SHSBC 69

PROBLEMS INTENSIVE ASSESSMENT

A lecture given on 11 October 1961

Thank you.
Okay. Now, we have before us, on this eleventh of Oct., the little handy
jim-dandy, the Class II Auditor's pride. It's called a Problems Intensive
for Staff Clearing. And you notice it says Staff Clearing. Staff always
gets the best.
Okay. October eleventh, 1961, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And this
is Problems Intensives for Staff Clearing. This is the second lecture on
this subject.
All right. Now we take this up, we look it in the teeth and we find that we
are looking at basically the Preclear Assessment Form.
And you've been using this on preclears or should have been using this on
preclears for a very long time. The earliest edition of this is 1950 -
Elizabeth and Los Angeles Foundations, 1950. So you're not looking at
anything new. This has come a long way, and all that's happened here is
we're now using it to resolve the case.
All right. It is of vast information to you and vast importance for you to
know what the devil your pc is all about. I have seen an auditor, believe
it or not, process a pc for weeks on end and not find out that the pc was
having a dreadful time with a court, or a child has been taken off by the
authorities or something. Now, you'd say that'd show up in present time
problems. But it gets worse than this. I have seen an auditor process a pc
forever, and not know their right name; not know if they've ever been
operated on; not know they suffered from various ills; not know whether
they were married or single. We'd say that auditor was running a big
not-know. Now, the basic part of this and the early parts of it right up to
section O, but not including section O, if you'll look it over, simply
consists of vital information on a pc. And that is all it is, vital
information on a pc.
HCO Policy Letter of October 10th, 1961, PROBLEMS INTENSIVES FOR STAFF
CLEARING. Every organization has this under the guise of Preclear
Assessment Form, right up to but not including section O. You notice the
directions have been modified on this. They've just been deleted a little
bit, so I had better say something about "when you do this."
If you have a new pc who is brand-new to Scientology, you certainly do one.
But if you have somebody you are going to give an intensive to, that you
have never done one of these things on, you should do one. It gives the pc
some little confidence to know that his auditor knows something about him.
And that, in itself is an interesting factor in holding a pc in-session,
all by itself.
Now, we see here that it starts out "Who does the assessment? The auditor
assigned to audit the preclear does the assessment." Now, what does that
mean? It means that's his first action. That's the first action the auditor
undertakes. He doesn't go in and run fifteen hours of "Create a reactive
mind. Thank you." "Create a reactive mind. Thank you." He doesn't do that.
He sits down and he doesn't do rudiments and he doesn't do anything else,
he simply sits down and runs off this form. And he sits there and makes out
the form. But it is auditing. It is auditing. It is done in the paid
auditing time of the pc, because it is auditing.
And when an auditor gets a preclear that he has not had before, he takes
one of these forms, and he fills it out on the pc. Now, why is this?
The pc has a sneaking feeling that the auditor doesn't know anything about
him, until this form is filled out. And therefore, you have a hard time
keeping the rudiments in. But it's because the pc is certain that there is
a not-know sitting in the auditor's chair. But as soon as you've filled out
this form, then the pc feels that the auditor knows something about him, or
her, and is happier thereby - feels more comfortable about this. Pcs always
have certain things that they feel that somebody should know and those
things are pretty well covered in this assessment form. All right.
The assessment form is for information. Auditors' reports are for
information, not your information. They are almost never for the auditor's
information. He knows. So if you could read your own writing, that would be
for your information if you wrote that way. But it's for somebody else's
information. An Auditor's Report Form in a Central Organization goes from
the auditor to the Director of Processing, goes from the Director of
Processing - very often is inspected by HCO, sometimes - but is certainly
forwarded into here or one copy of it. And in a class of this particular
character, you are - if I ever see Mary Sue complaining about her eyes and
so forth, why, I'm just going to go back and find all the badly written
forms and put a curse on you.
You want to know something, and bad handwriting is just another method of
running a not-know on somebody. It is withholding the information, writing
illegibly. Now, some of these fellows in commerce that we occasionally do
business with, you look at their signatures. Look at their signatures. Can
you read their signatures? It's a bloourh and so forth. And you'll find
that fellow has withholds. You look over the letter he has written you, and
you wonder how much of that letter is true, how much of it is false. The
fellow is withholding information from you, ordinarily.
Now, that's true of all handwriting, and you would be amazed how your
handwriting improves after you've got a Sec Check Form 3 flat. There's a
direct coordination. So it is made to be read, and if it's illegible,
somebody trying to check up the case is denied information that might be of
value.
Now, we look down the line here, and we find out that we want information
on the name of the pc, the age of the pc, and we want the tone arm position
at the start of the assessment. Now this will give us some sort of an idea,
as we look this over, whether or not this pc is going to respond to
ordinary and routine auditing, because as they give you the answers to this
form, they should get some tone arm shifts. And if they get no tone arm
shifts talking about themselves, of any kind whatsoever, oh-oh, oh-oh, this
is a pretty desperate situation. You're almost running into a CCH situation
when you're doing that.
So that gives you that information. If you carry your tone arm position
notations throughout this form, why, you'll be fine.
Now, we have the first questions are "Family," and we want to know this
data about Father and Mother and so forth. And this gives us reactive
personnel, as you will see here at once.
(I'm going to pull this microphone closer to me.)
Okay. You will see this at once, that the individual had very bad
relationships with his father, and that you're going to be running into
Father, Father, Father, Father, Father. And that he can't remember anything
about his mother, and so he's going to be trying to run into his mother,
his mother, his mother throughout the auditing. You see what we can divine
from that at once.
Now the next thing that we go into here, is the other relatives who are in
immediate line. Now at this stage of processing, if this is the beginning
of an intensive, the first intensive the pc has, you're going to have
missing personnel here like mad. Well, should you try to find them? No.
Just let it ride. Let it ride. The significant allies of the case are going
to be missing, always, during the first Preclear Assessment Form.
Great-aunt Agatha, Uncle Bill, the fellow who made a drunkard out of the
pc, you see - he is never going to be mentioned at this stage of the game,
if he is aberrative.
Now, if it is known to a pc, it isn't wrong with the pc. If the pc knows
about it, it is not aberrative. Someday you will hear me, and you will stop
auditing all these big knowns, and you will start making some progress with
cases that is rapid. That's one difference between my auditing and
sometimes yours.
If the pc knows about it, I pat him on the back, shake him by the right
hand, cheer him up and go on hastily to something else.
And you all too often say, "Well, obviously, look here, his father was a
drunkard and a jailbird and beat him, he says, every day. And obviously
we've got to spend a lot of time on Father."
And you do. You waste a lot of auditing time on Father, because Father has
nothing to do with the case. How do we know that? The pc knew about it! If
the pc knew about it, it doesn't have anything to do with his aberrations.
The only time that crosses up is a hidden standard, but a pc usually
doesn't even know about a hidden standard, until you start interrogating
him. So this gives us all of the areas we don't have to monkey with in
auditing. You see, it's a negative assessment. We're not going to have to
worry too much about these.
It's going to say, "Family: Mother."
"Mother living?"
"Yes."
And you don't then, of course, ask what was the date of her death and the
pc makes a statement of relationship with Mother.
"Well, Mother was a dear, sweet person. Mother was always very good to me,
much better than I deserved - much better than I deserved. She lives with
us now. And somehow or another, she keeps the marriage from going on the
rocks. She tries. She's nice - nice person, and so forth."
Well, you get trapped into this, you see? You say, "Well, what the hell is
this? Some kind of an overwhelm here of some kind or another," you see?
"And just exactly how does this thing stack up?" You say to yourself,
"Mmmmmm-mm. Tries to keep their marriage from going on the rocks. I'll
bet!" See, and you actually get trapped into this, because you have a
little piece of knowingness that is intriguing. Well, go ahead and be
interested in it, but the pc knows all about this. Well, there are some
things the pc probably doesn't know about it, but that will turn up in the
line of auditing. But what the pc knows about, we couldn't care about.
Then we get into Father, and we - same thing applies. And the pc says, "Oh,
yes, well, the old man died when I was eighteen, and so forth. And it was
good riddance. He used to beat me every day, and he shot me on Sundays, and
he's what's wrong with me."
Oh. Well, that's one area we don't have to have anything to do with. Get
the idea? It's just negative rundown.
If you were to shake that down, you could find some surprising data in it.
And the pc sooner or later, in this particular type of intensive, will find
very surprising data in it - extremely surprising - such as his father
spanked him once. Very ordinary. His father beat him every day and shot him
every Sunday, and so forth. And you find out the father spanked him lightly
once. That's the truth of the matter; see, he's got some kind of a
synthetic. But this is something that's going to come up, sooner or later,
and you're not going to have to worry about it too much, particularly if he
says that is everything that is wrong with him.
If the pc knows that is wrong with him, and has known that's what's wrong
with him for a long time, why has it continued to be wrong with him? See?
That's the 156,000-pound question. Why has it continued to be wrong? Why
hasn't it as-ised? Well, it hasn't as-ised because it isn't there, and it
never was there. But it gives us a method of skirting these things. We're
not going to take that up. It'll all come out on withholds sooner or later.
Now "Relationships": And there you're going to have missing personnel. And
"Married," very often you find missing personnel.
Now, there's one thing that may possibly go haywire, is "numbers of times
divorced" on this. That is important to know, because the pc is very often
holding this up, and it'll hold up his case. But it's the number of times
divorced. Well, maybe he didn't get divorced. Maybe he got married five
times and only divorced once. And that would be quite a withhold, wouldn't
it? So nevertheless, you fill that in, try to get the data on there.
"Any difficulties the pc presently has": Now that gives you some sort of an
idea how many present time problems you're going to have to cope with in
session.
And "If divorced, the reasons for the divorce and the pc's emotional
feeling about divorces": And you had better remember again that it doesn't
say how many times he is not divorced, or something of this sort. There
might be some sleepers back on the case of some kind or another that never
get mentioned. So you better get that question answered very, very well and
very thoroughly.
And then "Educational level": This has some interest in the matter. Very
often you will find a pc squirming around and telling you that he is not
educated, and he has never been to school, and so forth. And it would
actually turn out to be a withhold if you didn't go over it slightly. You
every now and then find a pc who's ashamed that he hasn't been educated,
and you very often find a pc who is ashamed that he has.
You know, I have a lawsuit I've been very laggardly in filing. It's against
the University of Texas, and so forth. And these things do come up in
education. But I want to claim all of the German courses that Mary Sue had
there. I want to claim back the fee and considerable damages, because every
time we're around Germans - she's had four years of German, see? And every
time we're around Germans - I've only had a couple of lifetimes as German,
you see, I've had no courses on it - and I have to order all the beds and
breakfasts, you see, and so forth. And I turn around to her and I say,
"Suzie, ask the lady to sell us a loaf of bread," you see? And Suzie looks
sort of blank, you know? And then finally, I finally get brot. Let's see,
brot, brot, brot. It restimulates hell out of me. After you've been killed
in a country a few times, you know, and you try to talk its language, you
get restimulated. So the University of Texas is going to get sued sooner or
later on this business.
But you run into oddball angles on education of some kind or another. And
if you were processing - well, I think probably if you were processing dear
old Mr. Jenner out here. He's quite a fireball. He's our bricklayer, and
he's quite a boy. You go out there, and if the materials are available, and
if the East Grinstead merchants have been talked into letting go of
something, you go out there and you will see a low wall of bricks - a low
wall of bricks being put up - and you go back about a half an hour later,
you know, and the wall is over your head. You just never saw bricks throw
themselves and plant themselves and get masonried into shape as fast as Mr.
Jenner can do it. He is terrific. Right now I don't know how many cubic
yards of dirt they've moved out there this afternoon, and bricks flying in
all directions, and that sort of thing. But I don't know particularly that
he has a thing on education, but he rather considers, to a slight degree,
that he is not educated. And he is likely not to inform you on this
subject. And it sort of is a withhold, because you are processing him in
some highly intellectual line, see - Scientology, and that would be
intellectual.
And then he tries to kind of measure up to all this, and he gets into some
kind of an impressive fog. You got the idea? And it - his relationship
could be actually twisted and made poor with the auditor if this point
wasn't straightened out with such a pc. Other people, they've had
twenty-nine years of education, postgraduate courses and all that sort of
thing, and they can't write their name, so they're ashamed too. And they
try to say, "No. I've never been to school." But you get a lot of lies in
this particular area. And so you'd better get that pretty well straight.
It's not that it has anything to do with whether he can run the process or
doesn't run the process, but it's a fruitful subject of withhold. And
you'll find most of this is.
All right. And you ask him about his professional life, and main jobs he's
held and so forth. You ask him about serious accidents, and the date of
such, and any permanent damage and that sort of thing. You ask about
principal illnesses, and now you're getting into an interesting zone,
because if you didn't know some of these things, you could run into them
head-on. You could keep running into engrams of one kind or another that
you wouldn't have any information on whatsoever because he never mentions
them.
And then you go into "Operations" - and that's one that you should do
briefly. Accidents, illnesses and operations are all subject to
restimulation; and you can restimulate the living daylights out of a pc if
you start auditing these things as he brings them up. Now, how do you audit
them? All you have to do is ask about them. Just ask about them,
thoroughly, and he'll be in it. You can throw him, as an auditor, straight
into such an incident.
Now, you get somebody out in the Middle West, and you ask them if they've
ever had any illnesses or operations, and of course there goes the
intensive. Don't know if you've ever read any letters coming from the Bible
Belt. As I've mentioned before, they read something like - what was that
quack's name that was arrested down in Texas for practicing medicine
without a license? And somebody awarded ten million dollars damages for his
having - Morris Fishbein of the AMA. Morris Fishbein, the head of the AMA.
This is all true about Morris. He was arrested for practicing medicine
without a license. But they actually read like his primary textbook. How to
Get Sick and Go to the Doctor, I think the textbook was called.
And you get somebody started on this and my God, here we go. You get some
pcs started on this who have a slight strain of hypochondria and man, they
will give it to you blow by blow, and writhe around, and run their
havingness down, and so forth, and then start on their families' illnesses
and so forth; and then they get to all the mistakes the doctor made, and
how the doctor had to open them up again in order to - in order to recover
his nurse or something. And this can become far too windy.
So your ability to acknowledge is the only way you turn this off. Your
ability to acknowledge, in making out this form, must be good and never
better than under "Accidents," "Illnesses" and "Operations." Your ability
to acknowledge, wonderful. And you can say to them, if it doesn't turn off,
"Well, you know, we'll be taking up that sort of thing in processing in the
direct processing. We'll be taking that up more directly." That shuts it
off. You will, too, because inevitably, if they're going to talk about it
that much, they're sort of hung in it. But this is not an auditing moment
of running engrams; this is not the engram situation that you are running
into.
All right. Now, what do we have here essentially? What do we have as we go
down this line but data? And that data can be confused with the auditor -
isn't ordinarily; auditors do well filling these things out. But an
auditor's natural impulse is to take these things up with the pc. Well,
don't take them up with the pc while doing such a form. That's all. Just
don't take them up, that's all. Forget it. Acknowledge it and get off of it
and get on to the next line - you got the idea? - without creating an ARC
break. Now, sometimes that is neat. Sometimes you have to be very neat in
order to get off of a subject and shut a pc off, because, you see, an ARC
break is composed of "not able to talk to the auditor."
But if you've ever watched a pc talk his havingness down, you'll agree with
what I am telling you. They can talk their havingness straight out the
bottom, just as nice as you please - down it goes with a dull thud.
They talk themselves right down the Tone Scale: enthusiasm, and the next
thing you know, they're a little antagonistic; and the next thing you know,
they're crying; and the next thing you know, they're not talking.
You can watch them. They'll slide right on down the Tone Scale if you don't
hold up this. So, it's best, in entering these, to tell the pc - this is
"Accidents," "Illnesses" and "Operations" I'm still talking about, (E),
(F), and (G) on this form - it is best to say, "Now, I just want to know
these things very briefly, exactly what these things were, very briefly."
And you sort of emphasize this "very briefly," and you won't run into him
talking himself straight back into an engram and finishing his first
auditing session with a Christ-awful somatic he didn't know where the hell
it came from. Got the idea? That's a good prevention.
Remember that a pc can talk down his havingness. If you're accustomed as an
auditor to ever letting a pc run on and on and on and never stopping him
from talking, you are doing him an unkindness. And don't think you're doing
him a kindness, because you're not. You're doing him an unkindness. The
best thing you can do is to get on with the auditing, but this can
sometimes create an ARC break, and so you have to handle it carefully.
And the best way to handle it is to preorganize it. Don't try to handle it
after the fact if it's going to be difficult. Handle it before the fact. So
that part of your auditing statement is, "Now in the next minute or so, I
want you to list for me all of the accidents you have had." You get that
kind of a trick? "In the next minute or so," you see?
Oh, well, he's put in a sort of a little games condition now, and - is how
fast can he do it, and he says, "Well, let's see, there were fifteen
automobile accidents and twenty-five bicycle accidents and seventeen times
when I fell off of railway bridges - I always seem to be falling off
railway bridges. And let's see. And that's about all. Ha-ha, I beat you. It
didn't even take me a minute." You see?
Bang. Fine. You got all your data. You write it down.
Any kind of trickery like that is better than letting a pc talk his
havingness down. You got the idea? So you get the data without the ARC
break.
"Present Physical Condition": Once more I refer you to the letters which
you might see coming from the Bible Belt. This is one of the marvelous
subjects.
"Well, I have misery. It's - misery has been going on for a long time." And
you very often will see a pc, very often, just sit back and heave a long
sigh, and you're just setting in for a long chat. This is going to be a
nice, quiet afternoon we're going to spend. And that's not what we're there
for at all.
Once more, the "briefly," the this and that, the inference that we've got
to get this listed so that we can get on to the next item. And the next
item is something else, and we don't care what the next item is, you see?
Briefly, you know: "Let's get this briefly so that we can get on to the
next item. Now what is your present physical condition?"
And they say, "Long after... Oh, no. He... she.., she really wants to know.
Terrible."
"All right. Now how is it terrible? All right. Where are the pains exactly?
Inform me exact - what parts of the body and so forth?"
"Oh, well," she says, "all over - my eyes, my head, my back, and I have
athlete's foot. And so forth, and so on, and et cetera."
Now, you remember that the pc is on a meter. So at this point it'd be an
awfully good time to look at that E-Meter. Now, we're not interested much
in the E-Meter except for the tone arm, up to the point we get to this (H).
Is there a withheld physical condition? That we're terribly interested in.
And so we read the needle. And you can put right opposite that (H) that
it's a little old needle-reading stunt right here.
And you want to know if there are any illnesses the pc hasn't told anybody
about, if there are any worries about health the pc has not imparted to
anyone. Pcs sometimes go around thinking they're dying of some dreadful
disease, and they never let anybody in on it because it'd be too terrible
for others to know - all that sort of thing. And also, and very, very much
to the point, "Are there any diseases you would hate to have people know
about?" Ah, and you're liable to collide with a freight train, where it can
save yourself one God-awful amount of dodged processing. Just get it right
there. Just - let's just get any possible withhold on the subject of
present physical condition off of this case now. And you'll save yourself a
lot of trouble, because a withhold about present physical condition is one
of the most serious withholds there can be on a case.
All right. We come to section I. And section I is "Mental Treatment." And
it says, "List any psychotic, psychoanalytic, hypnotic, mystical or occult
exercises, or other mental treatment which pc has had, the date of the
treatment and the E-Meter reaction." And you could very well add to that
"Any treatment he is now receiving," and you would get yourself something
else.
Now this, too, you want to shake down with the needle. You want to get any
withhold in the area of mental treatment off off off. You know, a person
who is withholding the fact that he has been adjudicated as stark, staring
insane, is, of course, sitting on the one withhold that can stop his
processing in its tracks. And, right here on this course, there has been an
instance or two of somebody continuing treatment while training. And
evidently this was not shaken down well, because you find no trace of it in
their Preclear Assessment Form in the beginning of their folder. The
auditor just did not find it.
Those things are important. Those things are very important during
auditing. They're very important in an HGC. The person goes - gets auditing
all day, and then has somebody cracking his spine all night while they're
hypnotizing him or something, and you're going to get no place, man. He's
going to be out of session every morning, going to have a high tone arm
every morning. And then it takes about the middle of the morning to get the
tone arm down. And then the next morning he comes in and he has a high tone
arm again. And about the third time this happens - that he goes off with a
low tone arm and comes back with a high tone arm - you can suspect that
there's a withhold on "Present Physical Condition" or "Mental Treatment,"
or "Current Treatment." That is the most fruitful source of that particular
activity. There is something wrong. There is something going on here. The
person is doing something else and they don't want you to know about it.
Although running Prehav Scales, of course, puts up the tone arm, the usual
cause of high tone arms - it's not that a tone arm must not be high. As a
matter of fact, they can't run the Prehav Scale properly without getting
high tone arms, you understand; but I'm talking about the mechanism of the
pc's always showing up with a high tone arm. You know, you process a pc for
a week, and then all of a sudden for a week the pc only has a reading of
five and a half. Well, there's just something wrong in this division. The
pc is either physically ill and doesn't want to tell you, or the pc has
some bug on the subject of the mind and doesn't want to tell you and so on;
or the pc is actually getting treatment in between your treatments and
doesn't want to tell you. So if you shake those things down during the
Preclear Assessment Form to get the withholds off - now, this is not a
chatty afternoon over a cup of tea. You're just going to go right to it and
you're going to get the withholds off on this subject. Now, he actually
won't mind you getting the withholds off on this subject. Be kind of a
relief to him as a matter of fact. And if he does have withholds on this
subject - if he does have withholds on this subject, and if he doesn't get
them off, you won't be his auditor. That's it.
But if he does have withholds on this subject and you do get them off, then
you of course are his auditor. Obviously. You know about these withholds
and nobody else knows about them, so therefore you must be his auditor.
Follows, doesn't it?
You know things about him, now, that other people don't know, so therefore
that follows, then, that you are the person's auditor. You'll find session
- in-sessionness increases very well if yoou do that.
Now "Compulsions, Repressions and Fears" doesn't necessarily follow in that
same category at all, and we just couldn't care less. It's going to be of
no value to you to know of his compulsions, repressions and fears to amount
to anything, except as a gauge of how daffy he is or isn't. And that's the
only gauge you're going to get out of that. It's just a measure and you can
already read that off the graph.
So you go over that rather rapidly, and you get down to "Criminal Record,"
and this, too, is a matter of grave interest to us. Because people who have
criminal records and don't want us to know about it - that can make a bad
show in auditing. So let's, when we get to (K), let's once more bear down
on the needle, and let's examine that needle very carefully on this
interrogation on the subject of crimes, prison sentences and so forth. And
let's make sure that we've got that thing showing up.
It's interesting that I had a letter from a preclear that has gone through
London HGC on several occasions over a period of time, and he's complaining
about his case gains. He is; he's not blaming anybody. He's not mad at
anybody or anything, but he's just written me a letter and asked me to
please, can't I tell him why, or do something about it.
And the side note that appears on this thing, of course, is the man has a
record as long as your arm. Now, we know that here, but does his auditor
know it there? See, that could just account for no case gain, right there
in a lump sum, bang! Well now, if each new auditor he has had has not done
a Preclear Assessment Form, then he feels he has a withhold to some degree
from that auditor, and maybe nobody has ever dug this up in this particular
fashion. I haven't followed back the other data concerning this, but that
is just an interesting point.
I very seldom get such letters. My letters are usually quite the reverse.
They're "Dear Ron, I just this and so on, and wonderful processing and I
feel better, and so on." But this chap - he's just worried about himself,
that's all. So we would also have found him under "Present Physical
Condition," and we would also have found him under "Compulsions,
Repressions and Fears," and we might have found him under "Other Mental
Treatment." See, it would all have dropped out of the hamper on the
Preclear Assessment Form, had we done one properly, and if every new
auditor that had the case had done one for himself.
Although I have said you have to write on this legibly, remember it is for
you, the auditor, to facilitate your auditing of the case.
All right. Now we get down to one that we couldn't care less about:
"Interests and Hobbies." This will have no great bearing on a case. It'd be
very unusual. Once in a blue moon, he has the hobby of "killing little
girls in dark woods" or something like that, but it isn't often, and it has
very little case bearing. It, however, can serve as a cross index to his
goals terminal. Not very important.
Now we have "Previous Scientology Processing." And this is far too specific
when we list the auditors, the hours, and the E-Meter reaction, and
everything else, in the HGC or the Academy. This is just too confoundedly
specific. And we don't have to be this specific. There isn't any reason to
be this specific.
The number of auditing hours he has had, he will seldom recall. The
auditors you want to get to on the case will be buried, for the purposes of
this preclear assessment. So we press him very lightly in this particular
line. Very, very lightly.
So you would do much better to ask him a general idea. A general idea is
what you want, and that's all. Otherwise, you're going to plow up all of
his auditing, restimulate all of his auditing: you're going to have to take
up all of his ARC breaks; you're going to have to take up all of his ARC
breaks and failures with past auditors; you're going to have to take up all
of his successes. And you've got another afternoon's activity all mapped
out in level M unless you say, "Well now, briefly, and just in general -
just give me some sort of an idea - when were you first processed -
something - some date. And, yes. And you had some organization processing,
and you had - all right. And field auditors?" - so on. "All right. That's
good," and so on. "Thank you." You know, it's very brief.
The best way to get this data is to run the ARC break process on the pc.
And you're not running it at this time. And you'll find all their auditors,
and he'll find the auditors that are aberrative and so forth. But you just
want to know how long this fellow has been in processing. And this fellow
tells you he's been in processing now for 8,642 hours, and so forth. Well,
you know he's lying. He hasn't been - he hasn't lived long enough. I think
it takes one lifetime to get that many hours of processing at some
fantastic figure per week.
Now, when you say, "List briefly the processes run," man, that's a grim
one. You take somebody that's been around since 1951 - the number of
processes run. In the first place, the pc almost never remembers them, and
you've got a big hang-up there, and so forth. So I would say instead of
that, instead of that sort of thing, I'd want to know, "What's been run on
you, more or less, that made a change in your case?"
Oh, they'll tell you those glibly and very rapidly; they can remember
those. But those things that have made no change on his case, we couldn't
care less. But at the time this thing was first compiled, it was important
to know what engrams had been started and hadn't been started, you see? And
then this was taken off the earlier form, so it has arrived that way.
And "List the goals attained from such processing." Well, now you've asked
him the same thing, if you just asked the one I just gave you. You said,
"What processes have given you a change?" You see? Well, that just - write
them diagonally across the (2) and (3) all at once.
And "Goals not attained from such processing" is an adventurous question to
ask a pc, but should be asked. And it'd be a very good thing to find out
what he has not been able to do about processing 'cause you'll be able to
refer to that later on, and it's part of the O section.
It gives you a clue of coordination. You want to know what he's been trying
to do with processing that he hadn't done. He might even give you a hidden
standard.
All right. The "Present Processing Goals." Now, he's going to give you some
brief goals of one kind or another. These are not very important at this
particular stage, but you want to know what he's trying to do with
processing, but very often at this stage of the game he just gives you a
social response. "Well, I would like to be better," and that sort of thing.
Well, you don't want anything more than that.
Now, we have a whole section here, which is the ne plus ultra of the whole
thing, and we get to what makes this a Problems Intensive. We get to
section O. Now that was where we wanted to get; that was whereat to we
wanted to arrive. And this we are going to do now with the greatest of
care. We are going to write this up ad infinitum, and if there are not
enough spaces, we're going to make some more.
Here we have "O. Life Turning Points: List each major change the pc has
experienced in life." And that means his whole life ever since he was a
very small boy or girl.
And of course, you're going to have the pc giving you - you're going to see
the perfect example of cyclic recall as you do this. So don't try to ask
for a certain period at any given time, because you're going to get near
present time ones, then you're going to get middle range, and then you'll
get early, and then you'll get near present time ones, and then you'll get
early ones, and then you'll get middle, and then you'll get near present
time, and it'll just go back up and down this way.
But you want to list each one of these carefully, because you are now going
to use these for assessment, so they have to be listed with precision. They
have to be listed with great precision.
Now what precision? Well, it's going to be so that you can say it easily on
an assessment. You're going to have to say this several times. So we don't
want it long, lengthy and long-winded. We want a precise statement, so
that's what we keep asking the pc for.
"Major change the pc has experienced in life," and the pc may want to know
what you mean by a major change. "Well, when you didn't any longer do what
you were doing and started doing something else; when you didn't any longer
live where you were living and moved elsewhere; when you didn't any longer
have that state of health but had another state of health."
"Ah, well, oh, well, you mean - you mean - ," and he'll tell you something
else.
All right. Well, we'll get those changes and you take that up very
carefully and then get these changes this way: "Well, after I had an
operation for goiter, I found out that I couldn't go out as much."
So you put down "operation for goiter." That's all you write. Major change
point. Then, "All right. What was another major change point?"
"Well, um.., it was when I.. . it was when I finished my first year in
college. I had to leave."
"Oh? Well, did you go back?"
"No. No. Never went back. Yeah. First year in college."
So that's what you want. So it's "leaving college" is a very, very
excellent way of expressing that, see? So that's expressed very briefly.
Your next point. Express them briefly, succinctly.
Now, each one of these is followed by a date. And his idea of the date is
going to be the wildest scramble you ever heard of. So don't press him for
an accurate date, particularly, and don't go pushing on it, because the
person will do enough hemming and hawing here to last a lot of people a
long time, and the dates you get aren't going to be very accurate unless
you sit down with an E-Meter and go through a timing exercise of putting
the things on the time track. And we're not asking you to do that
particularly. So "ten years ago" is good enough. But write down something
like "around 1948." See, that's plenty good. Anything the pc tells you is
the date.
And we go on down the line and we fill out all these major changes. Now,
you may find yourself needful of more space in order to get all these major
changes, and if you do, you just clip another piece of paper up at the top
of page five on this assessment form. And you just keep writing them in the
same wise. Pcs might have lots of them. This would be fairly adequate for
the usual case, but you might find somebody with a lot more.
Now, he's probably missed a great many of these changes. He probably hasn't
looked at these other things as changes at all. So you continue the list
with specific requests. You want to know when the pc newly joined any
religious group. That'll be a major change point in a person's life, you
see? And the pc didn't. All right. He didn't.
Now, "When did the pc start going to church again?" 'Course, that's a major
change point. Ha-ha. "Start going to church again." Well, that tells us
something.
If I had been doing this on an archbishop in northern Greece one night down
in Athens - if I'd been doing just this, I would have pulled half of his
aberrations by asking him why he joined the church when he was nineteen in
New York City. Because his sole goal was "to die and go to heaven." He did
have a psychosomatic goal, which was "to keep himself from going blind."
But he gave me the whole story about he was in a terrible upset and so he
joined the church, and here he is at 70 or 80 or 205 or something like that
- there he was, and he's still riding the  same stable datum.
This, by the way, is interesting. Maybe in the National Geographic sometime
or another you've seen a monastery - picture of a monastery in northern
Greece, where the people can't ever walk in and out of the place. They have
to be lifted in baskets. And they're lifted up the face of the wall in a
basket.
This was the archmadrid Larchimandritej, I think, of that particular
monastery. And he had come down to - he'd heard of Scientology, and they -
had a couple of sisters with him. I could have pulled his whole case right
there. Clank! Interesting. Because the major "When did he start going to
church again?" would, in this particular case, have become "When did he
become a member of the church?"
Well, he became a member of the church after a long period of confusion
back in his middle teens. And that was almost sixty years before.
Interesting. And had been riding the same confusion, and he'd been - he was
sitting right there on the same chronic somatic. Fascinating.
"When did the pc subscribe to a fad?" Now, he's liable to give you
anything, and even insult you with saying Dianetics is one, or something
like that; we don't care what the pc said. But when we say "fad" - when we
say "fad" we mean anything everybody else was doing with enthusiasm. But we
also mean food fads, or clothing fads. He joined the Edwardians; he became
a Teddy boy. Anything like this, you see? He joined up into something or
other, but it will indicate a change.
"When did the pc begin dieting?" And the pc's normal first response is to
tell you that he never did. And you should be very careful about that
particular point - ha-ha - because after a moment or two, he'll find a
dozen periods of his life when he had to change his eating habits.
Well, he was - he was in the army. And yes, well, he did start dieting, "If
you want to call it that." You'll get that kind of response, you see? He
couldn't stand Spam. He just couldn't stand Spam, and he stopped eating
Spam, and he hasn't been able to eat meat of that composite-type ever
since. And he won't eat meat of that composite-type ever since. That's it.
"That - if you want to call that a diet, fine. All right. That's a diet.
But they just serve me one more piece of Spam and they would have had it."
That was a diet. It's a negative diet.
Of course, at that particular level, you write down when it was, and you
want to know what it was. So you'd say, "1943, Spam." That would be your
notation.
"All right. What other - what other diets have you started off on?"
"No other diets. I'm not dieting. I'm no vegetarian, or food faddist, or
anything like that. I have no other unusual diets of any kind whatsoever."
Well, this one has to be followed up. You have to get a little bit clever.
So you have to ask a question like this: "Well, do you eat differently, or
have you ever eaten differently from other people that were around you?"
"Oh, well, you put it that way, yes, they eat these poisonous meats all the
time, and they eat these meats, and they didn't care what meat it was and
what meat it wasn't, and so forth. And actually, for some years, I haven't
eaten any meat." But you see, this to the pc is not a diet. He doesn't
define it as such because that is ordinary, that is usual. And the thing he
is doing ordinarily with food is the thing to do with food. It isn't what
everybody does on the subject of food. He never notices that.
All right. He's liable to give you some answer and say, "Well, I was out on
the China coast, and all the Chinese were eating rice, and who the devil
could live on rice all the time, but I managed to get some food. And I was
eating differently than other people then - very differently from the other
people who were around me then. They were all eating rice, and I knew you
couldn't live on rice, and so forth. And I had to eat other food from that,
and there was a lot of trouble getting other food at that particular time."
You say, "When was that?" And you put down "1948, China." Not "rice."
That'll all give you clues, clues, clues. Something was happening there.
Something weird was going on. His life was changed. That won't be much of a
point, but this is liable to liven up the next point, you see?
"Well now, did you - are there any other - any other food changes, any
other diets or anything like that?"
And he all of a sudden tells you for the first time, "Well, my family only
eats kosher food."
"When is the first time you had any difficulty eating kosher food or
finding kosher food and so forth?"
"Oh, well, you want to know that, that was when I joined the army. Had a
lot of trouble. Had a lot of trouble."
Put down "kosher food" and some sort of a date. There's upsets associated
with all this sort of thing. But those are not as important as this one:
He said, "Well, I started to live on lettuce and muldeberries - dried
muldeberries and lettuce in um... 1951." That's right out of the blue, you
see? There's no explanation to this of any kind whatsoever.
You don't say, "Well, you did?" you know?
You better write down "dried leaves" or "dried muldeberries and lettuce,
1951," right there. Bang! Because, boy, he must have run into a freight
train.
If you look back of this, you see, you look back here, you won't find
anything else happening in 1951, you don't think, you know? You look back
here and Mother's death, Father's death - 1951: Where the hell is 1951?
Nothing happened in 1951. Nothing. That is just a stroke out of the blue,
and you'll get it on such things as diets and fads, and that sort of thing,
much more rapidly than you'll get it on something else.
All right. "When did the pc leave a job?" And, of course, this may get very
lengthy, but you better take down every one of them. Much more important
than the auditing he's had is how many jobs has he left? How many, how
many, how many, how many, how many? And you get some sailors, for instance,
and they never show you all their discharges. But they were on a ship in
1949, and they were on a ship for two months in 1955 and they were on a
ship for one month in 1958.
"What have you been doing the rest of the time?"
"Well, I've been going to sea.
What the hell goes on, you see? There's holes all up and down the line,
don't you see? And something going on during that period; it's all a big
not-know as far as you're concerned. And as far as the pc is concerned,
it's just all a big withhold.
So when the pc starts to give you his job lines and there's something going
wrong with this, you want to start asking, "How long did you hold that
job?" And get his job record so that it's somewhat chronological. Find out
his leaving points, and at these leaving points - he says, "Well," he'll
say, "I left a job. . . I left a construction company in 1951. And I left
the um.., yes, and I left uh. . . the um.., merchandising department of
Taylor & Sanford's in 1955."
You say, "That's good." Now you've jumped - made an unreasonable
assumption: You think that from 1951 to 1955 he was in the merchandising
establishment at Taylor & Sanford's. He wasn't. There had been about eight
job changes in the middle of the thing, see?
So always find out how long he kept the job. That is the only keynote
there. Find out how long he kept that job, and then you will see where the
missing links are.
Now, because the changes are sufficiently interesting in that particular
line, you had better E-Meter needle it. "Any other jobs you've left?"
Blang! "What was that one? Any other jobs you left?" Blang! "What was that
one? Any other jobs you left? What was that?" Blang! And so forth. And you
get a pretty good employment record just as number 13's number of lines
imply. Because every one of those, he was in co-action with a group. And a
person who has too many jobs is having difficulty with co-action, mutual
motion. He's having great difficulty with mutual motion.
And this lends itself peculiarly to the development of tremendous overts
and withholds. Overts and withholds all stem from mutual motion; that is,
the whole theory moves out of that particular field. And job and employment
and work are things which are notably milestone a man's decline and
aberration, and that sort of thing. It's not that they're aberrative in
themselves, but he is in mutual action with some group, and then finds
himself in violent disagreement with some group. And then he's in mutual
action with another group, and finds himself in violent disagreement there.
Well, there must have been some confusions; some hidden confusions are in
that period. And by getting a job record, you can spot a lot of hidden
confusions.
Now supposing the person is not a working person at all. Then you change
the question over to "When did the pc leave a certain type of activity?"
And you'll find out she was a housewife, and then she was a club member,
and then she was a this, and then she was a that and you'll get a type of
job record which is just an activity record. But this whole number 13 of
section O is devoted to spotting departed or areas of co- or mutual motion
on the third dynamic. You won't have much other record if you don't make a
full one here.
Now again, that all has to be written in such a wise that you can easily
assess it later because you're going to use this and use this and use this
data.
Unlike everything up to and including (M) and (N), you're going to use the
O section till you practically wear out the paper. So do your best writing
in this particular area; make sure that you can read your own writing. That
would be a good thing to be able to do, because you're going to assess it,
and assess it, and assess it, and assess it.
All right. "When did the pc have to take a rest?" Ah, that's splendid.
That's real good. And those are marvelous, because you're going to find
those are the points just before which there were prior confusions of
magnitude.
So you're going to find out all these points when he had to take a rest,
and you're going to write all those down.
And "When is the time the pc noticed a body difficulty?" Well, you're going
to write all those down, but this is going to be awful comm-laggy. Going to
get all that straightened out.
Now, "When did the pc decide to go away?" Now, of course, you get wives,
husbands, little children, almost anybody subscribes to this one, and of
course, it is always preceded by an area of confusion. So here's a very
fruitful source of confusions. Now, if these things are - suddenly start,
about this stage of the game, to be the same areas as you've already
recovered, don't worry about it. Just keep writing them down, see? Don't
call this to the pc's attention at this stage and say, "Well, I see that
you left a job in - in June of 1955 - you left a job June of 1955, and you
started going to church again in June of 1955, and you decided to take a
rest in July of 1955. Well, what about that?"
Well, you're jumping the gun. You are jumping the gun. That's the sort of
thing you do in section P. So let's not take up anything here but data. You
just want data from the pc, data from the pc. And you'll find out soon
enough that it adds up and cross-checks and does all that sort of thing.
Now, the catastrophe for this whole procedure would be if the pc gave you
nothing under the sun but the same date and the same incident. Of course, a
pc doing that would be nuts. But an institutional case would do that. And
you have one thing to assess. All they talk about is when they brought them
to the institution, or some thing like this, you see? That would leave you
with just one thing to assess, but people that you ordinarily audit aren't
that daffy. But remember that if you did that, you'd have to, next time,
fill out another O form. If you haven't got enough data on the O form, you
fill out another O form after you've handled a P form.
All right. "When did the pc decide to leave and when?" Now that's almost
the same question, but not quite: "Decide to leave." He didn't leave. He
decided to leave.
After you've got all the departures then you find out that there were
eighteen periods of deciding to depart and not departing. And what are you
running? You're running leave and then failed leave. Asking him questions
about leave and then questions about failed leave. Simple.
Now, "When did the pc start being educated in some new line?" That is
doubled over with "What have you taken up?" "What have you taken up?" "When
did you take up a course in this, a correspondence course in something
else?" You see? "When did you start to study something else?"
Now I just - I just had a maintenance man out here suddenly take up
pottery. Hadn't studied anything for years and he's suddenly taken up
pottery. I know there's been a catastrophe and a confusion in his life
someplace. Isn't any reason for him to take up pottery. He's had a little
connection with pottery around here to amount to anything. But that's Mr.
Jenner's job.
That's very interesting, isn't it? He's suddenly moving over into another
field from carpentry, over into masonry, you know? And what's happened?
Well, I also notice he looks a little upset. Now, I haven't interrogated
him in any way, but I'm just giving you something there that is a
cross-question. Now it isn't anything wrong with taking up new lines. Isn't
anything wrong with studying something new. But it might be an indicator.
It might be.
That's true of most of these things, is the bulk of them are "might be's."
Now, "When did the pc's physical body change characteristics?" Getting this
out of women, you will have to take the E-Meter and beat them over the
head. A woman at 110 will never admit that her body changed anything from
that of a beautiful 16-year-old girl, or something like that, you know?
It's just things they won't talk about, so you have to pull that the hard
way. Go ahead and grab it.
Now, "When did the pc collapse?" They've probably omitted telling you
anything about this up to that point.
And "When did the pc start a new life?" That's just the same question over
again in some other line, but this is with magnitude. They may have omitted
any of those.
And then "When did the pc stop going to parties?"
Most girls tell you this, they look very sad, and they say, "Well, I met -
I met Bill, and he was a stay-at-home type, and so forth. And so we stayed
home thereafter." Well, I'll let you in on something. That wasn't the
reason they stopped going to parties. You'll run into it in the P section,
if this ever assesses out.
They did various things. There were various things occurred about parties.
There were various heartbreaks and upsets, because stopping a girl going to
parties is only done with sixteen-inch guns. You just mark a big underscore
under that. They don't easily stop going to parties. Might have been last
lifetime, but they... it took something to stop them.
Now, "Who's the pc never seen again?" Now, you notice this is down toward
the end of the O section, so that if we have to send for the fire
department, and so forth, and get them to dam up the grounds because of the
resultant flood, the end of this is very much in view, because the pc is
liable to spill a grief charge. Because you've shaken the pc up
considerably by this time, you see?
You ask him for change, change, change, change, change; you're auditing him
like crazy all through this O section. Now all of a sudden you say - all of
a sudden you say, "Who have you never seen again?"
And we finally finish up, "What does the pc now consider his or her major
life change?" And we don't care what the pc said it was. We just don't care
but it's a good thing to ask.
All right, let us go back now - let us go back now to what we are going to
do with all of this data. We have now assembled the doggonedest potpourri
of data that was ever recorded, and if employment offices ever interrogated
employment sheets to the degree that we have shaken this one down, don't
you see - even though we did it fairly rapidly - man, would they know
something about their applicants.
Miss Jones comes in, applies for a job as a typist.
"Where did you work last, Miss Jones?" Lie.
Uh, "Where - why did you leave?" Lie. Here it is, you see? "Is there any
reason you would not be able to continue long on this job, Miss Jones?"
"Well, no reason at all, except the doctor's only given me two months to
live."
You know, you'd have the lot.
So we're going to take the O section. We're not interested in any other
part of this now except as a review and a cross coordination. And we're
going to take the P section.
Now, if you are very wise, you will have stopped the O section - at the end
of the O section, you will have taken a break. Because you didn't start
this thing with rudiments, and the P section has to be started with
rudiments.
So you either finished that whole thing off and ended the session and that
was the auditing for that day or something of the sort, or that morning,
and you start up the P section again, so it might take a little bit of
interesting timing to get this thing straight.
Now, this, bluntly, starts an assessment of the pc's major life changes.
But you start it in Model Session, and you start right going here with
Model Session and you want to clear the rudiments. You want to know if
anything upset them, you know, about what you just covered with them. You
kind of aim the rudiments, you know, a little bit in the direction of what
you've just been doing earlier.
And if you've only got fifteen minutes left of the session, and I find out
that you started a P section with fifteen minutes left of the session, I
will be upset. You could possibly get away with a rapid assessment, but you
certainly couldn't bank on the assessment and so forth.
Now, if you had a half an hour or an hour left of your auditing period,
well, by all means, do your assessment but don't go any further. Don't try
to do anything with it. And the best thing would be to have them in
completely different assessment periods because you're going to shake this
person up like mad doing an assessment. They're going to be in a fit state
to be audited, let me tell you.
Now, you're going back here to (O) - you're going back here to (O), and I
don't care how many doodle-daddles or code marks or symbols you put on the
side of this. You could put .1 divi - I mean 1.0 divisions, you know, fall,
or something like that. You could make little notations. But all you're
going to do is read them this.
Now, you go down the line. You make that notation: fall, rise - don't ever
note rise. Just fall, theta bop, whatever it is, how much. And you're going
to make it, and this time I'm going to ask you to get clever.
It doesn't matter much if you assess this wrong. But this is a wonderful
opportunity to get clever on a one-pass needle judgment. After you've
finished up reading through this thing once, your record and recall, and so
on, are quite adequate to tell you which change point of the person's life
registered most. You just read it through once, rapidly.
Now, of course, you can do that by saying to the pc, "You don't have to say
a word while I am doing this. You just sit there and hold those cans and I
am going to read all of this off" - you've got him in-session, your
rudiments are in and so forth - "and I'm going to see what this is all
about."
And you simply read this thing off, each one, and note the reactions that
greet each one of these change points. When you get over here, you will be
able to say that "It is number 13 something or other was what assessed.
That's good. That got the most reaction on the needle."
Now, that completes step one. Step one consists of that reading, it
consists of your adjudication of picking out from the E-Meter reaction,
needle reaction, which one of those life changes that you have gone over in
(O) produced the greatest needle response - not just fall, but what had
produced the greatest needle response.
Ordinarily, that needle response will be much bigger than the remainder and
it will not be unusual for it to be a theta bop. A nice, wide, staggering
theta bop - if you found something like that, you're right on his rock
chain and it audits like mad.
All right. You've got to note that down and square that around.
Now, this is a disposable form, this form P on page seven. And you notice
it's just on one side of the piece of paper only. And in mimeographing this
thing and repeating its mimeographs, that format should be followed because
that's - this is disposable. This is "add-it-able." After you've done this,
this gets added to the pc's record. And then without throwing away anything
from one to six pages, you get another form P. See, and you just keep
running a new form P, and it's just on one page, one side of the paper.
(Very well done here, this mimeographing job.) And of course, you look
straight at the pc and you say to the pc very meaningfully, now that you've
got the point - it was their "leaving Taylor & Sudrow's" - biggest change
in their life, you see? That's the most reaction.
And you ask the pc, "What problem existed.. ." This is very meaningful.
It's just - you plow that question right into him. Everything else has been
rather conversational, don't you see, and this and that, but you just plow
this one into him hard. And you say, "What problem existed immediately
before you left Taylor & Sudrow's?"
All right. He's going to tell you. Now, he may give you a fact. And if he
only gives you a fact, you say, "Yes, yes. All right. That's fine. Good.
But state that as a problem. Now what - what was the problem connected with
this? What was the problem? The problem connected immediately before you
left Taylor & Sudrow's?"
"Well, it was that I did the accounts wrong."
"Yes. Good. All right. What was the problem?"
"Oh. Oh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh, ah. . . I ah... I - I see. I s - I see what
you mean. You want to know what the problem was. I didn't like my boss."
"All right. Good. Thank you. Now state that as a problem."
"How to keep from going to jail."
Blang! You see? That's a problem but it's the first problem they actually
state as a problem.
Now, they may be mystified as to why you won't accept these as problems,
because they seem good enough problems to them. But you could even say to
them, "A problem is who, when, what, where, how. There's some question
about a problem. There's something undecided about a problem. We want the
undecided thing, you know, the thing that was worrying you, the thing you
were anxious about, before you left Taylor & Sudrow's."
"Oh, well. Uh-huh-huuuuuuu, well, that's different. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Oh,
well, you ask me that way. I didn't like my boss." You know?
"Yeah. But what anxiety did you have about it?"
"How to keep from going to jail." So you write it down.
Now comes a little bit of a problem. "How to keep from going to jail." Now,
how do you phrase a rudiments thing? You've got to do a shakedown on this
sort of thing. You've got to do a little assessment here sometimes. You got
to find out what this was all about. But it's not much of an assessment,
because it's obviously jail that is a worry here.
So your with would have to be changed to about, you see? And you'd say,
"What was unknown about that problem - what was unknown with that problem
about jail?" You've got to change the about to with and change it around.
"What was unknown with that problem about jail?" Any such phrasing that
gets it across to the pc so that you're running an unknown on it.
Now, if he gives you some significance - "How to keep from worrying." Oh,
man, that's - that's a rough one because there's no target. You're not
running any kind of a terminal.
Now, how do you state this around so that you run about "What was unknown
about that problem with worrying?" Man, that is not going to be any process
that makes any sense to anybody. Are you going to say, "Just worrying?
Worrying? Is that what it was? Worrying about what? How to keep from
worrying - worrying about what?"
"Oh, just worrying."
Boy, you're really getting a defeat here, you see? A problem about - just
about worrying. "I just found myself worrying. All the time I just found
myself worrying and worrying."
All right. In the last moment of defeat, you can give up and say, "What was
unknown about your worrying?" Because that's as far as you're going to get.
In other words, don't cave the pc in and don't abandon it. Just try,
successfully if possible, to find a proper terminal to add into this
problem. If you can't find a proper terminal, you can move off a bit and
say what it was. Because you've got to have the thing run as the pc has it.
There is no sense in doing anything else. And he could have a problem just
about worrying, you see?
So if you can't get him to state a noun, or get him to state something else
about this problem, or if you don't get a noun out of him, you will have to
use the exact thing that he said.
"Oh, well, worrying," but this is liable to be your response.
"How to keep yourself from worrying. Yeah, well, all right. How do you keep
yourself from worrying? Were you worrying about something specific?"
"Well, of course. Of course, naturally. Bill."
"Well, what is the problem then?"
"Well, how to keep from worrying about Bill, naturally, naturally. I mean,
this idiot!" You know, that kind of reaction.
All right. So your process is "What was unknown about that problem with
Bill?" See, you've gotten the terminal out of the thing. But the pc could
have a problem about - just about worrying. The pc knows that people who
worry go to pieces. And the pc finds himself worrying. And that is the most
problem the pc has got. And that's as close as he can come to any terminal.
And you actually would defeat your purposes by being too forceful about
giving him a terminal. There are times to be reasonable about this sort of
thing. Try to get a terminal if you can. If you can't get a terminal, run
what he'll - run the condition. And you'll still make it. But if you do,
you better watch your havingness. And when you finish up that session with
Model Session, just hardly ask him if it's all right with the room. Just
run TR 10.
Because if you're running a conditional problem, his havingness is going to
go down. It can be done, you understand, but his havingness is going to go
down, and in end rudiments you're going to have to run some havingness.
All right. Let's take up the next brutal step here rapidly. "What was
unknown about that problem?" has got to be flattened on the tone arm. It's
got to be flattened on the tone arm. And that may take a long time, and it
may take a short time, but you're going to get the tone arm action out of
it and get the twenty-minute test on it and so forth, because that problem
- you're really going to take it up and beeat it to death.
Now he's in a position to answer number 5. We've got to "locate the
confusion before that change," (as number above). Not before the problem
but before the change. And now you're going to list the persons present in
the confusion. And this is going to give you some difficulty because there
will be innumerable persons missing. So you got to shake that assessment
down on the E-Meter needle.
"Were there any more people in that confusion?" And you keep reading that
until you no longer get a needle reaction. You've shaken all the people out
of that. And the most important person to the whole confusion will be the
person who comes up last. Just take that as a general running rule and
you'll be safe.
All right. You make a list of those persons, and then let's just read that
list off, as you've written it right here on the form - don't write it
anyplace else than on the form - and you run a rapid assessment which just
gets your most needle reaction, not by elimination, and you write down the
name of the person who reacted most on the needle as you read that list.
And now you've got to get the withholds off from that person. Now, that
means that you might have an additional piece of paper. That means that you
might have written up an additional withhold section. It might mean that
you have used a standard form to get the withholds off, or it might mean
that you just sat there and got the withholds off.
"What were you withholding from that person?" "What had you done to that
person?" "What were you doing at the time that you didn't tell that person
about?" And we want to get the basic withholds off that person. But we're
not going to do a fantastic hour-after-hour grind to get the withholds off
of that person. We're just going to get the major withholds off of that
person. You're going to try to clean that person up till that person
doesn't react. And that's as far as we want it cleaned up. We say the
person's name. We don't get an E-needle - a meter reaction. And then we're
going to assess the list again leaving the person's name in. We don't take
names off as we clear them up. We just keep leaving their names in because
they will turn up again. That tells you why we're not being terribly
thorough.
So you run down the list, get the most reaction and you get the withholds
off from that person. You get what the person has done to them, what the -
what he hadn't told them, what he was unable to tell them. Remember the
three classes of withholds, see, involuntary withhold - the unintentional
withhold, rather - all of those things. We get that off and we'll find out
that we ye eventually - when we've taken care of all these people and none
of these people react anymore on the needle, we'll have cleaned up the
confusion.
But the end of that is when the needle does not react while you read the
list with the rudiments in. And you don't get a reaction. All right. Great.
Great. That's the end of that confusion as far as you're concerned, and
that is it.
Now, you've just - run that again, and then you - again, as it says it in
(9) and (10). You know, just keep repeating the same thing till you get all
that - the people in the confusion off And now, you return to the O
assessment and do all of (P) again, which is to say that you take this P
form as complete and you file it with the person's record and you make out
a brand-new P form in exactly the same way. And you go over that thing
exactly as you did before.
Now, that is the extent of a Problems Intensive. How long does it take? I
don't know how long it'll take you to do this on how many pcs. But I know
that this is terribly productive. And this will get out all the hidden
standards, and it'll straighten up most of the present - it'll straighten
up all the present time problems of long duration. You'll have all kinds of
interesting things occurring as a result of it.
It becomes better when you get the Havingness and Confront Process of the
pc and run at the same time. You could do a lot of things. They could get a
lot more complicated and so forth. But if you just do this just as it says
through here, and keep up and finish until you finish every one of these
change points of a person's life, you'll find the last ones are going just
fast, fast, fast. They're just disappearing quickly. He gets the problem,
he finds the confusion, bang! And he finds the withholds on it. Boom!
Don't be too surprised if the person goes terribly backtrack. Let them go
backtrack all they want to while you're running the problem. But that they
went back running the problem doesn't let that lure you into getting the
confusion before the engram. No, we want the confusion before the change in
this life, always. And we never wander onto the backtrack from a standpoint
of getting off the confusion.
But they will of course run into engrams while they're being audited on the
problem. And we don't upset them by trying to get them off of it. We just
audit them.
But we want the confusion prior to that change in this lifetime. So that
this thing - we don't prevent them from going backtrack - but this thing
basically, mainly, handles, and is only designed to handle, the present
lifetime.
Okay?
Well, I wish you lots of luck with it. I think you've got a piece of
dynamite in your hands that won't preexplode in your face. I think it'll do
your pcs a lot of good. Okay?
Audience: Right. Mm.
Thank you.


