that they got
too complicated.  Don Breeding, Joe Wallace, and Jim Pinkham eventually, in
the late '50's, designed one for LRH in Washington, with a simple, basic
circuit design.  They were transportable, unlike the Volney Matthison models,
which were mains meters with high current that could, if malfunctioning,
deliver a potent electric shock.  Some pcs now can feel current from a battery
meter.  They are just hypersensitive to electricity.  The British Mark IV is
now standard.  Its behavior is very similar to the American meter.

     The tone arm was originally believed to indicate the tone of the PC, on
the tone scale.  Hence the name, "tone arm".  It's really a complete
misnomer.

     Lie detector operators go wholly on body motion, plus respiration, pulse,
and blood pressure.  Since the E-meter can measure the mental reaction of the
PC [e.g. as given in the instant read], it is well in advance of lie
detectors.  Also, unlike a polygraph, the E-meter is a PT machine.
Furthermore, there are only two hundred people out of thousands trained in the
use of polygraphs who can really use them.

     The E-meter is a present time machine.  You use its information as you
get it, not after some comm lag.  You've got to catch the read when it
happens.  You've got to know that, in checking ruds, a stop on the rise is a
read, and that it's got to be an instant read.  It registers the moment the
sense gets to the PC.  If the PC is trying to sell you on something, the read
will be latent because the PC takes an instant to get it and respond.  but the
reactive mind doesn't; it has no time in it and reads instantly.

     You have to be satisfied that the meter works.  Get to where it is an
unimportant, albeit vital, part of the session, and you can have your
attention on the PC instead of the meter.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=23/11/61
Volnum=1
Issue=84
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-84  Auxiliary Prehav 3D Scale




6111C23 SHSpec-84  Auxiliary Prehav 3D Scale

     [This scale is contained in HCOB 23Nov61 "Aux.  Prehav 3D Scale".  First
part of tape contains details on running Routine 3D.  GPM mentioned for the
first time, here, at least in non-confidential tapes.  It's also mentioned in
HCOB 20Nov61 "Routine 3D commands".  So that it appears that the GPM comes
into existence with Routine 3D.]

     Run inexpertly, Routine 3D slams the gates shut for the next hundred
trillion years for a thetan.  What it takes is expertness in metering.  If
that's what it takes, you'll do it.  Back a few years ago, LRH decided, "Well,
if that's what it takes to break this barrier and push this thing through for
a big win for all of us, well, that what it takes." [Quote:] "It isn't a
question of me being bright, or me being extraordinary.  I do know where I
came from, you see.  I used to tell my grandfather... to explain my red hair
to him.  I fell off Mars and got into a bucket of red paint.  was two when I
was telling him that, and he thought I was joking!  It wasn't a question of
what I could do or what my ability was.  It was a question of what would it
take to get it done.  All I'm asking you to do is -- do the impossibility of
do it.  I couldn't possibly have done it; you can't possibly audit it.  I did
it.  You do it.  Is that a good bargain?" That's what it takes.



                                      146

     If you don't know how to read a meter, of course you don't have much
confidence in your ability to run one, and after someone has thrown the meter
at you or you've thrown the meter, and someone has missed your withholds a few
times, of course, your ability to read a meter deteriorates like mad.  What
you are really beaten by is not the meter, but the operator of the meter.

     Einstein had the concept of the observer.  He even wrote a paper on the
subject, entitled "The Viewpoint of the Observer" An observer is somebody who,
without the introduction of an opinion, can look exactly and directly at a
needle or registering item and say exactly what it did without further
introduction of an opinion.  Psychologists and psychiatrists do not observe.
They are so interested in doing something that they never notice what they are
doing it to.  Thus, these disciplines, not knowing what an observer is, have
denied us data because they introduced opinion and evaluation.  The ability to
observe as a single action is what is required to run an E-meter.  If you take
that as a separate action of the auditor, you will get the whole problem
compartmented properly.  And only when you do that action do you do anything
else.  We don't sit there and worry about what we will do if the needle does
something.

     Why should the observation of the needle assault reality?  It's just an
observation.  Keep the observer independent of the doer and you are all set.
The needle acted in a certain way.  What it means and what you will do about
it are utterly separate from the observation that it acted in a certain way.
Try just observing a tree sometime, with no opinion or think.  You'll find it
very interesting.  Now look at the tree when the wind is blowing.  If you can
hold this as an observation, independent of an emotional reaction, opinion,
doingness, summation, or prediction, fine.  It is characteristic of the human
race that they predict without bothering to see.

     As far as the E-meter is concerned, an auditor must be purely an observer
who can look and see exactly what the needle is doing.  It may take only one
tenth of his attention, but it must be pure attention.  The analysis of what
the PC's mind is doing is another activity, a perfectly valid one, but one
which follows the observation.  One must not be so fond of one's theories that
one slants the observation to prove the theory right.

     The fact that LRH is willing to observe and very seldom goes to sleep and
keeps his mind on what he's doing, as an auditor, is what gets him good
auditing results.  To observe for one second is a skill of sorts.  That's what
metering takes.  What happens is what happens, with no alter-is connected with
the observation.  Where you have a bad assessment, it's because hopefulness or
pessimism has entered in.  You need the willingness to put something to the
pure, reliable test.  An observer needn't know anything about scientology or
the mind.  All he needs to know is whether something happened or not, and
what.  Pure observation is a nice trick.

     If you get a PC who talks during an assessment, just get him to shut up
so you can assess.  He won't ARC break as long as he sees he's getting your
attention.  You don't care what he does, as long as he holds the cans and lets
you assess.

     The mechanics of it is thus: It doesn't matter whether he is thinking
about it or not.  You're assessing his bank, and no power on earth could
prevent his bank from reading on the right level for that terminal.  Many
systems may be followed, but they would all share the principle of getting the
maximum number of



                                      147

levels in a minimum time with a minimum restimulation of the PC.

     If you jar someone's attention onto his terminal, it'll stay there awhile
-- for several levels.  You can take advantage of that by assessing several
levels without repeating the terminal.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=28/11/61
Volnum=1
Issue=85
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-85  Havingness




6111C28 SHSpec-85  Havingness

     Havingness doesn't have to go with confront.  If you are running a
subjective process on a PC, that is the "confront" part.  Havingness is an
adjunct to any subjective process.  It goes out about every six months and
comes in again six months or so later.

     Why does the meter get stuck?  One reason is that ARC breaks get so
furious that nothing reads.  Everything has gone out.  He's in a games
condition and won't let anything have any command over him.  No one else is
permitted to have anything.  You can fix it by running havingness.  The two
hundred lie detector operators who can make it operate do so because they can
get into ARC with the person on the lie detector.  The E-meter likewise won't
register in the presence of an operator who has no faintest command value over
the person on the meter.

     You can err by thinking that if it doesn't read on the meter, it doesn't
exist.  This can make one invalidate the meter.  At that moment, you must be
able to obnose the PC and see whether he has an ARC break.  The ARC broken PC
won't confront the auditor, looks glum, gives short answers, gets no TA or a
rising TA that sticks.  The latter indicator is not diagnostic in itself.  The
TA stays up because the meter is inoperative.  So you must look at the PC and
see his indicators.

     An auditor can make another error.  A lot of people have the idea they
can tell better than the E-meter what a person's terminal is, because there is
something they can know better than the E-meter.  That's because they do know
that the PC is not with the session, have asked the PC for an ARC break, and
have gotten no read.  That is the situation where they know more than the
meter.  This doesn't mean they know better which is the PC's terminal.  So be
relaxed but not careless.

     What could stand between you and a rapid assessment is an ARC broken PC
who is not registering on the meter.  Someone who is nattering about how
scientology is a fraud, etc, etc. can be shut off by asking them, "Why can't
you talk to anyone about your difficulties?" A new rudiments question, then,
is, "Could you talk to me about your case?", which combines the elements of
in-session-ness.  If he's got an ARC break, he won't answer it positively.
Then you've got another series of questions to get him in session.  [See HCOB
30Nov61 "ARC Process 1961"]

     The ARC break process is the best Havingness chewer-upper there is, next
to Routine 3D.  Hence the importance of havingness.  In the first place, the
thetan doesn't want this mass he has, but it is mass, and a thetan's motto is,
"Anything is better than nothing." But this mass is an introversion mass, and
the more you run the mass, the less he's got the physical universe, so even if
the mass didn't increase, it is introverting him, and the more a PC
introverts, the less universe he has, so he would get the feeling of losing
havingness just by contacting some introverting thing.  Something that
introverted him badly would give him the feeling of no havingness.  It has
always been there.  Whenever he has gotten sick, this mass you are running out
caved in on him.



                                      148

Don't be amazed to find the PC running a fever while running 3D.  Just keep on
smoothly handling him.

     The formula for getting rid of havingness is, whatever the person's
attention is on, put it on something else.  For everything he has at the
moment, tell him he's got to have something else.  This is more effective than
brainwashing.  It's the suddenness of the shift that is unsettling.

     When you are running a person's ARC break and he's out of ARC with you,
he wants to go out of the session.  He starts by feeling he's not getting
auditing, then, that he should be thinking about something else, then that he
will physically leave the session.  Catch him one step back, run havingness.
You will get command value as he's looking around the room and you will heal
the ARC break.  Almost any PC, run long enough on havingness, will get all his
rudiments in.  The earliest rudiments process was, "Is it all right to be
audited in this room?  Is it all right for me to audit you?" We're just about
back there.

     Havingness is that activity which is run when needed, and when it will
not violently deflect the PC's attention.  Don't underrun it, once started.
Of all processes, the right havingness process is the safest process to run on
anyone at any time.  It cannot be overrun.

     If the PC comes into session with bounteous PTP's, ARC breaks, ruds
wildly out and you are going to straighten them all out, wouldn't it be nice
to get them all out of the road?  Ask the room question first, consult your
humanness and decide whether he is in any kind of shape to be audited.  If
not, start by running havingness.  This will start to extrovert him and make
it easier for him to run ruds and to audit him on what you want to run.  Don't
collide with the PTP at all.  The terminal is wrong.

     Havingness isn't run against a can squeeze.  It's run against the PC's
ability to have large objects in the room .  It's tested on a can squeeze.
You always run havingness until the PC can have large objects in the room.
The old rules of havingness applied to running it paired with confront.  The
can squeeze check needn't be done more than two or three times a week, and the
test of "enough" havingness is when he can have large objects in the room.
The havingness/confront system ran large sections of case, but havingness
isn't residual in this system; it was loaned to it.  A PC with reduced
havingness is picky and choosey [about room objects]; he's cautious.  With
havingness up, the PC is relaxed and unconcerned.  He is bangy.  If havingness
is working, the TA goes up and blows down.

     Havingness runs the bank, if you run very much of it.  The reason you
don't run a lot of havingness along with confront is that the confront runs
the bank faster.  The havingness was to keep the PC's attention flexible.
Havingness processes from the thirty-six presessions are run by themselves.
You don't need confront when running sec checks, terminals, 3D, etc.  The
depth of reach of the processing is accompanied by reduction of havingness in
the extreme.  So run a lot of havingness.  Don't be upset when the PC goes
into and out of PT.  That's the havingness running the bank.  It's signalized
by the PC apparently doping off, but he isn't, actually.  The PC can see but
not look.  Don't stop the process when he has gone blah.  Run the process
until he is back amongst us.  That's the second rule, along with the large
objects rule.  Keep giving him the command at the same rate even though he's
all blah.  He's still doing the command, no matter what he is doing with his
eyeballs.  The PC does not have to tell you that he has executed the auditing
command.



                                      149

     The PC can get into trouble with havingness by having things he can't see
with his eyes.  If he looks too much without looking, he could be having bank,
in which case his havingness goes down instead of up.  Become wary; pcs do
this.  A person can be going around in life his whole lifetime without ever
having seen any part of the physical universe.  It's a shock to get reality on
it.  The PC puts up a picture of the shelf and looks at that.  He sometimes
discovers, while running havingness, that he is doing this.

     The reason you have different havingness processes is that people have
different degrees of perception.  Someone with poor sight ability would do
better on some other perceptic.  If there are thirty-six havingness processes,
you can be sure that there are more.  Even thirty-six is more than is usually
needed, however.

     You can run a havingness process five times, test it, then, if it
loosened the needle, run it twelve commands, test again to be sure.  If the
needle is looser, OK.  If not, look for another one.  If the needle was
tighter, don't put in any randomity.  Go immediately to another process.
Don't look dismayed if the needle does tighten.  In the interest of having a
standard posture from which to do the can squeeze, get the PC to put his hands
in his lap.

     Having found the PC's havingness process, start the session.  Run
havingness to the large object rule, especially if you had trouble finding the
havingness process.  Now run ruds.  You'll have minimized the number of ARC
breaks you will get.  The PC is in a games condition with you because his
havingness is down.  Get his havingness up and the games condition will vanish
and his ruds will tend to be in and can easily be checked, because your meter
registers better.  If necessary now, you can run the ARC process.  It eats
havingness, so when he cycles into PT or has a good cognition, acknowledge the
hell out of it and run havingness.  You'll get a BD of that tight TA and can
go on and run the ARC process better and longer and faster.

     Running havingness helps the PC give up his old havingness of old
pictures.  You are getting him to realize that there is other havingness.  The
common denominator of all goals terminals is games, and the common denominator
of all games is can't have.  Keep it remedied, or you will get a games
condition.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=29/11/61
Volnum=1
Issue=86
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-86  E-meter Tips




6111C29 SHSpec-86  E-meter Tips

[Various helpful hints about care of meters and detecting malfunction of them]

     LRH had a "beep meter" which you could influence with energy flows.  You
can do this to a person's body, too.  The "beep meter" detects pain in the
body; when held in the area of pain, it goes "beep".  A person can do it
remotely by "seeing" a black area in the person who is holding it and turning
it white.  Someone who isn't a scientologist can't do it, just because of not
being in good enough shape -- not having enough "horsepower".

     As a thetan, you can knock the needle with a beam.  It looks like a body
motion, a jerky tick.  If the PC is influencing the meter, the read will be
latent.  He can't hear the command and put the meter into action as fast as
the reactive mind can.



                                      150


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=6/12/61
Volnum=1
Issue=89
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-89  Sec Checks Necessary




6112C06 SHSpec-89  Sec Checks Necessary

     The more aberrated a person is, the more only-one he is.  He moves in
towards clearing from his lonely vigil on Cloud 69, where he has been keeping
watch against all comers, and where he learned never to take any orders.  Then
you step up with your E-meter and give him an order.  You get no response.
The symptom of extreme aberration is total unwillingness to receive any help.
You can be fooled by the fact that people or countries who are very low-toned
will beg for help.  You are fooled if you don't notice what is done with the
help when it is received.  It is wasted and/or used to make the helper wrong.
They use help as a trap to show you how ineffectual you are.  India is in that
condition now.  You will also find this in insane asylums.  You will see a
person on post somewhere who has to do everything himself.  He is proving that
he must not be helped.  When you are auditing a PC who can be helped, things
go pretty smoothly.  When you are auditing someone who is being an only-one,
he is out of communication, very suspicious, and possibly unwilling to be
helped.  Even if he's OK on help, you still have the communication barrier.
Until that is knocked apart, you won't find your meter reading on the PC.  He
will be hard to assess if his communication level is going in and out during
the assessment.  The average wog is highly suspicious.  He is highly alert.
His ability to be hurt is so enormous that he thinks he has to protect himself
with all sorts of barricades.  And amongst these is no help.  The more
aberrated a person is, the more "only-one" he is.

     Take someone who is not even vaguely in comm.  We are going to assess him
to discover something about him.  If he feels that anything about him will be
used against him, you will get only a total defense.  So your first effort in
clearing anyone is to get that person into communication, not only willing to
talk to you, but when you talk to him, it means a little something, so that
when you talk to him he can receive it.

     You could sec check a person whose help factor was 'way down if you got
the exact right questions, but you couldn't assess him.  Remember, there's no
charge on assessment.  He's not trying to withhold anything from you.  He's
not trying to give you anything.  He's just meat.  The only place a meter has
a hole in it is with ARC breaks, and you can repair that with an ARC break
process.  But that isn't good enough for assessment.  The person has to be in
good communication with the auditor to get an accurate, rapid, assessment.  Or
the auditor has to have fantastic altitude, in which case he'll get reads.

     The rudiments can be found to be in for one auditor, yet he'd be unable
to get reads on assessment.  That just means the meter isn't registering for
that person.  Another auditor could find ruds out and be able to assess the
PC.  So the meter is registering for him.  This is not spooky.  The only-one
PC who is not part of the human race won't let anyone have command value over
him.  The first barrier you have to cross with him is getting him into
communication.  Speed of assessment depends on degree on willingness to
communicate with the auditor.

     Altitude is the command value you have over the PC.  An auditor has to
have confidence in his tools and what he is doing.  If he lacks it, the PC can
tell and assigns him a lower altitude accordingly.  An inexpert auditor who is
not in comm with the E-meter and a hostile PC who is not in comm with the
human race will



                                      151

give you a debacle.  It is much more economical to sec check someone for
seventy-five hours and put them in communication with the human race than to
assess them for seventy-five hours.  The assessment will go nowhere, but the
sec check will make him feel better.

                   [Details on goals running and assessments]

     Unburdening is the mechanism of the way we are handling the GPM.  We're
taking the solutions off the top of it, and it de-intensified as a problem,
because these terminals are as much a problem as they have been solved.  The
trick is to solve it without solving it again in a way that pulls it in on the
person.  You do it by taking off the solutions, which is how it should have
been solved in the first place.

     The other barrier in your road is that the PC, at the outset, is
uncertain that anything can be solved.  Find out what, in life, he is having
most trouble with.  Find out who had that trouble.  Briefly sec check that
terminal.  He'll feel different and gain awareness that change is possible.
You can even Q and A with his feeling that nothing works.  Find someone else
who felt that way and run O/W on the person.  You can always count on whatever
the PC's complaining about being present in another person, keyed in by his
O/W on the person.  It's also always on his own goals line, so you are
unburdening him with it.  Try to handle something for the PC.  It will make
your meter read better.

     You can always find something the person will remember that will key
out.  That was the procedure in 1950.  The only trouble was that it only
worked for 20% - 30% of cases, and people tended to key it right back in
because no O/W was run on the person who had it.  You can always run a
terminal for a little while.  You could find eventually that you were the pcs
opposition terminal, sitting right there going in the teeth of his worst
aberration.  Auditing will nevertheless work over the top of this.

     Your job in handling a PC is to get the PC to sit down and have some
confidence and read on a meter.  It could take up to seventy-five hours to get
the PC into that state of mind, but it is necessary to do so.  Don't be in
such a hurry.  He has been crazy for the past 100 trillion years.

     As far as auditor training is concerned, it's obviously better for the
auditor to have a degree of confidence and expertness and to know what he has
been doing, because the PC's confidence will go up at once.  So you will get
something like a 3D.  It all works itself out for us.  The PC is being run on
security checks and the auditor is gaining confidence in his metering at the
same time.  We trust the auditor won't miss too many sec check questions.  If
the auditor isn't too familiar with the meter, have him spend half an hour on
end ruds so he can get, "What sec check question has been missed?" cleaned up
well.  This keeps pcs from being upset.  Pcs will also be upset by not being
asked for the withhold behind the critical thought.  Asking for critical
thoughts is just a trap for the PC to get in on the overt slippily.



                                      152


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=12/12/61
Volnum=1
Issue=91
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-91  Sec Checks in Processing




6112C12 SHSpec-91  Sec Checks in Processing

     What every good auditor should have:

          1. A British Mark IV Meter

          2. Someone to handle appointments, money, etc.

          3. Two understudies who have had good HPA training and who need some
             real brush up to Class II.

             [See HCOPL 26May61 "Modification of HPA/HCA, BScn/HCS Schedule"
             Per this P/L, the HPA course consists of two Units: Unit 1 and
             Unit 2.  Unit 1 consists of TR's, metering, model session, and
             ruds; Unit 2 consists of the 36 pre-sessions, finding the Hav and
             confront process for the PC, general assessment and running pcs
             on prehav scale (not SOP Goals), and sec checking.]

             [For definition of classes of auditors, see HCOPL 29Sep61 "HGC
             Allowed Processes" Class I refers to relatively unskilled HCA/HPA
             graduated or field or staff auditors, etc.  This auditor is
             allowed to audit only a process that he has had success with on
             pcs, regardless of the HGC pcs case requirements.  Class II
             auditors have passed HCO quizzes on E-meter essentials, Model
             Session, sec checking, and tape 6109C26 SHSpec-58 "Teaching the
             Field -- Sec Checks".  They are only allowed to audit sec
             checks.  Class III auditors may audit Routine 3, but not run
             engrams.  Class IV auditors are releases, have had their goal and
             terminal found, and have had engrams run on their goals terminal
             chain and have excellent subjective reality on engrams.  These
             auditors may run Routine 3 and engrams on HGC pcs.]

Unless an auditor has these things, he will get no auditing done.  He'll
either spend all his time setting up cases or, more likely, he will try to
assess a Routine 3D on someone who isn't set up and fall on his head.  He also
needs someone to handle the admin end.  You can easily get pcs with an ad like
"You can always talk to a scientologist about your difficulties." Having
someone doing admin is always a security that the people you help will pay you
for the service.

     It is not really too bad that it takes some skill to apply Routine 3D.
If you let loose a powerful technology which anyone at all could apply, you'd
be in trouble.  Technology that doesn't require a skilled applicator is what
this world mainly suffers from.  For instance, any government official can
push the button on an atomic bomb.  If tech requires no skill, you can't build
an ethic into it.

     The broad program on which we are operating is concise and broad.  We
have central organizations and offices all over Earth which suffer mainly from
lack of technology.  That they will now have.  The policy is to build in
self-reliance within a fixed pattern in the central orgs.  Field auditors have
been attempting to put up a standard and having it collapse.  They generally
don't get as consistently good results as HGC's, which is why HGC's got
started in the first place.  The basic reason for success in the HGC's is the
stiffer discipline there.  The central organization, as long as it is
impoverished and feeling bad, tends to go into games conditions with other
orgs or field auditors.  This is simply because of lack of success.  When
there's scarcity and



                                      153

havingness is low, there's a games condition.  Scarcity is repaired by
technical excellence.

     The briefing course was instituted for only one reason: to get the
highest possible level of technology.

     Step 6 would work today, but in fact it didn't work because it was never
done.  In running Step 6, before you had the PC make the object bigger,
smaller, etc., you had to find a null object on the E-meter.  Wherever it
beefed up banks, a null object wasn't found.  Relate it to the GPM -- if you
found an object which quivered on the meter, you would be onto the GPM and you
wouldn't dare to do anything with it.  But you could take something not
related to the GPM and exercise the PC on creating and mocking it up without
antagonizing or messing up particularly the GPM.  The PC with some of the
automaticities of mocking things up off could theoretically have the GPM
evaporate.

                        [Details on running Routine 3D]

     A Q and A puts the withhold in to stay.  When the PC gives you the
withhold, that is all you need.  If it still registers, there's another
withhold.  It's not more on the withhold he has given you.  The reason you
vary the question in sec checking is just to get more withholds, to help the
PC out.  But you always end up by asking the original question to see if it is
cleared.  If you add any new sec check questions, make them pertinent to what
you are doing.

     If a burst of misemotion occurs on a sec check or Class II activity, it
is turned off by what turned it on.  That is true of all secondaries,
particularly of an assessment, running havingness, or a sec check question.
If a withhold turned it on, some withhold is keeping it powered up.  So get
the withhold.  If misemotion is turned on by havingness, you can find out what
is happening if you like, but continue the process that turned it on.  It's a
cruelty to do otherwise, no matter how kind it may seem.  Any other process
you may switch to is so much less powerful than what you have been running
that it won't handle the misemotion.  It takes more of the same.

     The greatest cruelty is being kind to the PC.  It will not help a PC to
omit sec checking him or to rush him into an assessment.  He will never get
through Routine 3D levels if you do.  If you left a sec check question unflat
in one session, don't spend the session getting ruds in.  Flatten the
question.  If the TA has soared meanwhile, find out what has been going on.
If bypassing a PTP upsets the PC, go back to the earlier withhold that
preceded it (It could be some undelivered comm).

     If the session looks confused to the auditor, the PC will get upset.  The
PC is trying to make a session out of it, so he is harder to audit if the
auditor is confused, because the PC reacts to the confusion of the auditor.
An unskilled auditor has much tougher pcs than anybody else.  Then, because it
is all so complicated, the unskilled auditor sees nothing wrong with adding
more complications, so he puts in additives.  The job is to teach people not
to put in lots of useless stuff.  Keep it very simple and they will win.



                                      154


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=14/12/61
Volnum=1
Issue=93
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-93  Anatomy of Problems




6112C14 SHSpec-93  Anatomy of Problems

     A problem is postulate counter-postulate, force counter-force, idea
versus idea, solution versus solution.  You have two people in collision, in
trouble with each other.  To be in trouble with each other, they have to be in
the same time stream and they have to be able to communicate.  Do you realize
that you, with your problems, are on a separate time stream from the physical
universe and that's why you are not in present time?  So even in an individual
you have two time streams.

     How do you suppose a PC got out of PT?  He must have started off in some
instant of time that went on this same time-stream, but he went [off] on a
spur line.  During the middle of, say, a race, he finds his watch missing.
It's an important thing to him, and he loses it.  While he is at the racetrack
in a time-stream called "the race", he tries to go back to the time he lost the
watch, and therefore, on the subject of the watch, he has a departure in time
from the time-stream.  He starts running on a back-time-track while time goes
forward on the agreed-upon time track.  He is trying to find out what
happened, not to stop time.  He just wants to see what happened.  A thetan has
the facility of running on another time stream.

     So he goes off sideways, worrying about it.  He has a problem now.  And
because he hasn't solved it very well, he gets stuck in it, but then he really
gets stuck by solving it.  He becomes the foe of all pickpockets so he won't
lose his watch.  But he's already on a slightly different time-stream, and he
remains on it because he started it.  You normally refer to this sort of thing
as a game -- a rather downgraded one.  He isn't really hung up in a moment of
this time-stream but in a moment of departure.  The rest of the time, he sort
of makes time himself.  It becomes an endless affair that can float along
forever.  So you are running along in session and he suddenly has a picture of
a racetrack.  That picture exists in another time-stream, which he can slip
into.

     How about the fellow who didn't enter this universe at all?  You never
met him; he isn't on the time-stream.  Can you have a problem with him, when
you have never met him and never will?  You've never had anything in common
with him; you've never communicated with him; you've never gotten any O/W's on
him.  So how can you have a problem with him?  You can't.

     So all problems have their own time-stream between the two beingnesses,
ideas, forces, or whatever.  They must also have a means of communication.
Two armies will maneuver forward until someone fires a shot.  That's a
communication which everybody can understand.  Now the communication enlarges
and they can really have an agreement (not a disagreement) to have a war.  Now
they can have problems with logistics, mechanics, propaganda, and how to have
motivators big enough to justify the overts.

     Where you see an argument, there must have been a prior agreement, even a
light one.  [Cf. the idea that there can be no ARC break without prior ABC.]
This is why the goriest wars are civil wars.  The defeated in a civil war are
treated like criminals, not just losers.  This is because there has been a
tremendous amount of agreement, so the ARC break is very severe.  Similarly
with serious 2D upsets.

     There couldn't be a wild disagreement, resulting in a problem unless
there was some prior agreement.  The problem is as large as there has been
agreement.  France and Germany have common blood going back to the conquest of
Gaul by the Franks.



                                      155

     There might be a road out on the solution of a problem in the recognition
that a 3D is based on a one-time total agreement.  Remember about games:
pan-determinism, self-determinism, other-determinism?  A person gets on one
side of a game to the degree that he has reduced his pan-determinism, accepted
other-determinism, and considers himself to be operating on self-determinism.
There are always these factors.  There must be an outside disinterested
arbitrator to resolve the problem.  That's where the auditor comes in.
Routine 3D is one of the roughest ones to figure out.  Even LRH had to have
outside help to the degree of someone else reading the E-meter, to figure it
out.  It was so involved that it was all self-determined or other-determined,
with no pan-determined factors at all.  It looks at first to the PC like there
are at least forty or fifty vital factors.  It takes the auditor to shake it
all down to five.  The auditor does it by listing and assessing, down to one
item which will either be totally right or utterly wrong (oppterm).  That is,
it will be either totally self-determined (terminal) or totally
other-determined (oppterm).  Notice that any item you choose will get one of
three reactions from the PC:

          1. He doesn't know if it is right and doesn't care.

             This is rare.  It could be a wrong item or he could be ARC broken
             or groggy.

          2. It could be self-determined or other-determined.

          3. The PC could do a flip-flop between self- and other-determinism.

This phenomenon is a lower scale mockery of pan-, self-, and
other-determinism, the three factors present in all problems.  The PC just
dramatizes these as he gets into the GPM.  He'll be on one side for a few
days, then go into "Don't know," then go pan-determined for a bit: "I can have
both viewpoints.  I'm really something else," so just run the side you can
chip at best and if you are not making progress, you have chosen a side he
can't confront.  There are levels of confront to consider.  If we were going
to run only one side, it would be vital to get the right one.  You could just
run the right side of the right levels, and he'd go clear.  But you can't
always expect it to happen.  The harder he is enmeshed in the GPM, the less
distinct it is to him that either side is real.  Or he is liable to be very
fixed in one side and not at all in the other.  As you run him, he has a hard
time of it.  If you pick the wrong side for him, he will run a long time.

     The GPM is a problem.  Before it was a problem, it was an agreement, and
after it was an agreement, it was a game.  There was a time continuum; and
these two elements [beingnesses?], and ideas which make up the 3D [3rd
dynamic?] existed once in their nuclear form as a total agreement:

          1. They were in the same time-stream.

          2. They were in perfect communication.

          3. They had tremendous agreement and goals on what they were doing.

They had all these things in common, and then they started to depart, one from
the other, and got into a game, which got very thorough.  The game
deteriorated into a problem and stuck.  I.e.:

          1. There was a long period of total agreement.

          2. Then there was agreement on the game they got into.

          3. Then it got to be very deadly and got beyond a game into being a
             problem.



                                      156

     But having originated with its own time-continuum, the problem continues
up into present time as a GPM.  The easiest way to approach it, for most pcs,
is to find that side they can most easily fight.  That will give them big case
gains and will take big solutions off the top of the problem.  But recognize
that we have a long way to go after having taken the solutions off the top of
the problem.  The end of the auditing is not just reaching the end of the
prehav levels but could be expected to go on further.  You now have the
self-determinism / other-determinism softened up a bit.  You still have to
attain self-determinism for the other side for the PC, and pan-determinism.
The PC is really on neither side.

     The PC has been waterbucks; he has been tigers.  Before there were
waterbucks and tigers as enemies, the PC couldn't have told the difference
between them.  They would have had the same goal.  They weren't very solidly
waterbucks or tigers yet.  Their "now-I'm-supposed-tos" weren't yet congealed
to that extent.  Then they started separating out distinct characteristics
which were only waterbucks' or only tigers'.  Then they solved problems
different ways and the game deteriorated into some very standard
"now-I'm-supposed-tos".  Those were specialized forms of self-determined
survival that had nothing to do with pan-determinism but a great deal to do
with other-determinism.  The truth of the matter, however, is that the PC is
neither side -- tiger or waterbuck -- and is capable of being either.

     The PC shifts from one side to the other just because you have audited
him a lot, just because you have done listing and nulling of his items.
That's a tremendous amount of auditing.  His "now-I'm-supposed-tos" are shook
up like dice in a box.  Now he will dramatize both sides, while before you
started auditing, he was fixed in one side and dramatized it on a
stimulus-response basis.

     So the PC is assessed.  You've got the Routine 3D package, and now you
want to find the right side for the PC.  The only thing that makes it the
right side is that the PC can run it with benefit.  Ti's the side he can run
best to run out somatics and break up the GPM.  It's not that the PC is that
side, because the PC is equally the other side and is neither side, in truth,
and is capable of being both.  Both sides are equally other-determined to
him.  But one side is higher than the other on the tone scale, so it is easier
to view as the ally and harder to buck in auditing.  But the PC has used both
sides, down through the ages, until he has so many overts on himself as a
waterbuck that these overbalanced and he became a tiger.

     You are trying to establish the pan-determinism of a thetan who has
gotten so biased that he can't tell a good action from a bad action, because
the "now-I'm-supposed-tos" all fit in this exact pattern.  And he has some
game running that has resulted in an insurmountable problem which has given
him his total package of "now-I'm-supposed-tos".  All "now-I'm-supposed-tos"
were part of some old problem and earlier than that, some old game, and
earlier than that, some old agreement.

     The PC's pan-determinism has been submerged, and he is being obsessively
self-determined, which pins him thoroughly on a dynamic, and he is no longer
loose on the dynamics.



                                      157

     Your first attack on a Routine 3D package is just to find the
"only-onlyness" of it.  Does the PC think of himself mostly as a waterbuck at
this moment?  The easiest side to run is usually the lower toned side.  If you
run the PC as it, because of the trick of the commands, you get more attack
against the weakest side of the GPM, so it runs more mass and more flows, and
it is easier for the PC to handle.  The other side may either totally slay him
or have no reality at all.  He is not capable of attacking tigers because they
are too much for him.  They don't exist for him.  If you run this one, watch
out.  The PC may get so overwhumped that before the PC realizes it, he is down
the tubes.  Even so, if you kept attacking, something would happen.  It would
be uncomfortable for the PC; he would ARC break easily, but he'll try it.  But
he doesn't get reality out of it; that's the basic liability.

     Could you just blow one of these things up?  No.  In the early stages of
the run, if you ask the PC what he would think of blowing it up or wiping it
all out at one fell swoop, he'd go into an awful confusion.  He hasn't got it
differentiated enough to do much about it.  He couldn't attack one side of the
problem because it was too big for him to find it real.  What will be his
reaction to wiping out the whole thing?  That's about seven times as unreal.
The idea of this game ever having an end or a beginning is preposterous.

     In view of the fact that there are confusions on down the line that tend
to bang the PC up into the problem, as you audit the thing, you keep on
hitting confusions of one kind or another.  It keeps banging the PC up towards
PT, so the track to him looks shorter and shorter.  He thinks maybe he was
only a waterbuck for one lifetime.  Then it broadens out again, and he'll feel
he was a waterbuck for a very long time.

     What remains to be sorted out is the easiest way to beat the GPM.  Over a
month or two you might be able to take pieces of it the PC can find --
conflicts -- and date them on the meter and get the whole track plotted on the
subject.  That would soften up the GPM just by getting it aligned and assigned
correctly on the track.  During that time, you wouldn't have to figure out
which side the PC was on.  This is a feasible method of clearing somebody.  It
would mean teaching people to date on the E-meter, which is quite a skill.
But it could be done, and it's quite a tool.  Or you could find every
confusion that might precede any stuck picture the PC has on the subject of
waterbucks vs tigers.  Find what the person was at the time and what they
did.  It would be an interesting gimmick to make a list of the number of goals
the terminal and oppterm have in common or of the points on which they would
be in agreement, or you could ask, "What game would a waterbuck play with a
tiger?" and vice verse.  It would all run out the center of the problem, once
the prehav runs have straightened it out somewhat.  All you are trying to do
it to establish the pan-determinism of the thetan, who has gotten so biased
that he can't tell a good action from a bad one because the
"now-I'm-supposed-tos" all fit in this exact pattern, and he had some game
going which has become an insurmountable problem which has given him his total
package of "now-I'm-supposed-tos" -- you are trying to establish the PC's
pan-determinism so he can breaths.

     Before auditing, the PC is being solution, solution, solution.  The next
thing you see with auditing is problem, problem, problem.  When this is peeled
off, he is game, game, game.



                                      158

     The TA goes up on the PC because he is breaking the mores of the
terminal, not necessarily those of society or his present group.  A guy whose
terminal is a cat burglar will get a high TA when he goes to bed at night
because he refused to dramatize or went against the terminal.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=20/12/61
Volnum=1
Issue=95
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-95  Upgrading of Auditors




6112C20 SHSpec-95  Upgrading of Auditors

     Most people are diffident about tampering with other people's minds.  No
better mechanism could be devised to keep a race enslaved.  It means, "Take no
responsibility for anyone's thinking but your own, and not even for that," and
you will stay in every implant you have ever been handed.  This ensures that
no revolt will ever come out of any planet.  This is the principle of the
boxer.  If your opponent is knocked out, he's safe, but there is no game.
This is Galactic Council thinking, i.e. the thought of super-governments which
are slave-rule governments.  These governments are in a bottom-scale no-games
condition when they know all about it and nothing ever happens.  They go for
this kind of concentration camp populations where everybody is out of the
running and giving no trouble.

     The first thing you do to create this condition is never to let anyone
tamper with anyone's mind or thinking.  It guarantees that no one will ever
as-is anything.  It's put over as the principle that the "right to privacy" is
paramount.  Some auditors are more affected by this than others.  These are
auditors who are withholding their terminals.  They have a terminal and an
oppterm and they are withholding both of them because they have been
thoroughly punished for having been it.  So they know that's the safe thing to
do -- to withhold the terminal.  First one has the "right to privacy" of
minds.  It is no accident that in 50,000 years, no one on this planet has come
close to even the edge of scientology.  The right to freedom is one thing; the
right to privacy is something else.  Galactic thinking approves of the second,
not the first.  LRH's opinion is the opposite.  The trouble with the Galactic
thinking that would make a criminal into MEST by implanting him is that it's
unsuccessful.  You can't guarantee that he will stay MEST, just as you can't
guarantee that a planet won't revolt.  You can't guarantee that wisdom won't
get abroad.  All you can guarantee is that thetans are basically good but get
all mixed up.  But when you unmix them, they revert to being good.  This is
unpopular in galactic councils because it makes people so active and
unpredictable.  These truths may or may not be known to galactic rulers.

     Case advance results in greater controlled motion.  Motion in the
vicinity of insanity is uncontrolled, random motion.  Directed, controlled
motion is preferable.  But don't try to sell the rulers of the universe on
this because it would mean their losing power.

     You will observe that people who aren't totally spun in are willing to
inquire into others' minds because they haven't accepted the idea that
everything will be all right if you just be quiet.  Auditors fall into three
categories:

     1.  The fairly free individual who hasn't taken his terminal too
         heavily.  He hasn't quite subscribed to the philosophy that he's a
         slave; he'll charge in.

     2.  The individual who can recognize intellectually that it would be all
         right to invade the privacy of others and that the only way he could
         set them free is if this sort of thing occurred, but who has a
         terminal so worded that he withholds it violently.



                                      159

         It's hard to get this kind of auditor up to Class II because his
         terminal gets in his road.  His terminal seems dangerous, so he will
         hold it out of action, which makes it go into action.  Withholding of
         the terminal is the key to the 3D package.  That's what makes it go
         out of sight.  It's fantastic that you can get to it at all.  The
         degree that the PC withholds PT overts is the degree to which he is
         withholding his terminal.  If he is doing it hard, he will have
         trouble getting other people to give up their withholds, as he will
         have trouble doing good sec checks, even though he knows
         intellectually what he should be doing.  He can be educated into
         doing it right.

     3.  The third category of individual is too mixed in to be
         able to audit at all.  He forms a large percentage of the human
         race.  He is often found in government, where his galactic thinking
         is the norm.  He won't even try to get off withholds.

     Conduct in session is monitored by the terminal package.  It shows up as
unwillingness to get off withholds plus a doubt about it which also comes from
the pulled-in mass of the terminal.  The modifier modifies their conduct
whenever ruds are out.  They'll dramatize it when ruds go out.  Oddly enough,
auditors don't have cases.  The modifier doesn't much influence their
auditing.  What influences the auditor is the amount of withhold on the
terminal.

     There is another factor in the plan of auditing.  Every withhold the PC
has is stacked up on top of withholdingness of the terminal.  Since present
time has greater value than past time, present-life overts and withholds have
the terminal so glued down that it is virtually unassessable at first.  Sec
checking gets the withholds off so the terminal can come to view.

     This gives us an estimate of how long it will take to get a PC ready to
be assessed and how long it will take a given auditor to get assessed for his
terminal.

     It's not necessarily the more violent or secret types of terminals that
get the most withheld.  But the person's reaction to sec checks and ability to
sec check is what alerts you to how quickly or easily they will be assessed.

     One is only worried or concerned about a subject when there's a not-know
on the subject.  Therefore, you can handle a PC to the degree that you
understand pcs, because you can see what's happening with the PC.

     Someone who has never had bad auditing won't necessarily audit well,
because he has no reality on what it is like to audit poorly.  Getting some
bad auditing would really make a citizen out of him and give him an
appreciation of a perfectionist attitude toward training, which prevents the
technology from getting lost.

     There is a value in having been aberrated.  It gives you a wealth of
experience that you can gain in no other way, even if, at present, it's
unavailable to you.  It is the experience of a knucklehead, of course, and a
few trillion years of such experience should be enough.  It's time now to get
experience in other lines than that of your terminal.

     When life follows a pattern from an aberrated to a sane state, the best
way to accumulate experience in that direction is to take someone who is
aberrated and teach them something and improve them at the same time.
Misadventure can be a teacher.  It is the only teacher if you have to learn
solely by experience.  Clearing would have no value whatsoever if it was a
matter of just taking a pill or having some magic formula to get it.  No one
ever appreciates his freedom unless he has had to work for



                                      160

it.  If a person doesn't have to work for his freedom, he never finds out that
he is free.

     You could even clear someone who doesn't realize that anything has
happened, that anything was improved, or that they are going anyplace.  He has
no purpose to which to put his new breadth of skill, and it's more than he
needs on this cotton-picking planet.  The net result is a feeling of a lose
for you.  You've taken the chains off a fellow and the chains left some rust
marks, and he keeps looking at the rust marks and he still thinks they are
chains.  Then one day he realizes he's not wearing any chains and goes into
overwhelm and sets you up as a household deity.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=10/1/62
Volnum=1
Issue=98
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-98  Sec Checks -- Withholds




6201C10 SHSpec-98  Sec Checks -- Withholds

     The process, 20-10, is used to handle psychosomatic difficulties, using
Class II skills and sec checking.  [20-10 is a process where ten minutes of
havingness is run for every twenty minutes of sec checking.  This is run for
75 to 200 hours before attacking Routine 3DXX.  See HCOB 11Jan62 "Security
Checking.  Twenty-ten Theory".]

     There is danger in sec checking by ritual.  You should do it by
fundamentals.  Here's what happens: because you don't quite grasp the
fundamental, someone stiffens up the ritual.  Then it stiffens again, and you
become a ritualist and can depart from effective auditing.  The thing to do is
to get the job done.  Auditing is what you can get away with with the PC.
Because you can't get away with everything, a ritual gets set down,
circumscribing what you should try to get away with.

     Model session is a good thing to use, except with a few pcs, who would
never get past the third question [See HCOB 21Dec61 "Model Session Script,
Revised"7].  You can imagine a case that is so critically poised that you have
to find out what the mind is doing in order to parallel it.  If you tried to
do a Model Session to find out, you would be in a cul-de-sac, because the case
doesn't have that much attention concentrated.  For instance, take a madman,
who could still be handled with basic sec checking.  He is insane because he
keyed in an insane valence by withholding.  It's not this lifetime that
aberrated anyone.  People say that you can't understand the mind because this
lifetime doesn't explain why people are aberrated.  Someone who is insane got
that way by keying in implants that he gave, to drive enemy troops insane, to
prevent them from coming back, plus some similar overts which developed an
insane valence.  Insane people can go in and out of valences very easily.  It
is the not-know they have run on other people that results in the withhold on
themselves.  So what basic question could you ask this fellow, which he could
answer to start keying out the insanity?  You could ask, "What don't people
know about you?" He would answer it.  It is so fundamental that he couldn't
help answering it.

     A case could be so attentive to its difficulties that it is already in
session.  To try to fly ruds would be to distract the PC's attention from his
case.

     With a deranged person, the "don't know" question works well.  It
cross-cuts the O/W questions.  When a case does not consider something an
overt, he will still answer up to not-know and will come up to recognizing his
withholds.  You can use such questions as, What don't I know about you?  What
don't you know about your condition?  What don't others know about you / your
condition / what you are doing?"



                                      161

     Auditing by fundamental would be to restore the PC's communication with
society or the group with which he is connected.  You would expect a person
who is having a hard time with the social structure he is in to have withholds
from that social structure.  You see this in vignette all the time.  You
missed a withhold and the PC got upset with you.  It's a reversed comm line.
He has PTP's because he has withholds from people.  A withhold is a withhold
whether the PC considers them withholds or not.  For instance, if the PC
withholds losing his temper with people, it's laudable, but it is still a
withhold.  If, in finding withholds, you don't look for such withholds, or for
simple withheld communications, you will have a devil of a time keeping ruds
in.  The PC is a busy little beaver, sitting there thinking and withholding
critical thoughts, etc.

     Withholds are not confined to crimes.  The magnitude of the crime does
not establish the magnitude of the withhold.  It is the force with which he is
withholding.  So anything the PC is withholding is a withhold.  Anything he is
not communicating is a withhold.  When you realize this, you will get ruds in
with a clank and be able to assess just fine, and sec checking will go fine.

     Sec checking will fail if you expect the magnitude of the withhold to
give you the magnitude of the recovery.  It is the magnitude of the restraint,
of the withholding, that does it.  The way to find what the case is
withholding is to get what any part of the eight dynamics doesn't know about
him.  The way you have gravity is by withholding self from space.  Most of
your sec checking will be on the third dynamic, since it is the most
complicated, and there have been so many groups on the track.  But you might
do well to look at the others, too.  The second dynamic is, of course, loaded
with mores to violate.

     A withhold is restraining self from communicating.  The corresponding
overt is restraining another from communicating.  When someone is withholding
some action, he gets into the valence of someone who would do the action.
Moral Codes are patterns of behavior on all eight dynamics.  That means you
are triggering those moments when the PC was not communicating, perforce.  He
should have been talking and he wasn't.  That's what it amounts to.

     The ability of a thetan, in this universe, is expressed along the lines
of reach and withdraw, in various directions.  When a person should be
reaching and is withdrawing, that is a withhold.  Then there are overts of
omission.  He should be reaching and he is not.  For instance there may be
times when a soldier should have attacked and he ran.  These are overts of
omission if they are the reverse of a "now-I'm-supposed-to".  It all amounts
to failure to communicate with the environment, or restrained communication
with the environment, which ends up as not being here in the environment,
which ends up with the environment pulled in on oneself.  You could ask, "What
should you have communicated?" and get some marvellous results.  "Where should
you have been?" gets off effort withholds.  Withholding is worse than just not
reaching.

     A very withholdy PC will stack up withholds on a subject.  The tiniest
impulses to withhold will remain as withholds if the PC has a set of withholds
on a subject.  This PC will have loads of critical thoughts.  If you are not
sec checking, it's valid to ask a PC, "What are you withholding?" and if you
don't get a fall, don't press it.  But don't think he is not withholding,
because he is.  You don't have a missed withhold to contend with,



                                      162

but the PC has at least some laudable withholds.  That's OK; he can be in
session.  But he still has a withhold.  You only have to do something about it
if he gets upset and goes out of session.  Then you will have to find it.
"Ruds in" merely means "in condition to be audited." You can always find the
ruds out if it is your purpose to audit the case by rudiments.

     When you sec check, you try to restimulate the withholds so you can clean
them up.  This has an opposite purpose from ruds.  The auditor's mission in
sec checking is to stir up things the PC doesn't feel OK about communicating,
so that the withholds can be gotten off, because that is what aberration is
made of.  So be suggestive, knowing fundamentals.  Use, e.g., "What doesn't
_______ know about you?  What have you done that _______ wouldn't like?" And
don't miss withholds.

     The fourth dynamic is a whole species, not just "mankind".


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=11/1/62
Volnum=1
Issue=99
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-99  How to Audit




6201C11 SHSpec-99  How to Audit

     If a thetan can communicate directly and straightly with things, he
begins to communicate more directly with his body.  Since the eyes are the
most direct comm route from a thetan, when you've done something with a
thetan, you will notice the eyes changing color.  "If I can't make a PC's eyes
change color, I don't think I've done anything." Making somebody well is not
much of a trick.  Bodies are OK, but to fixate on one totally is silly.  If
you are dealing with a technology that can restore the comm lines of a thetan,
you are going to find psychosomatics knocked out.  With 20-10, you may also
find pcs getting a whole new set of psychosomatics.  A body responds in direct
ratio to the communication level of the thetan running it.  A body will also
run on complete automatic, so a body can be in good shape when the thetan is
nowhere around, and because the thetan is nowhere around.  You will see some
people -- Hollywood starlet types, for instance -- who are simply Operating
Bodies".  These are people who are so irresponsible that they don't have
enough thetan horsepower to make a body sick.  Similarly with the "dead
thetan" case, which reads at clear but with a stuck needle, aberration on
help, etc.  If you process such a PC, hs will come uh into some degree of
density.  If you don't get some physical changes, you are doing something
different from what LRH is trying to teach you with current technologies.

     "A lot of you think you are doing fine.  I don't think so yet, because I
haven't seen you changing the color of anybody's eyes....  I can, so why can't
you? ... I'll audit a PC until their eye-color changes.  Maybe it's just a
very faint change, and maybe it's from brown to blue, but it's a change,
because that's the most direct channel of communication from the thetan to you
and to the outside world, and if you can improve that channel of communication
from the thetan outward, it can't help but do something to his eyes.  They'll
at least sparkle or glisten differently."

     "I'm asking you to audit the PC who is sitting in front of you and not
somebody else, and not some synthetic person that you dreamed up....  Audit
the guy who is there, please." To produce disaster, miss a withhold and you
have had it.  The next time the PC has an ARC break, just follow it back to
the withhold.  You can always hold a PC in session with technical tricks, but
don't stop with tricks.  Audit the person in front or you -- that person!  He
is no mystery, as far as fundamentals are concerned.  He is nevertheless an
individual, peculiar, handmade mud pie.  You have



                                      163

got to be able to put your finger on any button that is in there to be pressed
and produce a considerable reaction in the PC.  You have to be able to advance
the PC's communication, and that is all you are trying to produce.

     All that is wrong with the PC is that he has shortened the reach of his
communication.  As his ability to reach -- which is to say, to communicate --
decreases, he considers that he is aberrated When you audit this person, all
you have got to do is to extend his communication reach.  Workable processes
have all done this.

     The PC's inability to reach can come about from two things:

          1. He is restraining himself from reaching, in some fashion.

          2. He doesn't know what to reach into or at.

Auditing the second button gives you the biggest gains.  For instance, Routine
3D straightens out the messed-up condition inside his mind.  On the first
button, the auditor has to figure out what the restraint of reach is about.
We call this "withholds".  How is he restraining himself from reaching?  He
has overtly reached at some point; then he has decided that was a bad thing to
do, so he withholds the reach next time.  This gives you a confusion followed
by a rest point, the withhold, which locks it on the track and makes it float
rather timelessly.  This is not as bad as a problem, but it is similar.  Now
that the thetan has decided he must never exercise that type of reach again,
he has forgotten what type of reach he was exercising that he mustn't reach
again, so he is now in a total confusion as to what he is withholding.

     So how are you going to get off this person's particular and peculiar
withholds?  Not by virtue of any form LRH has made to get at his withholds.
He is, after all, unique.  An auditor can get so lost in the infinite variety
of the PC's 3D package and the complexity and idiocy of the PC's withholds
that the auditor believes he can't reach.  But that's the auditor's belief
that he can't reach.  The reason the PC won't reach into black masses, or
valences, is that they are enturbulative.  After all, they did kill him many
times, so he knows better than to touch them.  They give him somatics even in
session: colds, etc., when he forgets himself and takes a direct (and
instantly forgotten) look at them.

     People complain about scientologists' lack of sympathy.  But "once you
have learned to handle something to the [degree that we have], confound it!
You just can't bring yourself to worship it anymore." You know too much about
the cause and effect of it all.

     What are a person's basic withholds?  They could be anything, but he
knows he will be punished for getting them off, because he's made people
guilty for doing such things.  This is a great mechanism.  He really knows his
withholds have nothing to do with his state of health or his brightness.
Ha!!  A person can't improve his reach and communication while simultaneously
restraining his communication.

     So an auditor has two zones of action.  In dianetics, he has pictures,
which are a shallow look, compared to valences, which are whole packages of
pictures.  Each valence represents at least one lifetime.  So what things are
keeping the PC from communicating?  He is impeding his own reach by having
things he feels he cannot communicate.  Now it is up to the auditor to get
these off, by whatever means are effective.  He has to be able to get that
PC's withholds.  All you are trying to do is release the comm lines that the
PC has pulled in on himself so he can widen the zones into which he can again
reach.



                                      164

     All you have to do to get withholds off is to find where the PC isn't.
How come he blew from some elsewhere?  He is at least withholding himself from
all the places he is not.  That is not aberrative in itself.  But you could
say to the PC, "Where haven't you liked to be?" The PC says, "I never liked to
be at the seashore." OK. He's not at the seashore and doesn't want to be.  All
sorts of withholds could be developed from this.  Ask him, "What have they
done to you at the seashore?" and, "Who was it who did it?", then, "Rave you
thought any critical thoughts about (the person)?", then, "What have you done
to (the person)?" So the procedure is:

         1. "Where haven't you liked to be?"

         2. "What have they done to you at (Location)?" Get details.

         3. "Who did it to you?"

         4.  Get any critical thoughts about the person.

         5. "What have you done to (that person)?"

     In running 20-10, running havingness will get the PC to give you more
withholds.

     If the PC considers that he doesn't have any withholds, you can run what
the person about whom he is critical doesn't know about him, and he will
eventually come up to seeing his withholds and overts.

     The trick is to audit with the ruds in and run the ruds, so they stay in,
and then throw the PC around.  Stir up the PC's bank and get the withholds.
Don't muddy the still waters of the rudiments, so that the PC never dreams of
being anywhere but in session.  Then churn up the PC's bank in the body of the
session.  The PC has been careful not to do this for trillenia, so it is the
auditor who has got to make something happen.

     So when you get something reading on the meter, get the PC talking about
it.  Get his critical thoughts and let him get off the motivators and finally
go on to the trap: get the overts and withholds.

         [Technique of running hidden standards, etc., with Routine 3D]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=16/1/62
Volnum=1
Issue=100
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-100  Nature of Withholds




6201C16 SHSpec-100  Nature of Withholds

     We are not trying to teach you not to have withholds.  It is OK not to do
everything that occurs to you, good or bad.  We are trying to get you out of
the tangle you got yourself into: "What do you mean, having such terrible
impulses?" Why does the PC have these impulses that he now has to withhold?

     The withhold is that area of motionlessness following that area of
doingness which you shouldn't have done.  This classifies actions into things
you should have done and things you shouldn't have done.  Of course there are
laudable withholds, e.g. not to have gotten angry or done some overt.  A
laudable withhold is something society expects of you, providing you have
these other impulses to do things you "shouldn't", according to society.  So
all actions divide into laudable and undesirable.  A laudable withhold goes
with an undesirable action: withholding self from doing it, and the laudable
action goes along with an undesirable withhold.  So society can always enforce
mores by making some actions and some withholds laudable.  But since there are
so many groups, whose mores conflict, one can get rather confused.  The same
action in different times or places can be "good" or "bad".  There is no
action that is good in all times and places, and there is no withhold that
should be withheld at all times and places.  It all depends on viewpoint.



                                      165

     When sec checking, we must then be dealing with another factor.  People
compute that good people withhold more than bad people, so the "gooder" you
are, the less you communicate, so the "goodest" people are in cemeteries.  We
must be doing something other than pulling withholds.  We are.  We are
remedying the compulsion or obsession to commit actions that have to be
withheld.  Sec checking is to remedy unreasonable action, that's all.  What
you want to rehabilitate is his ability to determine his own actions.  This
also rehabilitates his communication, as well as covering whatever mores he
will wind up with.

     Control of communication downgrades into MEST as control of reach.
Communication is the ability to control an outflow or inflow or stop it.  This
downgrades into control of reach.  Where you have a person who is unable to
leave his house, the trouble is not the house but Picadilly Circus.  The PC is
afraid that someday he will be in Picadilly Circus and take off all his
clothes.  But he has forgotten this.  All he knows is that he mustn't leave
home.  He has occluded the overt and the withhold.  The mechanism is that the
PC can be so worried about taking his clothes off in Picadilly Circus that he
will think of nothing but withholding this.  This circumscribes his life
considerably.  [This is the mechanism of phobias.]  Having to remember to do
some desirable action is a similar attention trap, e.g. the superstitions that
kids get into.  If we educated the same man never to outflow and never to
withhold either, both equally balanced, we would have an insane ridge.  He
would get stuck in an inaction because he would forget what he wasn't supposed
to do and what he was withholding.  He would have a covered overt and a
covered withhold and be motionless.  In some sphere, he would not be free to
communicate because he couldn't find out what the desirable action was.  The
average person is in this condition.  He doesn't know what he must reach and
what he must withhold, but the habit pattern of caution stays with him.  All
psychoanalysis trained people to be was cautious.

     Someone with an enforced outflow has a similar problem.  He must go, or
do, or whatever, without knowing why.  In order to restore control over one's
reach / not reach, be reached / not be reached, one must get these unknowingnesses
out of the road or the person will sometimes be nervous to the point of
collapse when you ask them to do something or other.

     In order to aberrate somebody, establish compulsion to reach or to
withdraw (withhold) as an absolute necessity, then shift them in time and
place to produce no necessity for this, so they forget it; make an
unknowingness out of it all.  Do this several hundred thousand times, and the
person will start to feel he didn't know what he should be doing.  When a
person gets very bad off, any decision to act causes him to withhold and vice
versa.  Government programs are good examples of this.

     Some people are totally susceptible to any inflowing action of any kind.
Anything that happens to them in society causes them to have an instant
reaction to have that with them.  In assessing such pcs, if the auditor
suggests some item, they will take it.  Even if they are assessed by an
auditor with a degree of altitude, they will hold like briars to whatever is
found, right or wrong.  You can test such an item by getting in suppress,
inval, and eval on the item and see if it is still in.  The average person is
on a gradient scale of this sort of thing.  He sees a few things which
restimulate him and put him on a total effect basis.



                                      166

     The only thing wrong with that total effect basis is that a person has no
command over his reach and withdraw, so he is not master of his actions and
can't be sensible about what he does.  I.Q. is one's ability to govern one's
environment.

     Scientology is almost alone in considering that Man should have any
self-determinism, because others, falling short of this, have looked on the
fact that a criminal has a compulsion to commit crimes.  Being unable to do
anything for a criminal, they think the only answer is to make the criminal
withhold his crimes harder.  That philosophy doesn't work.  You can compel
someone not to do something to the point where he can do nothing else.  He
withholds so far that the withhold fails, and it becomes a compulsion.  That
is the danger of the philosophy that the more "good" withholds we have, the
better off we are.

     The basis of action in human beings is:

          1. He doesn't know what his compulsive actions are, so he doesn't
             know what he is withholding.  Not-knowingness is the common
             denominator of all O/W's that are operative on the individual.

          2. The half-knowns that arise in sec checking, where the PC knows
             and you don't, are also a source of trouble.  Withholds are half
             a "know".  If the PC knows something, that is not enough.  The
             auditor has to know it too.  The PC will get upset if you go on
             not-knowing about it when he knows.  The half-know is very
             uncomfortable.  It won't duplicate, so it won't blow, so it is an
             upsetting thing to have.

     The withholds don't have to be serious.  In session, they can be very
trivial bits of non-communication which multiply.  They are relatively unknown
to the PC as they drift by.  An invalidation often betokens a withhold, so
check for inval and withhold to keep the ruds in and the needle clean during
sec checks and assessments.  Withhold is the common denominator of every out
rudiment.  The only exception is where you are running the session for form's
sake and not for the PC, where you are not auditing the PC who is in front of
you, where you have disobeyed the Auditor's Code through not being in
communication with the PC and have set up an unintentional withhold for the PC
throughout the whole session.  The PC who cannot talk to the auditor, because
the auditor is not really there, is on an unintentional withhold, which still
causes an ARC break.  You must run the session for the PC.  The PC owns the
session.  Almost all breakage amongst children is due to their being put on an
unintentional withhold.  All withholds must contain an intention to
communicate.

     The intention to reach must exist before a withhold can occur.  There
must have been an intention to communicate before there is an ARC break.
Therefore, a PC being audited by someone who is out of comm with him will ARC
break.  Remember that every session you run is for that PC and by the auditor,
and for no one else.  In training, you could get auditors to make a long list
of all the reasons why they were running a session.  You are liable to get
fabulous things, not including that it is for the PC.  It is the PC who owns
the session, not the auditor.  If you master that point, you will overcome
most of your difficulties with auditing and any distaste you might have for
it.

     If a PC feels that he can't comm to the auditor, this equates to the fact
that he must be withholding.  This restimulates other withholds of undesirable
action.  The restimulated withhold may be a failed withhold which brings about
obsessive action at once, and



                                      167

the PC finds himself in the God-Awful position of engaging in actions he knows
are reprehensible and incapable of stopping himself from acting.  He wonders
how he got in this position as he berates the auditor.  He feels bad about the
fact that he is doing these actions while he is doing them.  So you, by
letting him have a session withhold, are likely to get him into this weird
action which amazes him most of all.  TR-0 and TR-4 are the most important
TR's from the standpoint of getting and keeping the PC in session.  TR-0 is
important from the auditor's viewpoint, TR-4 from the PC's.  The way to handle
TR-4 is to be sure that it is the PC's session.  Just give him the session.

     In sec checking, you are trying to discover the actions that are
considered undesirable by the PC and the withholds that restrain them.  You
get off the withhold by blowing the prior confusion.  When you are sec
checking, you are on the business of the prior confusion and the motionless
point.  The prior confusion is the overt; the stable datum is the withhold.
The anatomy of withhold is:

     1. Done undesirable action.

     2. Stop undesirable action.

     3. Natter.

The guy can't reach and he can't withhold, but he can natter.

     When you have the withhold, you have the motionless point, but you must
get the prior confusion; you must get what the flowed, since this PC is the
one who is there being audited.  [This is why you must get the done in pulling
a withhold.] Use the critical statement to find the overt.  But don't pull the
unkind thought; pull the overt underlying it.  This overt is what gives you a
sort of motor action.  Natter is not necessarily motivatorish.  To get the
charge off Step 2 (above), you can ask the PC, "Have you ever done that
since?" The PC will think you are asking for more overts, but in fact you are
getting him to spot whether he has been withholding himself from doing it ever
since.  He will be relieved when that withhold is off, because the stress of
maintaining the withhold is relieved.  He can feel uncomfortable just getting
off the fact of having done some undesirable action, because you have
unstrapped some of the restraint against doing it again.  He won't feel relief
from the session, because the full extent of the withhold isn't off yet.  So
ask the above question.  The PC may not be entirely happy about giving up the
withhold.  Doing this may trigger off ways he was restraining himself without
getting the overt.  He may be afraid to get all the withhold off because he
might do the action!  So make it a rule always to find the overt.  Also, ask
for other times he did it and didn't do it.  [Get all.]


L. Ron Hubbard

