6108C08 SHSpec-35  Forgettingness

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

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

     Until scientology, a theory about man was too precious not to be
carefully guarded from attack.  Men went to the stake to protect the theory of
faculty psychology.  They threw away case histories to protect the theory of
behaviorism.  The abundance or scarcity of all things applies.  Theories were terribly scarce.  In scientology, we are looking at an abundance of theories.  What we care about is what works. Former theorists didn't care whether their theories were workable or not. They just felt they should protect the theory.

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

          0. Native state: potentiality of knowing everything.

          1. First postulate: not know

          2. Second postulate: He had to know something.

          3. Third postulate: He forgot what he knew.

          4. Fourth postulate: Remember.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

