SHSBC 59

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD: PREHAV, SEC CHECKS, ARC BREAK PROCESS

A lecture given on 19 September 1961

Thank you. How you doing today, huh?
Audience:       Good.
Okay. Now, the state of affairs today is that you have now decided that
there was something you needed to know about Scientology, and questions are
in order. The date is what? The 19th, or..
Audience member: The 19th of September.
19 September AD 11. All right. And I am in the way of questions. Questions.
One, two. Yes.
Audience member: How much of an Assessment by Elimination do you do on the
Prehav Scale?
How much of an Assessment by Elimination do you do on a Prehav Scale? This
became a burning question back in July. So burning that there is at least
one person who has scars. You do a repeater technique on the Prehav Scale
and you have a pc in more trouble than could ordinarily be gotten into by
the Income Tax Bureau. Now, that's a lot of trouble.
Now, he's all messed up. You know, all of the data we have actually answers
these questions from away back. If you knew the progress of data, and your
subjective reality and your validity of the data's good, you can work these
things out, normally. But there's an old rule from about 1950 that you can
ask an auditing question two or three times. You can ask it two or three
times and then skip it. You can do it. Three, well, that's borderline. Two,
sometimes you wish you hadn't. One, certainly. One, always.
Now, when you're asking these questions on an assessment on the Prehav
Scale, you're running straight up against this old rule. How often can you
repeat a level without running a process? Now, that is the question which
leaps up there. How often can you read a level to the pc without then being
guilty of auditing him? Do you understand?
Now, if you do a repeater technique or you do too many readings of levels,
you of course have audited the whole Prehav Scale on the preclear and of
course he's in a mess. So, the governing factor is a simple one: is how do
you get an accurate assessment on the Prehav Scale without actually
auditing the Prehav Scale on the preclear? Now, that is the question. And
the way you do it is a very precise way. And this is the way I do it, and I
have always gotten away with it and - auditing, you know, is what you get
away with - and I've never had any difficulty with this. But other
approaches have brought about difficulty, uniformly and routinely, have
brought about difficulty, and therefore, this is the one I recommend which
is probably the first one and the earliest one of these things. I have
great confidence in this method of assessment.
You take the whole Prehav Scale, the Primary Scale, and you start at the
bottom of the scale, the original one. I - by the way, I will give you the
very, very original one just to start off with. This is not the one, but
this is the way I used to do it. And I never got in trouble with this one
either. I'll give you the earliest, shall I? I just remembered there was
another one.
You started at the bottom of the scale and you read up scale to the pc
until you got a rising needle, and then you quit, and went back down the
scale again. And you just took the one which reacted the most going up and
reacted the most coming back, and if it was the same level, why, you had it
made. And if that wasn't it, then you separated out with just a brief read
of the one, read of the other one, found out which was the most, and that's
the one you took. That is the original, by the way. I remember that. That
was Johannesburg.
All right. Now, auditors had trouble with that one, and when the Prehav
Scale became very expanded, we ran into the first method of assessment for
the new, expanded Prehav Scale - Primary Levels. And that's - this is the
proper one. And this is the one I'm going to give you now, and this is the
way you do it. Now, you won't get into any trouble if you master this
particular method of doing it.
You start at the bottom, and you just read the levels up the scale all the
way to the top. And wherever you get a needle reaction, an instant reaction
of the E-Meter needle, you make a dot at that level.
Now, in view of the fact that you're going to use the mimeographed sheet
several times, sometimes you make crosses, sometimes you make circles,
sometimes you make dots, you know. But use one symbol for one assessment so
you'll be able to differentiate it. And every time you get a reaction just
on one read, you put down your symbol. And when you've gotten all the way
to the top, you will find that you have gotten several levels reacting.
Several levels reacted.
Now, this has an added advantage and at this time you could count and find
out how many levels were active on this preclear the last time you assessed
him for a level. And if you now have more, you know that you're in trouble.
And you had better assess the goal and assess the terminal and check these
things out. And particularly the terminal because you may not have a proper
Terminal Assessment. You may not have a proper Goals Assessment. So that is
a very close watch you have to keep, the first three or four assessments on
the Prehav Scale, because that tells you whether or not your Goals or
Terminals Assessment was right. That's the way you check it out. That's
aside from exactly how you do it routinely, assuming you had the proper
one.
You have now reached the top. Now, you go back down and you don't hit every
level of the Prehav Scale. You don't read it all the way back down from the
top. You simply read those levels that you made a mark on. And you read
those on down to the bottom.
And now you go back up, and now you only read those that have two marks
after them. And at that time, unless your rudiments are out, and everything
is nutty and going wrong, you've got your level. There's only one reacting.
There will only be one that accumulates three. There'd be something quite
wrong if you got three or four accumulating three. But it sometimes happens
that on the last read up, you will get two levels that have three marks
after them.
Now, what you do is read - do the same system. You read the one, you read
the other one. And you'll notice one dropped out. And it'll drop out right
now. And when I say read it, I mean just repeat it once to the pc. Now,
there is a complete assessment on a Prehav Scale. The length of time which
this takes is very, very short. There is practically no time involved in it
at all. This actually is a totality of about six or seven minutes at the
absolute outside. And somebody that tells me they are taking fifteen
minutes to assess on the Prehav Scale, I know they are doing something
wrong.
And if somebody that takes a session to assess on the Prehav Scale, boy, I
know they're wrong. I have no doubt about that.
But let me now tell you the numerous errors which auditors make in doing
this. Number one, they expect the preclear to answer, so they wait after
every read, see? And they say this, "Would a king have faith?" Now, they
wait for the preclear to answer and the preclear has nothing to do with the
assessment. We care not for the preclear's opinions of assessments. We care
not for the preclear's opinions of the rightness and wrongness of anything.
Assessments, whether they're goals, terminals or level, are totally between
the auditor and the E-Meter. They are not anything to do - the preclear had
nothing to do with this. He might as well be on a long distance lead and in
the next county. That's just if you just figure it just to that degree. You
do not have to be in good communication with him. Nothing has to be there.
You just read them. And you get an instant reaction. He does not have to
say anything. You don't tell him to say anything. You don't ask him for his
opinion. Nothing. These are all methods of wasting time. How fast can you
read these things? You can read these things almost as fast as you can
talk.
How fast can you read the scale from the bottom to the top? Without any
pauses. The funny part of it is that you would get the same reading because
it's only going to require a tenth of a second for that level to react. If
it's going to react, it's going to react and that is it. And if you were
very, very sharp and you were very close, you could actually catch the
reaction while catching your breath to say the next word. See, that's how
close together that thing could be. But that's an extremity, and that looks
like it's too much strain, and it isn't a good auditor presence to do that,
so you rather easily read them, you see.
That's the first and foremost. They expect the pc to say something, and the
pc shouldn't say anything. To hell with it. I mean that's nonsense.
Now, the next error which they make is to get a one-way flow started, you
see? "Would a king (blank)? Would a king (blank)? Would a king (blank)?
Would a king (blank)? Would a king (blank)?"
Now, what are they doing? They got a one-way flow, and halfway up the scale
they're going to get a stuck. A very tricky way of doing this, and by the
way this is just trickiness and this is not a pat method of doing it - this
is not a fixed method, this little thing I'm about to give you here which
is just a way to do it - is you read "Would a king (blank)? Would you
______ a king?" "Would a king (blank)? Would you ______ a king?" You got
the idea? "Would you have faith in a king?" You see, for one level. So it's
back and forth, back and forth, so you got a two-way flow established as
you go up the thing. You got the idea? So you don't get him on a stuck flow
anyplace.
In other words, pc to the terminal, terminal to the pc, pc to the terminal,
terminal to the pc. You see, you just - you get how that is?
Somebody got a Prehav Scale? I'll show you what I mean. There will be no
slightest doubt. I felt a little doubt, a little dark cloud of doubt went
up over your heads at that moment.
All right. "Would a king have faith in you?" You see, that's one flow. King
to you. "What would you cause a king?" Bum auditing command. "Would a king
prevent you from knowing? How would you have no effect on a king?" See?
"How could a king affect you? Would you run an obsessive can't-have on a
king? Would a king make something of you? How would you create a king?" Get
the flip-flop, back and forth? All right, that prevents a stuck flow from
happening as you assess this thing. Using "how," you will find uniformly as
you do this, is much more easily done.
Now, I'll give you how I would actually ask the pc these things. I would
ask a pc these things. I would have him on the meter. Let me give you the
next error. The next error is to be looking at the pc or the list when
you're saying the word. Because an instant reaction occurs before you can
shift your eyes from the list or the pc back to the meter. So you have a
little drill which you should develop in yourselves that runs like this.
You look at the list to get the level. You look at the meter and you say
the list. You speak while looking at the meter. Got that? Now, actually
that's just a little bit tricky. You'll find - some of you will find that's
just a little bit tricky to do at the first few trials, and you'll find it
sort of seems odd to you. See? You're not reading the paper. You're
apparently reading the meter and you've actually had to put the list over
here on the meter. You know? It's like this.
All right. I'll give you an example of it. We've got to form this up in our
minds, you see. "Would you have faith in a king?" See? But actually you
don't do it that way. You look at the list. You say, "Would you have faith
in a king?" "Thank you." "What would a king cause?" "Thank you." "How would
you prevent a king knowing?" "Thank you." Got the idea? Paper, meter, pc.
Paper, meter, pc. Paper, meter, pc. Got the idea?
Now, reading it at about that speed permits the pc to keep up with you - so
he analytically can keep up with you. His reactive mind is keeping up with
you the whole way. You see that? That's just about that speed. You just go
paper, meter, pc. Paper, meter, pc. Paper, meter, pc. Read it off the paper
mentally, say it while looking at the meter, and then look at and
acknowledge the pc, and then come back with your pencil and make the dot.
So you've made a little circle each time you do this. A little circle. And
you keep doing that, and all of a sudden it gets very natural. There's
nothing much to it.
Now, I punch these things. All right. "Would you have faith in a king?"
"Thank you." "What would a king cause?" "Thank you." Got the idea? Cause.
Well, we don't care about kings. When you're assessing something, hit it
with your voice.
Now, that's a little circular trick on how to do an assessment. When you
get that thing down, grooved totally, you find out your assessments become
much more positive and reliable. Why? Well, you're doing it on a positive,
reliable basis.
Of course, we don't expect anybody in this course to look at the meter
fixedly for quite some time. Be sure you look at the meter for some time
first. It makes the meter calmer. And if you look at the meter - you look
at the meter, and then you look at the list and you'd say, "Well, have you
got faith?"
"Well, wasn't any reaction on that, was there?"
Just avoid the E-Meter. Never confront the E-Meter and you'll have messy
auditing the whole way.
Now, it's very easy for a human being to confront a human being. They're
fixated on bodies anyhow, so they all too often will be fixated on a body.
And they all too often get their TR 0 about half flat and it leads them
into a fix, you see? And there they are auditing TR 0, you see, while
they're doing an assessment. And actually, any Scientologist can be knocked
totally out of session by suddenly noticing that at no time has the auditor
ever looked at the meter while he was asking the question. And he
immediately - his own training gets in his road. He doesn't like to
duplicate a bad auditing activity, so he's liable to call the auditor's
attention to the fact. "You didn't look at the meter. How do you know
whether that is right or wrong?" Now, of course, this has never happened in
this unit. But you see how that would go.
All right. Now, that's about all there is to know about one of these
assessments. Anything else about one of these assessments is pure
"additity." And some people do have an addectivity - an addictivity to
additity. Additity, that's right. So don't do it. Don't put a lot of other
things on this assessment because that is the way you do one, and your
assessment will always be right.
By the way, on general assessments of goals and terminals, do you realize
that Mary Sue catches you out something on the order of 50 percent of the
time? Wrong goal. Wrong terminal. Did you realize that was happening?
That's something to be worried about because there's only one way you can
louse up a pc and that's to have the wrong goal and the wrong terminal.
Everything is a negative gain. Not only is all auditing from that point
wasted, but it actually worsens the pc to audit the wrong terminal. Okay?
So you got to be sharp on this. You've got to be very good on this. And
you've got to be very good. You've got to know how to get the right goal.
You've got to know how to get the right terminal. You've got to know
whether or not they're right. And you've got to know what to do when you
find out they're wrong.
Now, those things are paramount in importance. They're paramount. I just
couldn't emphasize them enough. This you must learn how to do here if you
learn nothing else. For heaven's sake, learn how to assess. And as I say,
Mary Sue is finding you out about 50 percent of the time. That's too many,
man, that's too much. And has never found a perfect set of rudiments, I
don't think, to date. And never found all rudiments in on the pc to date
when checking and doing a cross-check on a terminal. That's a commentary.
It's not a good one.
So get all of your rudiments in, keep them in. And after you have found the
person's goal, run your end rudiments, check the person's goal before you
get somebody else to check it. Same way with terminals. Do identically the
same thing with terminals. And you won't be making so many misses.
It's quite ordinary for somebody's (quote) goal to be found (unquote) or
terminal to be found (unquote), and then come down to get it checked, and
for two or one rudiment to be out; the goal or the terminal, whatever's
being found, not just slightly incorrect but totally incorrect. And for the
goal or terminal to be found which had already been null - (quote)
(unquote) "nulled" - that was just liver than a pistol. But there is
something else that is happening which is of considerable interest and that
is you are not inquisitive enough. You are not inquisitive enough. You must
be more inquisitive. You are afraid of ARC breaking the pc by asking the pc
enough questions. That tendency is everywhere manifest. You must ask the pc
more questions. Now, I'll give you an example.
A student's goal and terminal had caused a week or so of auditing,
fruitless auditing - search, search, search, search, search - and Mary Sue
checked it out only to find that a previous auditor had ARC broke the goal
so that it was not now registering. And the second that the ARC break was
taken off, that goal went liver than a pistol, and it took her only in a
matter of maybe an hour or an hour and a quarter to do the whole job. Now,
that meant that the auditor, who just found that goal and terminal, that
meant that that person was not at all inquisitive. Had spent a whole week
grinding on a goals list without ever asking the pc, "How did your last
Goals Assessment go? Did anything peculiar happen in your last Goals
Assessment? How do you feel on your last auditor's attempt to find your
goal?" No question of that sort was asked. But a whole week an auditor
could sit there and try to find a goal and terminal, knowing from the
auditor reports which were all in the folder that the pc had been assessed
previously for goal and terminal unsuccessfully.
Ah, but the auditor before that had found the goal, and the pc had blown
session instantly saying, "No, no, I don't want that goal. I want nothing
to do with it at all," or some paraphrase thereof. And apparently this
auditor must have said, "Well, she doesn't want anything to do with that so
it must not be her goal," and went on with the remaining list. And then
another auditor came along and assessed for a week without ever discovering
this other incident. All you have to do is ask questions and your E-Meters
react.
Now, there's another thing about assessment that you must know - all of
this is slightly a prelude to it - and that is that when a pc has been
badly audited on levels but the right terminal, you have to take off the
auditing in order to get any assessment at all. It's part of getting the
rudiments in.
So before you do an assessment, you must get the rudiments in. And
particularly you must ask - if the pc has had a previous auditor auditing
on the Prehav Scale or has had any auditing on the Prehav Scale whatsoever
- find out if there's ever been anything wwrong or anything ARC broke or
anything upset about any former assessment, and clean that up, slick as a
bunny, and you'll always have a bang, bang, bang assessment.
You can always do easy auditing if you set the pc up to be audited. And you
can always do hard, impossible auditing by not setting the pc up to be
audited. So the first rule, in answer to your question, is get all of your
rudiments in by which we also mean get inquisitive about any earlier or
former assessment or what the pc has felt about assessments of the type we
are about to do. And get the ARC breaks off of that. And whether you're
doing a Goals, Terminal or Prehav Assessment, you will always get a
reliable assessment 100 percent of the time. You see? All right. That
answer it?
Male voice: That answers it.
All right. Okay. Is there another question? Yes?
Male voice: Yeah. Does this three-way cycle of paper, meter, pc prevent the
establishment of the one-way flow that you mentioned?
Does this cycle here of paper, meter, pc prevent a one-way flow from
occurring? No. No, no. You've got one-ways and two-way flows mixed up
there. I'm sorry, but you've got a wrong idea of a two-way flow. I would
recommend that you read Scientology 8-80. You go ahead and get that book. I
think that's the one that covers it, isn't it?
Female voice: Yes, it is.
Scientology 8-80. And it tells you all about flows. There are flows, and
they are bank flows. And this flow has nothing whatsoever to do with
anything but the terminal that you are assessing and the pc, and the
interrelationship between the terminal and the pc. And that is the stuck
flow we are talking about. Has nothing to do with the auditor's
relationship to the pc.
Has only to do with the terminal's relationship to the pc. And that is the
flow that can get stuck.
You cannot run on a terminal "Would a king cause anything? Thank you."
"Would a king cause anything? Thank you." "Would a king cause anything?
Thank you." "Would a king cause anything? Thank you." Now, all of a sudden,
this odd phenomenon will suddenly disclose itself. The needle will stick.
And it'll just get stickier and stickier and stickier and stickier. And all
of a sudden go stuck. And your tone arm will get stickier and stickier and
stickier and stick. And you'll say that's it. That's it. The level is flat.
No, it isn't flat. That is a stuck flow. And somebody else comes along and
say, "Well, what could you cause king? What could you cause a king? What
could you cause a king? What could you cause a king?"
All of a sudden, the thing gets loose, the needle gets loose, the tone arm
gets loose, everything is loose, everything is flying around beautifully,
and you'd say, "All right. What could you cause a king? Thank you. What
could you cause a king? Thank you. What could you cause a king?" And it'd
start to get stick, and "What could you cause a thing - king? Thank you."
And all of a sudden it gets stuck, stuck, stucker, stucker, frozen-y, and
the tone arm will freeze. Now, that's a one-way flow, don't you see?
You've got to think of commands in terms of flows from the person to the
terminal, from the terminal to others, you see? And you've got to get what
a pattern of flows is, because if you stick any leg of that flow, you don't
flatten the command, but you simply freeze the meter. And this is not the
same as flattening a level, you see, that's a different one. So you can run
an unbalanced command and make a level look like it's flat, but it isn't.
You understand what I mean?
Male voice: All right. I do.
Yeah.
Male voice: Come back to establishment of a one-way flow while assessing. I
got the impression just now that you didn't tell us to flip-flop on this,
saying "Would a king cause... Would you cause a king? Would you run an
obsessive can't-have on a king?" I got the impression that you didn't tell
us to do it that way. You only told us that as something fancy in auditing.
No, no.
Male voice: Oh, you didn't? All right. Well, do you want us to do it that
way?
I think you ought to listen to that tape played back. I said that is not a
vital necessity.
Male voice: Ah!
. to do this kind of a thing. But you will cause a stuck flow if you
don't do something like that.
Male voice: Okay.
See, there are other ways you could prevent a stuck flow. You could read a
whole five-way bracket. But now we are getting above the auditor's ability
to keep track. You see, you could read a whole five-way bracket. You could
say, "Would you have faith in a king?" "Would a king cause anything to
happen to you?" "Would a king prevent another from knowing?" "Would another
prevent - would another have no effect on a king?" And "Would a king have
an effect on himself?" You see, now there's a five-way bracket, isn't
there? All right. You try to audit a pc and keep track of a five-way
bracket and five different commands. Now, do I make that clear? Do I
understand what you are asking now? That's the main point.
Male voice: Yeah. I've got it now.
All right.
Male voice: That we do have to do something on the line of changing it back
and forth.
That's right. You can also assess this way. That's why I say this isn't
vital. I just say you have to do something about it. This is a point you
have to take up.
You can also do this. Now, "What do you think of faith in regard to a
king?" You see. "How does cause relate to a king?" That's not a
particularly good one. Not a particularly good one, but it does get around
this because it can flip-flop. You see, cause - king. But you're not saying
king causing anything. It's just cause in relationship to a king, and he
will turn the command around one way or the other or some type of
permissive command like that might get over the whole problem. That's why I
say that that exact method, which I gave you, is not the only method by
which this is done. But the fact of a stuck flow is always present during a
Prehav Assessment. It can always happen on an assessment.
And all of a sudden, you haven't got an assessment, have you? You see, here
would be the way you would cause a stuck flow. "Would you have faith in a
king? Would you cause something to happen to a king? Would you prevent a
king from knowing? Would you have no effect on a king? Would you have an
effect on a king?" See, you - king, you - king, you - king, you - king, and
you've done this sixty-five auditing commands. Although there it's an
assessment, they still operate as auditing commands, and you've done it
sixty-five times; you're going to get a stuck flow. See? That's for sure.
See, that's an awful lot of times to say you - king, you - king, you -
king, you - king. Outflow from you to the king.
I think you really ought to look over flows. I think you ought to look over
flows. I think all of you should pay some attention to this, because
otherwise why you put a five-way bracket together would be complete mystery
to you. You can do this, you know. Just draw little arrows. You see, you're
trying to break the valence, which you have already found in the pc, off of
the pc. You're trying to individu - to knock off the individuations and
other phenomena with relationship to the pc and this valence.
Well, that is done by flows because the pc is already stuck on the valence
by some type of stuck flow. Sergeant orders troops. Sergeant orders troops.
Sergeant orders troops. Sergeant orders troops. Sergeant orders troops.
Nobody ever orders the sergeant. Get the idea?
Eventually, he either gets stuck into being a private, you see, or he snaps
terminals in some way with troops, or he can't leave camp, and nobody can
figure out why is that sergeant never leave camp? You got the idea? He's
just on a flow from sergeant to troops. Sergeant to troops. Sergeant to
troops. Sergeant to troops. Sergeant to troops, see? And he'll eventually
snap on that flow. You cannot continue something flowing that long in one
way. If you do, you get into all kinds of weird troubles.
Now, you eventually would find this sergeant had an officer, and the
officer would come along, and he would say - well, let's take it the way
officers would normally handle a sergeant - they'd say, "Well, sergeant,
what do you think? Sergeant, don't you think it's a good idea? Don't you
think we shouldn't uh. .
And we get a different kind of officer one day. And he said, "Sergeant,
stand there. Hand me that. Write up the orders. Drill the men."
Right away the sergeant can't take a single order, see? He'd said,
"Blublublulalala. No. I just - ." Actually can't even hear this officer.
See? Positive orders, a stuck flow. So anything that flows the other way
runs into a jammed stuck flow coming in, and he can't actually accept an
order from an officer. And he goes around nattering about it. He goes
around being very upset about it, and so forth. We would say, "Well,
there's something very wrong here." Yeah. The only thing very wrong is we
have - we've connected with the phenomena of stuck flows in life. Now,
oddly enough, with this officer around long enough doing that, he would
remedy the flow.
Three years - after three years of service, you would have this sergeant
saying something like this: "Well, I certainly hated Captain Jinks when he
first reported to this post. But there's one thing you can say about him.
He knows what he's doing." Something like a year and a half ago, Captain
Jinks finally ran out the stuck flow, you see?
All right. Five years later we find the sergeant wearing his hat. See, we
now don't have any troops. The government has interfered and decided that
in view of the fact that we're getting rid of all the territories and turn
the country over to the Ban the Bombers or something like this - in view of
that, we don't have any troops anymore, you see? We just have a skeletal
force and the sergeant doesn't have any troops, but he's still got Captain
Jinks. And this has been going on for about two years. And Captain Jinks
says, "Sergeant, stand there," and the sergeant goes off and wears his hat
exactly in the same position and carries his stick in exactly the same
position as Captain Jinks. He's got a stuck flow in exactly the opposite
direction. He's snapped terminals in now to Captain Jinks. You got the
idea?
Just like you had these troops, who themselves never gave any orders,
eventually all looking like the sergeant. So now you'd get the sergeant
looking like Captain Jinks.
Now, we're talking about the valence closure mechanisms when we're talking
about flows. These are the mechanisms by which a person becomes somebody
else. There isn't anything odd about it. It's this stuck flow mechanism.
You run a body. You run a body. You run a body. You run a body. You run a
body. You run a body. Body never runs you. So you're in a body.
And then one day you get a reaction from a body. So you succumb. Because
the stuck flow has now snapped. It is looking for some excuse for the body
to run you in some particular way because you've run the body too long,
don't you see?
Now, you have most of the drivers out here on the road being driven by
their cars. If you ran a questionnaire, they would answer it quite broadly.
"Where should a car take you?" They would all answer that. They wouldn't
even think twice about it. And yet the essence of all excellent driving is
taking the car somewhere.
I taught somebody to drive a Jaguar by taking the Jaguar down the road, and
it almost killed the person. I made the person take the Jaguar down the
road, turn the Jaguar around all corners. You see, do everything, think
everything, and do everything to the Jaguar that they were supposed to do.
Very interesting. Almost killed the person for a while, but I made him do
it consciously and so made him discharge this stuck flow by running it
consciously.
In other words, 8-C on a Jaguar. If you in driving start doing this, watch
out, because you're liable to have almost anything happen. You all of a
sudden lose your ability to drive right in the middle of a long
straightaway or something, you know. You say what's going on? What you've
run into is a stuck flow. What you've done is take over analytically the
stuck flow mechanism. If you start consciously driving a car that you've
been so carefully driving unconsciously. Because in driving a car
unconsciously, you have already succumbed to a stuck flow.
We have at this particular time the idea that all skills must become
unconscious. Well, isn't that a fascinating idea, a skill is unconscious!
See, a footballer, for instance - all of his actions with a football must
be into some kind of a reactive groove so that he never even has to think.
He just always makes the perfect goal, you see. He never has to think. He -
that's the modus operandi of the day. If you wanted to improve his
football, you would go out there and bring it all up to the surface. Now
all of a sudden, he never would miss. But before, it was all unconscious
but he missed occasionally. But that was just the fortunes of the day, you
see. The automaticity doesn't always work. Leaves us all on the subject of
stuck flows. And this is a very, very, important mechanism. Because it is
the mechanism which you're trying to cure with Routine 3.
You're finding out what thing it is that the person has total stuck flows
on in all directions and has been submerged into and has become. And then
you are separating this thing out, and you are separating it out usually
running with a five-way bracket, which runs all flows and all conditions
with regard to this terminal. And when you have flattened all flows and all
these conditions of the Primary Scale, and whatever else you had to do, and
incidents, you will find out that you have discharged the compulsion to be
interiorized into it or to run it or to command it or to be unconscious
about it. When you've discharged these things, you, of course, have gotten
rid of most of the person's case. You follow that? Did you know all that?
Male voice: No.
Female voice: Ron, how does this affect you? Always instructing students.
What's the question? Huh?
Female voice: The stuck flow. You're an Instructor, always instructing the
student.
How does this affect me?
Female voice: Yes.
A stuck flow? Oh, I got a long way - I got a long way to go before this
gets to be a stuck flow. I remember one space academy, I think the
curriculum was two thousand years, I was a student there.
Female voice: All right.
Remember something about Scientology. Scientology is the only thing which
undoes its own spells. Scientology is actually the only science on Earth
today which undoes all of its own rules. It's a very peculiar thing. That
is the only reason we have any business doing anything with it. Anything we
do in Scientology can be run out.
Do you know the only overt that you can pull with Scientology lies in the
field of instruction. To fail to pass along the materials accurately
becomes an overt. Bad auditing isn't much of an overt. Not on the long run,
on the long run. But bad dissemination is an overt because this makes it
impossible for Mr. Jinks that was badly audited to get it run out a couple
of lifetimes later. See, there's always some hope for Mr. Jinks as long as
there was good dissemination.
No, but that's a - it's a joke with regard to me. Actually, I've had a
great deal of trouble with schools. Schools are always teaching me, oh,
things like my own subjects, and so forth. And I've had to learn my own
speeches. And they're - the difficulty is they're wrong. And there's one
whole series of speeches that are commonly taught in schools and they're
all wrong. They've got now the wrong place names and the wrong people, and
they don't make sense, but they're good oratory. And this is crazy, you
know.
But you get a goofiness on the subject after a while. And about the only
thing that you find difficult about instruction is being taught principles
that are contrary to truth. And when somebody's pushing principles which
are contrary to truth or contrary to fact, or which are just made up out of
thin air or something like this, then you have - will encounter a great
deal of difficulty. Both the Instructor and the student will eventually get
in trouble because of this. And as Suzie will attest, I've been laughing,
and you, of course, have heard me in lectures laughing about certain
subject matter that is taught on Earth today as incorrect.
We didn't realize that every physics textbook in England at the elementary
level has rule after rule and law after law incorrectly stated or that is
totally incorrect.
There was a scientist, who has made a hobby of this, has been checking up
all of the English textbooks and was on "Tonight" last night, and he had
wondered how much we had held back British science by teaching Newton's
laws backwards and things like this, and they were all in the textbooks,
and the textbooks keep on getting reprinted and issued, and so forth.
Well, now, that's an overt. And an Instructor would suffer from that. But
now you, for instance, start teaching a student correctly somewhere;
because, well, there isn't one of you who won't teach somebody sometime or
another something about Scientology, you see, whether in a broad mass or
single individuals. You couldn't escape it. But let's say you were pushing
a bunch of misconcepts. That would then add up to an overt, wouldn't it?
All right. Now, the overt act - motivator phenomena has to be part and
parcel to this stuck flow phenomena. See, you have to get an individuation,
there has to be an unease, there'd have to be an unconscious reaction,
there has to be something unknown, there has to be something hidden. All of
these things have to occur in order to make the stuck flow phenomena come
about.
For instance, the sergeant is telling the troops that they're actually
going to go on a picnic, and they get out there and they find out that the
picnic baskets happen to be baskets for dirt. And they're actually supposed
to build a fortification in the burning sun, you see. There's always this
kind of thing going on in the army.
So you've always got people snapping into people and valence closures, and
so forth. But they must all be accompanied by lies or prevarications.
And right on that subject, there's only one thing that becomes an overt
with regard to the instruction done here: is when I tell you clearly, with
exclamation points and underline it and underscore it, that you must read
an E-Meter, and then you proceed to read the pc's shoes - well, I get some
overt thoughts. And in the field and region of those overt thoughts, I
suppose I could get into a stuck flow situation.
But every now and then, I run out my overts and unkind thoughts about you,
so you're safe. Okay. Right. Any other questions? Yes?
Male voice: On this withhold, on the new rudiments commands, you have "To
whom wasn't that known" and "To whom shouldn't that be known?" How does
that apply if you ask the pc "Are you withholding anything?"
Give me that - give me that bulletin right there. Instead of answering that
question, why don't I give you a brief rundown on the new rudiments. On
what you can get away with and what you can't get away with, with regard to
it, huh?
Male voice: Good.
And that'll answer it in the process. Ask your question once more though,
however.
Male voice: When you ask a pc "Are you withholding anything?" and you get a
tick, how do you apply that question there "To whom wasn't that known ?"
How does - this doesn't even make sense to me.
All right. All right. Let's take up the whole thing. Number one, Room: that
is very, very easy. These are the new rudiments. Room: TR 10 or pc's
havingness process. If you have found the pc's havingness process in the
list of thirty-six Presessions, you naturally use that to orient him with
regard to the room, and he will be able to find out and differentiate why
he doesn't like to be audited in that room. He will pick it up. Now, you've
- the safest thing is to have the pc's Havvingness Process. That is the
safest thing. That's the best thing.
But to break down at that point when you're clearing rudiments to find the
pc's Havingness Process would be a very clumsy way to go about it. So just
sooner or later when auditing a pc, you should find the pc's Havingness and
Confront Processes. It doesn't take very long to do, and all the materials
and how it is done have all been made available this long time. It's a
rather simple action.
Now, I have something to say about this, this is why I wanted to go over
all of the rudiments. I have something to say about this auditor process.
You realize, of course, that a beingness is in the middle of a confusion.
And that a beingness is pinned into a confusion, so this is one of these
limited processes. "What are you willing to be? What are you unwilling to
be," of course, is picking the stable datum out of the confusion which is
reverse auditing. And it's very good, run on a very limited basis. But if
you wanted to run a case with this, you would have to run much more
broadly, and you would have to run your 1A processes as part of the
auditing command - you'd have to introduce 1A. You'd have to bring it right
in on the heels of this thing.
This one for a long run now, not just for two dozen commands to settle the
pc into session. You see, you can get rid of - you can get away with it,
you know, for just a rudiments process for a little while. You can get away
with it, usually. But remember, to run it broadly, you would have to
introduce the whole idea of 1A and get the problems out of the road.
Because he obviously has problems, and the beingnesses are the middle of
confusions about problems.
So you'd say - have to say, "What would you be willing to be? What would
you rather not be?" "What would another be willing to be? What would
another rather not be?" "What confusion could you confront? What confusion
could another confront?"
Now, the best way to sort that out would be to sort out problem, motion and
confusion. And use the word that reacted the most on the pc for those two
confronts. Now, that is quite legitimate and is one of these dynamite
processes.
Now, if you wanted to run a whole case with this, you would have to add two
more commands. "What confusion - ," you've sorted it out whether it's
confusion, problem or motion - "would you rather not confront? What
(confusion, problem, motion) would another rather not confront?" You'd have
to have the plus and the minus confusion. Now, I suppose a whole case would
run with that. I suppose a whole case would run Clear with that without an
assessment. Well, after all, you've picked up the beingness which is the
stable datum. And you're handling the ability to confront a confusion. And
you're handling these various elements that create a reactive bank anyhow.
And maybe if you ran a case with that for a thousand hours, the case would
go Clear. You got the idea? But it's one of these long, arduous
propositions without much differentiation.
But running it just "What would you be willing to be? What would you rather
not be?" All right. Now, let's just sit down and run that for two hours.
Well, all right. Well, all right.
And then next session, let's sit down and run it for - start to run it for
two hours. I don't think you'll make it. The pc's going to be right splang
in the middle of an engram. Because that runs pcs into engrams if run very
long. Otherwise, it's a very limited process, and you must know that about
it. But it's a nice one to settle the pc into auditing session. Oh, you'd
run it a couple of dozen times, you know. You say, "Well, what would you be
willing to be?"
"I wouldn't - wouldn't.. ." And all of a sudden he'd "Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. I'm
not willing to be a pc."
"Oh, all right. So you're not willing to be a pc. All right. Now, what
would you be willing to be?"
"So - and - so."
"What would you rather not be?"
"So - and - so."
"What would you be willing to be?"
"Oh, I'm willing to be a pc."
"All right. I'm going to audit this - ask you this question two more times
and end this process if that's all right with you. Thank you." And you're
out.
In other words, it will do that job. But going much further than that,
you're going to get into trouble with the process, so you might as well
know that. I wouldn't give you a process that you could get into trouble
with, without that.
Now, if you do get into trouble with it, add "another" and "beingness,"
"another" and "not beingness." Just in the commands I just gave you. And if
you're going to sit down and clean this thing up till A to Izzard, you're
going to have to run "confusion - confront," "confusion - rather not
confront" for self and for the other, too, making this whole number of
package of commands. It's going to be one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight commands. It's an eight command process to run the thing all
the way out.
But the way to get yourself out of trouble on it, you would only have to
add the two confusion commands, see. "What confusion can you confront? What
confusion could another confront?" That would get you out of trouble
without getting elaborate. You get how this would be done? Pc says, "Oh,
I'm going into an engram," and so forth. Well, you haven't got his
terminal. You haven't - you're not running him on the Prehav Scale. You
just made a booboo. So on. Just add the command "confusion - confront," and
he will come right on out of it just as nice as you please, okay?
So you've got the command; you've got the remedy. All right.
Let's take up the next level which is the one you're asking about. "What is
unknown about that problem with Joe?"
This is perfectly all right. It's perfectly all right. Now, what did you
find wrong with that?
Male voice: No. It's the withhold. The next one. I must be confused a bit.
Oh, you got that was - what's marked with a question mark. Oh, I guess what
you're talking about.
All right. "What is unknown about that problem with (blank)?" Now, that is
good enough to clean a present time problem because you've located the fact
that he had a problem with (blank) - his boss.
Well, you ask him, "Do you have a present time problem," and the meter goes
clang! And the blue smoke starts coming out of the corner. We going to put
a little smoke hole there. And oh, he says, "I don't want anything to do
with the problem, because I want to get on with the session," and so forth.
Well, that's not a good enough question. I mean - you'd better audit it.
And the best way to get rid of it, and the fastest way to get rid of it is
just ask him the plainest version of it all, which is "What is unknown
about that problem with your boss? What is unknown about the problem with
your boss? What is unknown about that problem with your boss?" Just
repetitive command. Nothing fancy. Nothing further about it. That makes it.
That makes it. All of a sudden, the guy go kabloom! And you only run that,
you see, long enough so that you get no reaction on the meter. And you say,
"How do you feel with the problem of your boss?"
"Well, I think I ought to do something about it!" That isn't long enough.
The test of a PT problem, if it's flat, the pc doesn't have to do anything
about it. That's the primary test of a PT problem. That's an old saw in
auditing. Pc feels he still has to do something about it, it's not flat.
I've had an auditor tell me, "Well, I've got the PT problem flat because
she said right after the session she would go out and phone up her husband
and make peace with him."
And you say, "Yes, but you didn't get any gain in this intensive."
"Oh, well, it couldn't have had anything to do with that!"
Yes, it had everything to do with that. He didn't apply the basic test of a
present time problem. She still wanted to do something about this problem
with her husband. Therefore, the present time problem was not flat and
didn't answer the required rudiments. The pc has to take care of something
in present time. The pc has to move in present time toward a certain
target. Well, if the pc has to move in present time toward a certain target
that has nothing to do with session targets, the pc is out of session.
Simple as that. So if the pc has to do something about this, you still have
not flattened it. And you just run this until the meter goes flat on that
present time problem. And then you ask him if he has a present time problem
about anything else, being very specific about anything else, meaning we're
through with that one.
And if he's got one on that, then you clean that one up. And then you ask
him, "Do you have - now have a present time problem?" You get no reaction
on the meter, carry on and go to your next rudiment.
And we run to withholds. "To whom wasn't that known? To whom shouldn't that
be known?"
Well, that is about the nastiest withhold process anybody ever dreamed up.
Now, the question - I don't know quite how the question comes up now. How -
repeat the question again.
Male voice: Well, the question is when you ask the pc, "Are you withholding
anything?"
Yeah.
Male voice: And you get a tick, and you ask him, "What was that?" He says,
"I don't know." Then how do you apply that uh...
I get you.
Male voice: ... end?
I get you. I see. And the pc doesn't know?
Male voice: That's right.
Ah, this is a special case. This is a special case. Well, let me see, I
have to kind of pick it up here somehow or another, because I can't imagine
a pc saying that to me without my following straight on through... You
know, these - the Germans developed dachshunds, you know, to go down small
holes.
Well, I don't know. Let's see, you're asking me to clear this up with a
command. I would clear this up differently. If I ran into that and I said,
"Well, what isn't - are you withholding anything?" and the pc got a tick.
And you say, "All right, what was that?"
And he says, "Well, I don't know. I haven't got a clue."
I wouldn't run a process. I would say, "Well, before session.. ." Or just
any kind of thing, you know, the who, when, what type of questioning.
"Well, before session was there something that came up that you thought you
ought to tell me?" Don't accuse him of withholding, you see?
He'd say, "Oh, yes. Oh, yes, yes, I did want to tell you that actually last
night I had quite a headache after that session.
And you say, "Well, all right. Thank you. Now, are you withholding
anything?" And you very often will find the tick disappears. That's as easy
as it is to clean them, see? So that's a two-way comm clean. Any question
about what, when, where. That classifies as two-way comm. You're supposed
to try to clear a withhold with two-way comm. "What was it? When was it?
Was there any time when you thought of withholding anything from me? What
sort of thing would it be that you would find it very difficult to tell
me?" That's a very nice one. Run it into classes.
"What would I be most likely to get angry about?" You see? Never confronted
that one before, you see. "You get angry about, let's see.
Ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, yes. Ho-ho-ho-ho."
Of course, he's got you, the auditor, mixed up with somebody who's
censuring him. So he'll get a whole type of class of withhold from you as
an auditor. Got the trickiness with which this can be done?
Cleverness is speed when getting a withhold off of the pc. Cleverness is
speed. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't other ways of doing it. And that
doesn't mean you can't do it with a repetitive process.
The earliest repetitive process for a withhold was "Think of something
you've done. Think of something you've withheld." "Think of something
you've done. Think of something you've withheld." "Think of something
you've done. Think of something you've withheld." "Is there anything you'd
care to tell me about that? Oh?"
"Well, all right. Thank you."
"Well, think of something you've done. Think of something you've withheld."
"Think of something you've done. Think of something you've withheld."
"Think of something you've done. Think of something you've withheld." "Now,
is there anything you would care to tell me?"
I was down in the Melbourne ACC, and I was giving a whole bunch of lectures
on 0/W and advising the auditor to run this sort of thing, so he went
covert on the whole deal, you see. And he started running the pc, saying,
"Think of something you've known. Think of something you've withheld. Now,
is there anything you would care to tell me?"
See, well, the pc's already loosened it up and it's rattling around in his
skull and it's about to come out through his eyeballs if he doesn't get rid
of the thing.
Now, that's the earliest repetitive process which was directly levelled at
getting withholds off of a pc, or beyond just the idea of getting withholds
off of a pc.
Now, that's usable. That's a rudiments process. See. It's quite usable.
You say, "Well, are you withholding anything?" Tick. "Well, what is that?"
"I don't know."
And you say, "Well, is there anything that you thought you should tell me?
Is there anything that you haven't told me in earlier sessions? Is there
anything you think I would object to being told?" Any type of questioning.
And it's still going tick, see? He hasn't given you the gen.
Of course, you can go off into repetitive processes. And the earliest one
of them is, "Think of something you've done. Think of something you've
withheld." "Think of something you've done. Think of something you've
withheld."
Now, a much more modern version or a much more modern process would be to
search it out along some line and say, "What is unknown about my reactions?
Thank you. What is unknown about my reactions? Thank you. What is unknown
about my reactions? Thank you."
Uh-uh-uh-all of a sudden he, of course, uhhhhhh! He suddenly realizes
you're going to get ragingly angry if he suddenly tells you something. See
that? But that's sort of clearing the auditor so the auditor can be talked
to by the pc. You get the indirect method? So there is a direct application
of Unknown to that exact situation, which is a special situation.
This is a highly general situation. Now, this withhold in the rudiments -
it's up to you to get the rudiment off of him. Now, what you use to do
that, we re not particular about. You can get the old "do, withhold"
process. You can stir it up one way or the other, and so on. You're not
trying to run a Security Check on this pc, however.
And if the pc is adamantly holding up the whole progress of the thing, yes,
that's a special case and you can go in and run any process which you think
will eventually get him to get loose and turn loose of that withhold.
He obviously has got a withhold from you because he's afraid of your
reactions to the things, you might say, and as long as he's afraid of your
reactions to the things he might say, he is not in two-way communication
with you and so is not in-session. So this is an in-session type of
withhold, not a Security Check type of withhold, that we are more
interested in. So that makes it a little bit different, doesn't it?
Audience voice: Hmm.
Huh?
All right. Now, this is directed at this. Remember these are a list of
processes to be run on something found which can't be cleared by two-way
communication. That's what these Rudiments Processes are. So we say, "Are
you withholding anything?"
And the pc says, "No," and we get a tick and we say, "What was that?" And
the pc said, "Ooooh, well, oooooh, yes, oooooh, well."
And you, "Well, what was it?"
And the pc, "Oooooh."
"Well, what - what - what's this all about?"
"Well, last night down in the restaurant, three other students and I were
discussing your auditing, and I don't want to have to tell you this, but we
decided and so forth and so on, and I said, and that was an unkind
thought."
You're not interested in what they thought. You're only interested in what
he thought. And then you say, "Well, come on now, what did you say? And
what did you think?" That's always the keynote of withholds. You can waste
eighteen thousand years of auditing on running off other people's
statements, and so forth, with regard to the withhold.
"Yes, I had an aunt once who drowned a puppy."
"Oh, Christ, all right. So you had an aunt that drowned a puppy. That has
nothing to do with our auditing session. Did you help her drown the puppy?"
"No, I just heard about it."
"All right. What did you do and where did you drown a puppy?"
"Oh, do you suppose I could've?"
"Well, it says here something about it." Got the idea?
"Did you ever drown a puppy?"
"Well, no." Clang!
"Where did you drown the puppy?" Clang!
"Oh, I had forgotten all about it."
You see, that's a Security Check type of situation. Now, you saw into this
Security Check situation. You clean this up and get this drowning of
puppies so that it doesn't react. And this thing works the same way. If you
were to run that on a Security Check withhold, you see, you would clean up
the whole withhold. You wouldn't leave the guy stuck in some kind of a
withhold.
Now, let's supposing that this was just an auditing session situation, see?
And you said, "Well, what's this withhold?"
And he eventually said, "And I was down at the cafe and we were talking to
three other auditors, and I said, and I thought, and so forth.. ."
And you say, "All right. Are you withholding anything?" You still get a
clang. You say, "Was it - is it about that, that you are withholding?" And
you still get another clang.
Well, there's no sense of sitting there for the next two and a half hours
trying to beat to pieces something which is apparently an almost traumatic
incident. See?
The thing for you to do is not to run responsibility on it or something
like that. The thing for you to do is to run this one. "To whom wasn't that
known?"
"Well, you, of course." You see?
"To whom shouldn't that be known?"
"You, of course."
"All right. To whom wasn't that known?"
"Well, it wasn't known to the other students."
"Well, to whom shouldn't that be known?"
"Well, it shouldn't be known to your preclears."
You get how this would be answered? And so it eventually cleans up that
traumatic situation.
And all too often this is being run into by auditors. You say, "Are you
withholding anything?"
And the pc says, "No," clank!
Then you say, "What was that?"
And "Well, I guess that was the. . . Oh, yes."
And you say, "Are you withholding anything?" you see. And you still get a
reaction. You try to chase it out as an ARC break or something of this
sort. Actually, it's the same withhold, but it didn't release.
Now, this is how you release a withhold and that is why it is a process.
Does that make sense now?
Male voice: Yes, very much so.
Otherwise, the weapons by which you get the pc to give you the withhold,
this is another story. All right? Does that answer it?
Male voice: Yes. Perfect.
All right. Now, this becomes - next one is ARC break, and this is one of
the most important developments that we have had for a long time. And this
is a honey, this process.
"What didn't an auditor do? When?" "What weren't you able to tell an
auditor? When?" And that is a bitch kitty because that cleans up
basic-basic on the ARC break chain, and that will smooth a pc into session
faster than scat. There are variations of this command.
There is no variation of, "What weren't you able to tell an auditor?" That
is nonvariable.
If you're cleaning it up for the session only, you, of course, say, "What
weren't you able to tell me in this session?" That is not as good as, "What
weren't you able to tell an auditor?" but would still keep him within the
finite ranges of the session rather than run it all up and down the line
and would clean him up for you. Just now.
Let's say you run into the end-of-session ARC break. Well, you're not going
to sit there till midnight, for heaven's sakes, running this other process
because this is going to be a longer process. You can clean it up for the
immediate session in which you are involved. And the immediate session in
which you are involved is simply me, not an auditor. "What didn't I do?
When?" "What weren't you able to tell me? When?"
That's a specialized use of it, and the specialized use of it is limited to
trying to get on with the session, trying to get the pc out of session, and
something ended; this gives you a very short run. But if you had to do
something like this to keep the thing squared around - of course, the pc is
hot on the subject of an auditor.
But this is quite a remarkable development. And let me go into the
background and the network of the development itself.
You're seeing here the final, great, great, great, great, great, great,
great grandson of the discovery that communication is the most important
corner of the ARC triangle. See? Communication is the most important
corner. And what do you know? As long as you run a recall, it is perfectly
safe to say, "Weren't able to say?" That's perfectly safe as long as it's a
recall. "What wouldn't you be able to say?" will wind the pc up in more
soup. Why? Because it's saying, "What weren't you able to - what aren't you
able to go out of ARC with?" See, same thing. So it is quite a delicate
thing and you should know this about this process, that that is very, very
solidly and completely and only a Recall Process. It only works as a Recall
Process and then does lots of good. And if used as a conditional process,
you know, "What aren't you able to tell me?" "I'm not so sure," see? You've
got to run that as a Recall.
Now, psychotics have gone sane on this single auditing command, in spite of
the fact that it was a stuck flow command and everything else. "Think of
communicating with somebody. Thank you. Think of communicating with
somebody. Thank you. Think of communicating with somebody. Thank you. Think
of communicating with somebody. Thank you. Think of communicating with
somebody. Thank you." Run for twenty-five hours. And it's made some people
go sane, see? I mean it's that powerful a process.
It could be refined. You could have said, "Think of somebody communicating
with you. Think of you communicating with somebody." See? Something like
that, and you would have had a considerable resurge on the part of a case.
But it wasn't communication that aberrated anybody. It was, the not
communication that aberrated them. So a recall on the not communications
operates as a very powerful process, and it is extremely powerful just as a
process itself.
We don't need it at the present moment. We don't have any real use for it
at the present moment. It would have made a considerable splash four or
five y

