
SHSBC-289 renumbered 318 24 Jul 63 ARC Breaks and the Comm Cycle


ARC BREAKS AND THE COMM CYCLE

A lecture given on 24 July 1963

[Clearsound, checked against the old reels. No omissions
were found.]


Thank you.

Well, you're going to get some demonstrations before we're
much older. And I'm grooving in Model Session a little bit
better. Couple little bugs these days in Model Session.

"Do you agree that's clean?" can cause an ARC break. What
you want to communicate to the PC is did the PC have
anything to say about it? You, after all, have asked a
question, and you inform him of the state of the needle and
ask him if he's got anything he wants to say about it.

But I haven't quite got the pat wording for that. But it's
interesting that there are two, three little changes - 
they're just little refinements, make it easier on the auditor.

We're using mostly the 3N Model Session and in actual fact
have not used the old, original, long-drawn-out beginning
ruds-end ruds Model Session for some time. And it's a good
training ground, maybe, but in actual fact, the since mid
ruds are enormously better. Since mid ruds and pull missed
withholds are enormously better than any beginning
rudiments we ever had. And an ARC Break Assessment at the
end of session, just whether there's been an ARC break or
not, is enormously superior to any end rudiments we ever
had. Don't you see? So you just clean every line of it. You
don't do an assessment by elimination. If you got a tick,
find out what it is. And just clean that up, and your PC
comes up shining.

So it actually makes Model Session pretty easy to do, but
it's still a very precise activity. We've now got the body
of the session, we end the body of the session, you know?
Goals and gains, all that sort of thing. Everything is
there - you know, we adjust the PC's chair and ask if it's
all right to audit in the room and get a can squeeze and
put in the R-factor and start the session, you know? Same
thing. Get the goals and roll right on through. Get the
PC's goals, and PC's needle is a bit agitated, your
tone arm is higher than it was the last session, we put in
our since mid ruds and see if there's any missed withholds,
and carry right on through into the body of the session,
and do whatever we've got to do. Come right on up to the
end of the body of the session and chatter with him a
little bit before we tell him that's the end of the body of
the session - that's very informal but still there. Then we
get the PC's... ARC Break Assessment - usually omitted, if
the session's quite happy and the PC has had a big win in
the session; we certainly don't harass him with an ARC
Break Assessment.

And then we take our goals, and we take up each goal. I
notice some not quite doing that, maybe. And actually,
those are written on the auditor's report, diagonally
across the goal. See, we just write "yes," you know, or
"maybe," see, across each goal. We don't write down another
section here that says whether or not he made his goal,
see? "To have a good session": Well, we give him that goal,
you know - did he make it? He says yes, we write "yes"
diagonally across that top there, see? So we can see what
his goals and gains were just by looking at that one block.
And it's easy to review, see?

If he's got all that, we don't keep pestering him, we just
read it to him, did he make them or didn't he make
them? - then we thank him for making his goals in this
session, or if he only made part of them, why, "Thank you
for making some of your goals in this session; - I'm sorry
you didn't make all of them." Then we ask him for his
gains, and we take down the gains. And we don't keep
bleeding gains. We don't keep asking the question "Did you
make any gains for the session?" We just take what he's
got, see? We make sure that he's answered it to his
satisfaction - and remember he's pretty foggy, so sometimes
that's a little difficult to get closed out. You're still
trying to end the session, he's still trying to give you
gains, you know? - long time to answer the question or
something like that. Well, let him answer it to his
satisfaction, but don't you keep pounding with the question
about gains for the session. You understand?

You can over-ask him, see? And next thing you know, he's
giving imaginary gains that he never heard of.

When he's got those you say, "Thank you for making these
gains in this session," or, "Thank you for making some
gains in this session; I'm sorry you didn't make all of
them." And - "Sorry you didn't make more gains," rather,
and close that out.

And then we just get a can-squeeze test, run any havingness
that we have to run if the can-squeeze test was less than
the beginning of the session, and simply ask him, "Is there
anything you want to say before we end the session?" Let
him say it. Then we say, "Is it all right with you if I end
the session now?" and get a yes on that and we just end the
session. That's it. And "Tell me I'm no longer auditing you."

All of these various lines we've had before - those little
courtesy lines are in there. The only additional ones:
thanking him for his goals, then thanking him for his
gains. And that is the form of a Model Session these days.
But it still requires a precision, don't you see? It is
still a Model Session and its wording is very fixed for
each one of these points.

Before I gave you a demonstration of this Model Session
brought up to date, however, I wanted to get that business
of what do you say to a PC? What is exactly the best thing
to say, you know? "That didn't read." "Do you agree that
that is clean?" - that type of approach can cause ARC breaks.

I myself have felt like saying, "Well, I don't have to
agree that it's clean. To hell with it! " you know? "What
are you trying to do, force me to say there are no more
answers on this question, 'In the last trillion trillion 
years is there anything you have suppressed?' Hell, I know 
it can't be clean. It's clean for the purposes of the session, 
maybe, but sure isn't clean!" That's why, when you heard a
demonstration I was giving on that tape a short time ago, I
was slipping that. You saw I wasn't using it very much, and
fumbling around with it. I was still trying to find a
proper wording. Soon as I get that taped, why, I'll give
you this new one. It's almost exactly the same one that
you're using now; I'm just giving you these little refinements.

All refinements these days are just in the direction of
causing less ARC breaks and getting more auditing done.

The reason you have rough needles, however, has nothing to
do with your Model Session or your rudiments or anything
else. The reason you have rough needles is you miss on TR 2
or TR 4. You miss TR 2 and TR 4 and you got a rough needle.
That's it - bang. Just like that.

Comes back to auditing cycle.

If an auditor's PC has a clean needle consistently, you
know that this PC is either phenomenal or this auditor has
very, very good TR 2 and TR Every good TR 2 and TR 4, see?
And if PC has a rough needle, not all the rudiments in the
world will put it together if the auditor's TR 2 and TR 4
are for the birds. See? That's a big point. That's a big point.

Now, I invite you sometime to just watch this. Any auditor
will have this happen to him. It happens about once a
session. Sometime in the session you got a clean needle,
it's flowing along here very neatly and very nicely and
smoothly clean needle, everything going fine - and all of a
sudden you got a dirty needle. You immediately assume PC
has a missed withhold. If you were to take a tape of your
auditing session, you would find out very rapidly that your
TR 2 went out or the PC originated and you did something
about it. Something happened there between TR 2 and TR 4,
and immediately your needle was rough.

Be very revelatory to you if you had a tape of the
needle - we're trying to accomplish this technically; a very
hard problem - if you had a tape of your needle in your
session and you could play it back sometime, you'd learn a
lot. And its quite intriguing. And you say, "What the hell
gets into me?" you know?

PC said, "I had an ache."

"Oh yes, where was it? Oh yeah, hm-mm? Have anything to do
with the process we were running?" Dirty needle. Just like
that. Bang-bang!

"Uh ... well, I feel better now."

"Well, you don't have to worry about that. We'll get you
into another ... [inaudible]" But you watch the
coordination between auditing cycle and dirty and clean
needles, and you're going to be fascinated. And whenever
you look around and you see an awful lot of PCs have dirty
needles, you look around, you'll see an awful lot of
auditors have dirty TR 2 and TR 4.

You clean up the TR 2 and TR 4 and you'll clean up more
needles than you can shake a stick at. It isn't the
significance of it, you see; it's the calm flow of the
auditing cycle.

Well, I didn't come in here to give you a lecture on this
today. I'm going to give you a lecture on the subject of
ARC breaks, so I might as well start this lecture.

This is what?

Audience: July 24th.

24 July, A.D. 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And
here is a lecture on the subject of ARC Break Assessments - 
one which you need. You need. You need this worse than you 
think. ARC Break Assessments.

Now, I've just been rattling along here and talking about
sessioning in general, which is of course a very applicable
part of this lecture. But you normally consider a dirty
needle, you see, as a withhold or something that the PC has
done. And you seldom look at it as something that the
auditor has done.

Well, let me point out to you that there are two
communication cycles in an auditing cycle - two communication
cycles in an auditing cycle - and either one of those two
communication cycles can be active.

Now, number one is auditor to PC. Number two is PC to
auditor. Now, either of those can operate independently.
And one of those cycles goes this way: "Do fish swim?" see,
and the PC hears it and understands it, see? And that is
simply cause, distance, effect. So that's a communication
cycle, see? Cause, distance, effect.

Now, PC says, "Yes," and auditor hears it and understands
it. Now, that's cause, distance, effect.

Now, you're used to all this, of course, but you probably
haven't looked at it in the degree Of separateness which it
deserves, since either one of them can exist independent of 
the other one, and both of those communication cycles have 
to be perfect or very acceptable before you have an auditing 
cycle. An auditing cycle is not made up, then, of auditor 
command, PC's reply, auditor's acknowledgment, see? That is 
a very, very loose look at an auditing cycle.

An auditing cycle can exist, frankly, on either of these
independently. The PC doesn't have to say a thing and yet
be perfectly satisfied. Do you see - a communication can
exist from the auditor to the PC.

What's your R-factor? That's a communication from the
auditor to the PC, isn't it? PC understands it. You ever
hear a PC say very much to an R-factor? He doesn't even
have to signify he's heard it: There's nothing in the books
that says he did. But he has to understand it.

He doesn't have to say anything. "Okay, all right. Well, I
agree that is the R-factor" - you don't expect the PC to say 
that, see?

Similarly, you're going along in an auditing session, the
PC suddenly says, "Hey! I just realized that dirigibles
aren't airplanes, see? You know, it's a fact!" And you
haven't even been auditing dirigibles or airplanes or
anything else. This very often takes you by surprise. It
can be close or far from the subject of the auditing
session - that has nothing to do with it - but it's an
independent communication cycle. An independent
communication cycle.

Now, you're so cheerful on the subject of getting your TR 2
in, just right, in answer to the TR 4 that you don't
sometimes look at the fact that TR 4 doesn't depend on TR
2, not even vaguely. That's why it's TR 4. It's up - 
upnumbered. What is this?

Do you know that some of the most successful origin
handlings I've ever done had no acknowledgment connected
with them. Although you can say the auditor is supposed to
understand and acknowledge the thing - receive, understand
and acknowledge the communication, all that sort of
thing - you can go into that kind of thing and try to explain
what this is; in actual fact, look at this in its most
naked form. This is just simply a single communication
cycle, originated by the PC and received and understood by
the auditor. And if you look at that, not with any tricks
or gimmicks around it, all will suddenly make sense. Just
as the auditor is emanating and originating his auditing
cycle as a one-way communication in its first step, and
just as an auditor can originate things which the PC
doesn't have to respond to at all, so can you get the
reverse thing going in a session - which is to say, the PC
says something. And that's a communication cycle. And the
only thing you're trying to do is signify that it exists.
You're not trying to do TR 2 or anything else. I mean, the
PC originates: he says, "Dirigibles are not airplanes."
He's had a cognition of some kind or another.

One of the ways to knock him off his base is to give him a
very artificial TR 2. Did you ever have an origin knocked
off its base by having the auditor say "Very good. Thank
you"? - get a very artificial piece of stuff back in your
teeth. You've just said something that was important to you.

Very often in auditing I'll handle an origin with a facial
expression or a head nod, because it's a one-way cycle. And
only a ghost of the thing the other way needs go, and
actually needn't really go at all. If you're really good at
projecting your think tank, you could sit there with the
face of a wooden Indian and do a perfect TR 4.

I know that sounds utterly incredible. The way not to
handle a TR 4 is to make it obvious that you haven't
understood and that you have received the communication.
"Thank you." "I suddenly ... I suddenly realize," the PC
says, "I suddenly realize ... I suddenly realize my
migraine headache's gone! I had it for years! Gone! Hey,
what do you know! Ha! It's gone! Gone!"

"Thank you." [said slowly and ponderously.]
[audience laughter.]

What the auditor has done in that particular regard is make
a mistake of thinking a PC runs a reverse auditing cycle.
See, he thinks the PC is now going to audit him. The point
here is you audit any little kid on "Touch that table" or
"touch that chair" for a little while, and nearly all of
them will suddenly start diving the command to you. They
get their flow going so far, and you're a fool if you don't
do them, too. And you touch the table and touch the chair,
and the kid's all satisfied and so forth. And they're
perfectly willing for your next command, see? It's quite a
game they play. They go into a very complete duplication of
the auditing session. A good auditor of children and so on
is quite well aware of this and doesn't refuse to execute
the auditing command. It throws a kid completely out of
session. Kid is overwhelmed. That's the kid's effort to be
right, don't you see?

All right. But in handling an origin, the PC has not
started to audit the auditor. That's a different kettle of
fish. The PC doesn't expect anything but a comprehension.
That's all the PC expects.

Now, how do you signify a comprehension? Well, I know your
telepather is kind of busted; it's been busted for quite a
while. I know mine has been, to the degree that it might
be. I sometimes look back at what telepathy once was, and a
guy is two thousand yards away and you hear all of his
thoughts with a crash, don't you see? That's OT stuff. You
can also have obsessive telepathy where you hear everybody
all the time. This is sort of out of control. But we're not
asking for anything that is that marvelous. We're asking
for pure and simple, an ordinary response to a communication.

Now, how do you signify that you comprehended? Until you
can answer that question well - till you can answer that
question well and pleasantly ... to yourself, see - l mean,
not pleasantly but satisfactorily.

Well, you're sitting there right now. How are you
"comprehending" to me that you heard what I said and
understand it? Yeah, I look at your faces and you're all
doing it beautifully. See? Perfect.

Now, that is an origin, handling of. And that's all there
is to handling an origin. PC says something and you
understand it. Now, we say "and acknowledge it," but we've
gone too far because we're tending to put it in a thing. We
let the PC know we've understood it. For instance, once in
a while I'll just laugh like hell, see, you know? PC has
said something that's very funny to the PC, you know, and
seems funny to me (I won't laugh if I don't think it's
funny to me; l won't corn up the emotions on it), and I'll
just laugh, you know. PC's perfectly satisfied. That's
because there's no auditing cycle involved. That's just a
communication cycle.

That's all there is to it, see?

Now, there are a bunch of processes which require no answer
from the PC but do require a response from the PC of some
kind or another. But they are concept processes - the old
concept processes: "Get the idea of ... " Well, the PC
can sit there and get the idea and never really say "Yes, I
.. " No nothing to the auditor. You know he's done it.
Well, how did you know he's done it? Oh, you look at his
breathing and that sort of thing, you take a look at him
and so on.

You get into this trouble in R3R. How do you know the PC
has moved to the beginning of the incident? See, that's an
interesting little hole. Because you didn't say "Move to
the beginning of the incident at approximately ... and
tell me when you get there."

In the first place, that would be very sour, because it's
two auditing commands, they're already complicated, he's in
too much trouble already; and once in a while, any auditor
will get dopey and have moved the PC to the beginning of
the incident and then not move him through it. You know,
forget. The PC will sit there for a while, finally look at
you kind of hostilely and say, "Well, when are you going to
move me through the rest of the incident, you knuckle
head?" See, any auditor is liable to do this, because he's
all busy with his computation of where the beginning of the
incident is and how many - time it was and so forth. And the
PC's been taking quite a while, let us say, to get to the
beginning of the incident. And so he moves him to the
beginning of the incident and then all of a sudden wakes up
to realize at last that he hasn't moved him through the
incident.

This can happen - not to you just once or twice because
you're new at it; this will probably continue to happen to
you, embarrassedly, now and then, from here on out. Because
you've got an incident that's a trillion years long, or
something stupid like this. And the PC's at the end of the
thing and has had an awful time trying to find the
beginning of it anyhow. And you say, "Move to the beginning
of the incident at approximately wumpty-wump-bump trillion
years ago." And you decide, "Well, while he's moving to the
beginning of the incident I'll just catch up on my note of
what he's just told me, because I didn't want to slow him
down," you see? And you're busy writing anal writing. You
get interested in what you're writing, you know?

Well, actually, the PC wouldn't be upset with you if he didn't 
notice that your attention was on something else rather than 
following through the auditing command. PC usually forgives 
this; doesn't cause any ARC break. But ordinarily, you - PC 
says, "Well, I'm there. So what?" And you say, "Oh! Uh-ho-hah-ho. 
Oh." The exact auditing command that follows that, of course, 
is "Move through the incident to a point (duration time) later."
That's the exact command that should be given him at that
moment. And he'll go ahead and happily carry this out.

Well, this is a point where, if you're on the ball, you
say, "Move to the beginning of the incident" - and if you
keep your eye on your meter it'll flick sooner or later. You
don't have to ask him "Are you there?" That's terribly bad
form. You want to ask him "What are you looking at?"

"Well, so-and-so and so-and-so." And I wouldn't spend much
time asking him what he was looking at either. As soon as I
had any inkling that he was at the beginning of the
incident I'd move him on through, because you can't make
any real mistakes there anyway.

Point I'm making here is the PC doesn't have to tell you
he's at the beginning of the incident; he simply executes
the auditing command. Causes a little bit of embarrassment
sometimes, when you don't realize that he's executed the
auditing command. But it is a communication cycle. It has
taken place. The auditor said something, the PC's done it.
That's all you expect.

That's it.

All right. Now, the PC says something. It's a communication
cycle. He's not auditing you. It must be, therefore, a
communication cycle. He originates, see? And he originates
something to you, and you receive it and understand it:
that is a communication cycle. Communication cycle
complete, right there. Now, to make it an originated cycle,
you should signify to him in some tiny fashion that you
have received it and understood it.

Now, if you try to phony this up and he says, "Lugulala
blou-uboog," and you say, "Hm-mm, hm-mm, hm-mm" and you
don't know what the hell he's talking about, there is some
mystic influence sets in at this point which you will see
go on the meter. He knows damn well you didn't understand
that - half the time because he didn't.

Now, the auditor who specializes in this phrase should be
stonewalled: "I just don't understand what you said," see?
"I didn't understand you." "I don't understand what you are
saying." "Don't understand." In the first place, that's
lousy - a lousy approach - from the basis that it uses a very,
very powerful word. Understand is the crossroads of A, R
and C. And you say "don't understand," you're just asking
at once for a complete ARC break. But more importantly, you
have said to the PC to communicate the same thing again.

If you'll notice, he said, "I have a pain in my back."

And you say, "I just don't understand what you said."

And the PC will only say, "I have a pain in my back."

And you say, "I don't understand that."

And he will say, "I have a pain in my back!" See, we're all
of a sudden seeing the buildup of the ARC break, see?

And you say, "I just don't understand that."

"I Have a Pain in my Back!!" [loud.]

You can build this up. But do you notice that the PC is
saying the same words over and over and over? It's a
peculiarity of Homo sap. If you indicate that you don't
understand what he's talking about, he says the same thing 
again. He says the exact same thing again. He never varies 
it. What you want him to do is vary the explanation. What 
you're asking him to do is to help you get this, if he's 
got to say something more. What you want to indicate to him 
is he should tell you a little more broadly what he is 
tallying about so that you can get a very good grasp of it. 
And if you are very clever - and there's no substitute for 
cleverness; you can't give anybody a pat phrase with it 
because they vary all the time - if you're very clever, he 
will explain it to you in a half a dozen different ways. And 
then he understands it and so do you.

But it's mainly you that's got to understand it.

Now here, basically and elementarily, we get the basis of
an ARC break. I don't care what kind of charge is bypassed,
the thing is a bunged-up communication cycle, whatever else
it is, see? It's affinity, reality, communication - these
things are all out. It's a bunged-up communication cycle,
but what in it is bunged up? Detected and understood - those
are what's bunged up in it.

How can you have a communication cycle where the
communication is not fully detected and is not understood?
How can you have one? It isn't a communication cycle,
became the communication cycle is cause, distance, effect,
with duplication occurring at the effect point of the cause
point. That's a very pure, accurate definition. Not over
all the years has there been any shift of that.

But look at this. Are you going to call this a
communication cycle: cause, distance, alter-ised effect, no
comprehension? You said, "Good morning," and she thought
you insulted her. How did that come about? Well, it just
came about by the nonexistence of a communication cycle. It
was imperfectly detected and it was not understood.

Now, of course, it's not understood because it's
imperfectly detected. I mean, how much more elementary can
we get? Somebody rolls a lollipop in your direction, how
can you detect what it is if you don't receive it? Oh yes,
it can arrive within four feet of you, and you can look out
there and see a lollipop. See? Then you could detect it
without receiving it, which is another thing. This would
also be an ARC-breaky situation. It's detected, but you
didn't receive it.

Usually you'll find TR 4 breaks down at this point. It's
detected, but not received. PC says, "I don't - I ... I ... 
I don't think you have to keep ... keep the session going 
much longer; I feel fine."

You say, "Well, we're going - we're going to keep it going 
as long as is necessary to fill in this particular period."
You detected he said something, but you didn't receive it.
You've said you didn't receive it because you didn't do
anything about it. You said it should be something else
before it arrived at you, and you have therefore busted
down the communication line between the PC and yourself.

Now, that was a very pleasant origin, wasn't it? Do you
know that you could so work on that origin that you would
have that PC - I don't care what PC, or how calm this PC
normally is or how splendid and pleasant this PC is - 
you could get that PC into an absolute screaming fit, just
on that, by just continuing that. Just continue it and
continue it, and if you ever want to see an ARC break, man,
just rig one of these things so that you don't receive what
the PC says. And that can be done to any PC.

Some PCs are really a bit below spitting in your face, but
you can just see them go blyaaahhh.

And they just sort of pass out right where they sit. But it
produces a fantastic effect. A fantastic effect.

Now, an auditor must realize that that is a primary effect,
and that is a primary cause of ARC break. That is not one
of the causes of ARC break. That is your textbook, perfect
example.

From the PC's point of view, there is cause, and there's
distance; the distance is not covered, or the communication
cycle does not complete. And that's it. That's it.

I don't care what PC you've got, you can reduce a PC to a
screaming fit, no matter what this PC has said. You can just 
get the PC gibbeting. A PC will just be shaking and exhausted 
in a very short space of time. And that's an ARC break. Well, 
why is it an ARC break? That's because both A, R and C are out. 
The combination of A, R and C equals understanding, and the
understanding is out.

The intention is cause, distance, effect, and the progress
of that cycle is prevented so that the communication is
actually not fully detected. See? Not fully detected. This
is a very, very interesting point in ARC breaks. That forms
a woof and a warp of all ARC breaks. Not fully detected - 
partially detected but not fully detected. Nobody's going to 
ARC break going out here and yelling at a rock. You could go 
out here and yell at a rock all morning. You can say, "Oh rock, 
I hate thee," or, "Oh rock, whither dost thou comest?" - 
anything you want to say - and you will go out and yell at 
the rock and talk at the rock and speak at the rock and so 
forth, but your expectancy of what's going to happen at the 
rock never does get quite up to expecting the rock to give 
you a TR 2.

So therefore, your estimate of the detection is not at
fault. The rock isn't going to detect the communication to
it, so you then don't expect anything to happen in the
communication cycle, so therefore you do not ARC break. See?

Ah, but the PC is under a very, very definite detection cycle. 
The PC expects the auditor to detect the communication from 
the PC and understand it. And when that is thrown sideways -
because understanding has entered into it, because detection 
has entered into it, because only partial detection or no 
detection has entered into it, in spite of the expectancy of 
its being detected - you can reduce a PC to an absolute 
shaking mess of jelly.

I'm not kidding you now. I see from your silence that
you're either accepting this as too grim to confront, or
you think I may be exaggerating it. This is not so. This is
not so.

You can take the most common statement, such as "I feel
pretty good now," refuse to detect what the PC is saying,
don't duplicate it (don't understand it, in other words),
and keep giving the PC evidence that you haven't understood
it, and have that PC - I don't care how calm, cool and
collected that PC has always suspected himself - in utter
amazement at having been a shuddering mess of jelly,
because he eventually will start screaming. "But I was just
trying to tell you I feel perfectly good now," see? And it
goes up, up, up, up, up, scream, scream, scream, and he'll
then break down scale. You can see him go down the scale.
"I was just trying to tell you ... !" And he'll be crying, 
you know?

He gets on the same line - the stuck flow of his communication 
on the thing, and he can't get it through, he tries everything 
under God's green earth to get it through, and eventually he 
starts giving up and you can see his whole emotional Tone Scale 
follow this, then.

Well, that is a basic ARC break That's fundamental. Now, you 
expect me to tell you there are many other kinds of ARC breaks, 
but there are no other kinds of ARC breaks. These mechanisms
are all based on the communication cycle.

I don't care what the devil happens with the rest of the
bank, the whole definition of bypassed charge is "partially
detected." Now, it wouldn't become bypassed charge unless
it were at least slightly detected. You understand?
Somebody had to drag a magnet within a few feet of it. It
had to be stirred up one way or the other for the thing.
But that is a communication line which begins.

Going to restimulate an engram in the session. Let's take
this as a bypassed-charge source, see? The auditor does
this, knuckle-headedly.

You want to be careful in R3R, in selecting incidents,
using things like "the first incident," "the earliest
incident." Cut your throat, man! What are you talking
about? You want "an earlier" incident, "the next" incident,
not "first" and "earliest."

Why? What are you trying to do? Life's so dull you have to
have an ARC break? Well, how are you going to get this ARC
break? The PC can't give you the earliest incident on the
chain but could give you the earlier incident than the one
you just had. But you ask him for the earliest incident and
you will kick in some earlier incident which he then
doesn't reach. So, he now partially detects. And you have
partially detected. Both of you, now, are guilty of partial
detection of a started communication. And somewhere down
deep it follows the same cycle as a communication cycle,
right there - bang-bang-bang. It'll go all to flinders, just
like that - bang-bang-bang. The more you scrape it up and
the less you detect it, the more ARC break you're going to
have. And that's all there is to it.

If you considered the time track a series of mines - nah, I
shouldn't do this; some of you girls are timid enough when
it comes to approaching some of these things. But let me
give you this anyway. Supposing we consider it a bunch of
mines which were activated magnetically. All you had to do
was drag a magnet somewhere near them and they'd explode,
see? And you want mine number four, and you're all set to
sit on it and pull its teeth and not let it explode, see?
So you throw a magnet down to mine number eight and then
start to prevent mine number four from exploding - and you
wonder what that shattering roar is! Well, you see, you
just miscalculated on what one you were going to explode.

Now, a time track isn't quite that dramatic, but it gives
you an example, see? You want mine number four, so you
activate mine number eight. Now, what in actual fact is
that? Well, it's a bum origin as far as the auditor is
concerned, but actually, the communication cycle is reverse
end to. Somebody has told mine number eight to speak,
accidentally. And mine number eight speaks, and nobody
detects it, quite. See, it's partially detected. But it is
activated and being partially detected now, will follow
that same incomplete communication cycle.

Nobody understands it, see? It isn't that that has life in
it which is capable of doing that at all.

It's just that a communication cycle, once begun, must go
through. And if there is any type of thing that you want ...

A big truism - a big truism: A communication cycle once begun
must go through. If that communication cycle isn't
permitted to go through, there will be upset somewhere,
sometime, someplace.

In fact, most of the difficulties of mankind, if you wanted
to lay them out, are simply begun communication cycles
which are not then detected. You know, they're only
partially detected, let us say. There it is, see?

Let me give you an idea. The president of the United States
says, "I want all of you bums and all of the indigent and
the poor and the pauperized characters - I want all of you 
to write me a letter and tell me exactly what I can do to 
help you personally, individually and personally." Gluck! 
Nobody would see in this the eventual revolution. Do you 
see what's going to happen? The guy's got no technology 
for handling the communication cycle at all. To say something 
like that would be weird. And yet the politician in a 
democratic country has always got this as his stock in trade. 
He's a glad-hander tell-me-Joe, you know - this kind of thing.
Eventually it starts exploding in his face. We are very
adventurous in that I go ahead and do something like that.

Remember, there's a slight difference here. Slight
difference here: You know how to catch the ball. We can
catch the ball, we know the mechanics of this sort of
thing, and generally the communication cycle doesn't have
that as a source. I mean, it isn't that communication cycle
that's at fault. It will have been somebody audited
somebody, and they got into an ARC break and they bypassed
some charge, and then the person wouldn't admit that they
had bypassed some charge, you see, on the PC, and then the
PC gets more and more disturbed. And eventually they go to
see somebody in the area, and eventually the HCO Sec. And
then the HCO Sec tries to handle it one way or the other,
but it misses there one way or the other. And it slides
sideways and slips around and so forth, and I'll eventually
hear about it.

And once in a while I drop a ball on these, and I only know
of one case extant right now where the ball has been
dropped forever, as far as I'm concerned, because he got
into the hands of a psychiatrist. Incomplete communication
cycle was the immediate and direct cause of that particular
action. He already, let us say - we know this - had a
tremendous number of overts on the organization and
everything was gone to hell, and he'd been in a mess for a
long time, see? But a communication cycle - I didn't pay
attention to it just as a communication cycle, just
directly didn't. And the character sprung sideways, and
there wasn't any way you could pick up the ball after that
because there was a psychiatrist standing there. Haven't
done anything to the guy - apparently some psychiatrist that
doesn't use icepicks in the morning, only the afternoon. I
only know one that's extant like that.

Well, that's a pretty good tribute to us, and it doesn't
say, then, that the situation isn't dangerous merely
because it's being handled. But look at this: It is a
situation which is pretty doggone violent if it is not 
handled.

And if you're unaware of this ... You realize that
gunners and that sort of thing are always chucking around
live ammunition, and they're not spooked about it at all.
And you'll see people that work in oil-well districts
blowing out oil wells and so forth. They're always walking
around with a pint flask of nitroglycerin in their hip
pocket. They just couldn't care less, don't you see? Well,
why? Those guys don't die and get splattered all over the
place all the time. They're handling very dangerous
materials. They're just familiar with their material.

They know what that material is, see?

Well, how would you like to be handling, on a totally
unknowing basis, the way everybody else does in the
community, see?

Have you heard any conversations amongst meat bodies
lately? Have you? Have you? I'll give you an assignment
some time: Go around to a tea break in a construction works
and listen to them. That isn't so bad as a cocktail party.
A cocktail party is armored, on this basis: They don't
expect anybody to hear them, so it's never partially
detected charge.

But this becomes pretty idiotic, pretty idiotic. You just
stand there and watch the number of dropped communication
cycles. And you don't wonder at all after a while why these
people tear each other's throats out all the time. They're
always partially detecting that somebody has spoke. And of
course they get a blowup.

You see that you can handle the dynamite of the reactive
mind ... This stuff, you know, this stuff is not very
dangerous. I don't mean to minimize it, so on. Frankly not
very dangerous. It requires understanding. It never has
been very dangerous.

But look how desperate it has made practitioners of the
past. Look how desperate it has made people. Look how
desperate a problem it is and look how frightened people
can get if the United States - whatever you call it - is
appropriating sixteen billion bucks to let psychiatry
figure out how to give quicker and faster prefrontal
lobotomies to more people.

Oh, I tell you, man, they must be worried! That worry must
be proportional - at least one third as much worry invested
in that as they have invested in the Russian situation,
because that's about the proportionate amounts of
appropriation. I think that's fascinating. You mean,
they're so worried about this problem, they're so worried
about the mind, that they invest treasure to this extent?
They must be frantic to put it in the hands of the people
they put it in too.

I don't exaggerate. If you'd talk to most psychiatrists
yourself, or if you were head of a committee or something
like that and you called in two or three psychiatrists or
something like that to get testimony from them as to how to
handle the community mental health - if you were just an
average citizen - you'd probably wind up with your eyes like
saucers. Police listening to these fellows testify in
courts, and that sort of thing, have become confirmed in
the fact the psychiatrists are always crazier than the
patients.

Well, look how desperate the situation must be if it's put
into the hands of people who put up forward a mock-up of
franticness to that degree, see? Let's just look up these
coordinative factors, see?

Well, a psychiatrist, of course, is himself frantic. And if
we didn't give him a hand to straighten out, he'll just
never make it. And I don't think we'll ever help him.

Any way, the point I'm making here is this factor of the
ARC break. This factor of the explosive character of
interpersonal relationship, this factor of explosive nature
of social or any other type of personal contact, is looked
upon in quite another way by other people than yourselves.
See, it's looked upon as just "Huuhhrh! Well, everybody is
dangerous," and "Everything is dangerous," and "Oh, my
God," and it's all on an emergency basis, and "Huuuhh!" and
figure-figure-figure, you know? It's fantastic.

Very few of you would say, "Well, you can't talk to him
about that." Just show you that you've arrived someplace
else, you see, than in that state of mind. Very few of you
would be convinced you couldn't talk to anybody about
anything. After you talk to them for a while you know you
can handle the situation to some degree or another and so on.

Well, that's not the general state of mind with regard to
this sort of thing in the society. "Talk to somebody about
something? Huuuhhh!" See? "Impossible! Hu-ooohh!
Dangerous!" Well, what are these characters reacting to?
They're reacting to a communication cycle. So the
communication cycle is itself the most deadly thing, if
mishandled, that interpersonal relationships has, and the
most valuable if it can be handled. The reason you can't
fish the ants out and straighten them up is because you
can't talk to them.

Desperation enters in only when communication goes out.
Just remember that. You only get desperate - you can look
back on sessions you've given: the only times you've been
worried and desperate and that sort of thing is when you
actually had the communication cycle go out, one way or the
other. You want to say to this PC, "What the hell is the
matter with you?" See? "What's the matter with you? I mean,
I'm asking you a perfectly simple question here, you know?
And you poor sod! If you can't answer that question, get
some tone arm action, you've just about had it, man!" You
know? You know this, sitting there, you see, and you sit 
there and you get tied up in the situation.

After a while you find yourself kind of peeved with the PC.
PC isn't responding correctly.

Then you get all right when you do get the PC at some level
that the PC is responding all right with communication; you
find out that, much to your red face, that you had eight
wrong dates on the case and that's why the TA action wasn't
moving - something like this. You get these things
straightened out, you notice the situation evaporates.

In other words, your response to the PC ebbs and flows to
the degree that you can put a communication between
yourself and the aberration that's bothering him and
straighten it out and see the evidence of its discharge.
Don't ever think you worry about a case for any other
reason. You don't. It's that basic thing. You're having an
effect on the case, the case is responding and the case is
coming along, and that is what you expect to have happen,
and therefore that's happening and all is well. And when
that ceases to happen, when your breakdown comes in, and
you can't seem to reach this PC with an auditing command,
you can't seem to reach this bank with a communication of
any kind whatsoever, you can't seem to untangle this knot
by speaking at it or into it, you start getting worried and
you start getting upset. And that's when you as an auditor
become upset, and that's when you as an auditor become
worried about your PC. And it's off ...

There's no reason for me to give you some pat answer,
because there isn't a broad, pat answer to it, because
cases have these various bugs and complications of which
you're aware and which you get around eventually. But you
look it over and try to find out what communication you're
not getting home to the PC, and you as an auditor will feel
better.

Now, if the PC is feeling like the devil, PC's feeling
miserable about an auditing session or auditor, or
something like that, you can just be sure that a - not his
communication cycle; now, don't get this one awry. His - as
an auditor, it's always your communication cycle that is
awry, from your analysis of the thing. You want to improve
something, you improve your communication cycle. But from a
PC's point of view - a PC is very much the effect of very
heavy and strong processes - and from the PC's point of view,
a communication cycle is awry, but it can be awry in
various ways.

It's awry. The communication cycle is awry. A communication
has started, it hasn't been fully detected and it certainly
hasn't been understood. And where a PC is going awry as a
PC - you want happy PCs, you just listen to these little
words and don't bother about anything else, and you just
start figuring out exactly how you apply these to any case
that you're auditing that you want to make a happier case
one way or the other, and it'll work. And that is, some
communication cycle has begun, it hasn't been detected - 
fully detected, you see; has to be slightly detected or it 
wouldn't be active - and it hasn't been understood. Now, 
if you put that in a nutshell as to the basis of low ARC 
or ARC breaks in PCs that you are auditing, you actually 
never need another line of anything. You need the mechanics 
of how to detect these things, you need a list of how many 
things these can be and so forth, but I give you that as a 
basic principle.

And you go at that as a basic principle, and you figure out
the PC you're auditing has that as a basic principle, even
when the PC doesn't have an ARC break. You know, there's no
reason to figure this out. Now, get this: there's no reason
to figure this out at all. Go ahead and figure it out and
you all of a sudden will understand something about your PC
that you haven't understood before. You're going to find a
communication cycle out. I mean, it doesn't matter what PC,
you see, where. You're always going to find a communication
cycle out. What's the evidence? He's not OT.

For instance, he's always missing the telepathic communication 
cycle; see, he's always missing that one - that's always out.

Didn't go out in a session I was in last night. The auditor
and PC practically blew each others brains out by having
exactly the same communication cycle on a telepathic wave
hit midway and almost blow up in the middle of the session.
It was an incomplete communication cycle had taken place in
the session. Both auditor and PC thought of it simultaneously 
and almost went around the bend trying to figure out which 
one had thought of it first so as to unbalance - so as to 
unbalance this sudden ridge that had appeared in the middle 
of the auditing session. Quite an amusing situation.

Missed a goal, back in the session; you know, one of these
skitter-scatter sorts of reviews of putting things back
together again, re-dating and that sort of thing, and just
up and missed a goal. Didn't realize any goal had been
missed until the end of session, then all of a sudden
thought of it. Either the auditor thought of it first or
the PC thought of it first. The immediate result was a
telepath on the subject, and it ... ! It was pretty
weird. You watch some of this stuff you haven't seen for a
long time, you know, you get tremendously intrigued. You
say, "Huh! This stuff can exist," you know?

Anyway, we had quite a ball on that. But that's just a
communication cycle of some kind or another which is
completing. There are all kinds of communication cycles.
Now, what do you think of a PC who isn't receiving the
auditing command? And what do you think of the auditor that
goes ahead and gives auditing commands the PC is only
partially detecting? Hm? Now, does this explain why you can
run a touch process on an unconscious person, particularly
if you're monitoring their hands? You say, "Touch the
sheet. Touch the pillow." You say, "Touch the pillow," and
then you have them touch the pillow, and now they know
they've received the communication. You understand? You see
that as a surety? So it even works at the level of
unconsciousness. It's quite interesting.

What do you think an auditor is going to walk into who
keeps saying, "Squizzle-wig the ruddy rods. Thank you.
Squizzle-wig the ruddy rods. Thank you."

And the PC keeps saying, "Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes." What do you
think the assessment at the end of session is going to look
like? There's going to be a communication cycle missing. It
happens to be the auditor's originated communication which
is only partially detected by the PC and never understood.
Now, what do you think's going to happen in that session?
It's going to blow in some weird direction and there isn't
going to be progress, and things are going to go to hell in
a balloon one way or the other, and it's all going to be
very hard to detect. You see that? All right. Now, let's
look at another communication cycle. The PC is - I'm not
trying to tell you all ARC breaks are based on the
communication cycle. You understand, the communication
cycle is primary but goes awry at the point of detection
and understanding.

Understanding throws it into A and R. You understand? There
are the affinity factors and the reality factors are what
tend to make it not understood. This is why it's ARC. But
still you can analyze it head-on on the basis of
communication, you see, and it'll fall into that category.
It's the reasons why the communication cycle didn't
complete and was only partially detected when it should
have been really detected, see?

Well, let's say the auditor has never cleared the auditing
command with the PC. The PC has gone on answering this
endlessly. Well, of course, you're going to get into
trouble. What's the primary source of trouble? The fact
that a communication cycle existed and the communication
cycle was only partially detected, only the communication
cycle didn't cycle. It didn't get all the way through. It
was partially detected and it was not understood. So of
course you're going to get into trouble.

All right. Let's take another look at the situation. We try
to get engram four and we trigger engram eight. Well, we've
started a communication cycle, don't you see, of engram
eight without knowing we started engram eight, and we
suddenly hear an explosion someplace and we can't quite
detect where it came from. We look it over, and we find out
the communication cycle was that we accidentally got the
response of engram eight, but then we abandoned that
somehow or another and we got four. So actually the
communication cycle was not completed.

Was directed to eight, was not received at eight, don't you
see? It was received at four instead, so therefore you've
got a partial detection, and the PC didn't find it out,
really, and the auditor didn't find it out, so there it
remains as a sleeper, don't you see?

There was something that didn't go through. That's all
you've got to figure on the thing, if you left all of your
lists home. Something didn't go through. Well, it's only a
question of how many things won't go through.

Well, the basic things that won't go through are affinity,
reality and communication. And the basic things that those
three things face are time. Time - matter, energy, space and
time. It's ARC versus time. Don't you see that the
livingness of the individual consists of ARC and he faces
the material universe which consists of M-E-S-T. So you
have the factors of M-E-S-T and you have the factors of
ARC. And these confront each other. But this basically
takes up the communication cycle. The individual
communicating with time, or time communicating with the
individual, goes awry. And as a result you get an
incomplete and a partially detected communication cycle.

All of these things end up in what you call an ARC break.
This ARC break results in all sorts of violent emotions
which actually could not be exaggerated in their violence.
Its just an ARC break amongst nations that causes wars. And
yet here's millions of people strewn out across the
battlefields causing all kinds of work up here at the
between-lives area. (Poor fellows - I bet they even have to
work overtime. Let's hope they don't belong to the union or
anything like that. The boys must have an awful time.)
Well, that's an immediate, direct result of ARC break.
Communication breakdown of some kind or another, with the
affinity and reality attendant thereunto.

So don't think that because these factors are very simple
and very easy to handle and very easy to detect that the
results of not detecting them are not severe, and that the
severe results that you see in life, interpersonally and in
auditing sessions too, as well, are not catastrophic, or
think that these results do not stem from this very simple
little factor. Because it always does. An incomplete
communication cycle results in bypassed charge - always.

The common denominator of an ARC break is bypassed charge.
There's charge someplace.

But what do we mean by charge? We mean - well, of course,
ergs, dynes and all the rest of it.

But we apply it to the communication cycle and we mean that
a communication or a charge has been excited and was
channeled to go in a certain direction, and then was not
detected and not understood, and that charge then explodes
in a dispersal of some sort or another. It goes blooey.
Don't you see? This is elementary. Bypassed charge is
something that originates as the beginning of a communication 
cycle, and then not having been wholly detected or understood, 
remains then as bypassed charge. And it's very often not 
detected by the auditor or the PC.

And you have a session sort of running at a low gear.

Now, don't think these things are just explosive either. PC
just isn't feeling so well lately, so forth. Well, you've
got some sleeping bypassed charge of some kind or another
you didn't pick up, that's all. Bypassed charge, we mean we
bypassed getting the completion of the communication cycle,
or we carelessly started a communication cycle which didn't
get completed. That's all.

Accidentally did so. It's very easy to do. We say, "Give me
the earliest engram on this chain." Little while later, PC
has an ARC break. We say, "Let's see, did I miss an origin,
or what did I do? What happened?" Then you hit, finally,
"an earlier incident was restimulated." This usually
settles it away one way or the other, particularly if the
PC spots what was restimulated. Bang! There goes your ARC
break.

It's attended with great magic. But the magical look at it
is the fact that we have the anatomy of this tremendously
explosive stuff - the explosive stuff of interpersonal
relations. We know the magic of that. We know how many
different ways a communication can be begun and not be
detected and therefore become bypassed charge. It's a lot
of ways in which this thing can be done.

Well, knowing those things, you should be able to handle a
session better. You should be able to handle a session
better. PC says, "Oh, I ... I don't think we ought to go
on too long." And you say, "Very good." Just as your words
fly out the window, at least have the grace to realize that
you are adding something into the communication cycle, if
this then bears bad fruit.

Just realize how come it came about. It's a partially
detected communication, wasn't understood, far as the PC is
concerned. You say, well, obviously that leaves you in a
position of always doing what the PC says. No, it doesn't.

"Well, good. I'm glad that's the way you feel. All right.
All right. Yeah, okay. Okay. Don't want to carry on too
long. All right. All right. Well, good thing that I'm
perfectly fresh, and I hope you are the same, because I
intended to go for another two hours." We find that one
cycle isn't the other cycle, don't you see? You've
originated a new series of communications on the subject;
you haven t slapped the old one in the head. You only get
into trouble by slapping the old one in the head, don't you
see?

PC said, "I think you ought to go all over the track and
restimulate all these engrams, because actually the best
thing to do is to get to basic-basic, which is tomorrow."
And you say, "All right."

You take a look at this, you understand what he said. You
may not understand why he said it, but you sure understand
what he said. And you say, "All right. Good enough," and go
on and do what you're doing. He still isn't too upset about 
the situation. See, he only gets upset if you slap him in 
the face.

Therefore, you've got to be an expert in the detection of a
communication that has begun. The better you are at
detecting a begun communication - the better you are at
this - the less ARC breaks you'll have. But actually you
needn't worry about ARC breaks, because you can handle
these things before they get catastrophic.

Now, that's an ARC break. That's handling the ARC break.
These are the basic fundamentals stripped right down to
rock bottom. Your ARC Break Assessment form is simply the
number of types of communications which can be started and
only partially detected by the auditor and the PC.

Now, some of you are prone to this (now, this can be done;
so you are led astray by some wins): You can say, "Well, an
earlier incident was restimulated in the session. That's
what's wrong. That's what the ARC break was about," and the
PC suddenly feels better. And if you go on that way, and
you get wins, and you say, "Boy, this is the cat's ...
There's nothing to this. This is absolute magic," right up
to the point when you get the ARC break that you didn't
assess the right line for or you assessed the wrong list
for or the PC didn't quite know where to go to in order to
look at and is still fubble-fubbled. You didn't find it,
even though it read on an assessment.

So therefore, there are several actions undertaken in the
detection of one of these things, and one is to assess it
on the form where the ARC break reason lies. That sounds 
idiotic for me to say something like that, but if the ARC 
break is in the session and you do an R3R ARC break form, 
you're not going to find the ARC break, are you? And so forth.

So the right form, the right list - the right list comes as
primary in this. And if you don't find it on the right
list, why, you better get another list. In other words, if
you don't find it, get another list. Your commonest error
on these things is not now that the lists are not complete,
but that the lists are in several pieces to save you time,
so your commonest error is wrong list.

You actually didn't find the ARC break. You didn't find the
communication cycle that began and so left bypassed charge.

Now, the main mistake you're making or could make in this,
if you do make any mistake on it, is not making sure that
it's all straightened out with the PC. That's the biggest
common error.

You say, "Well, that was an earlier incident restimulated.
That's all right. Okay," and go on with the session. The
PC's sitting there frying. It wasn't an earlier incident.
Or he didn't know what incident it was, and he's totally
baffled. The ARC break charge has not been spotted and laid
to rest, see? It says right there in the bulletin on this
that you better take it up with the PC and find out if
that's right.

Well, you can go to the point of dating all of the things
which you dated wrongly and finding and locating and dating
all of the bypassed incidents. In fact, it could become a
total production which will go on for sessions, trying to
clean up one ARC break. You understand? A good stunt in
this regard is to find the order of magnitude of the
bypassed charge. That doesn't let you in for more trouble.

"An earlier incident was restimulated." Yeah, but what?
What? Who? What? Where? What's? Which? Which? What's?
Which? It's all you can find, is an earlier incident was
restimulated.

You don't know what earlier incident was restimulated, you
don't know what the hell, and all of a sudden the PC says,
"Oh, yes. And, yes, it must have been," and so on. And, "I
wonder when that was. Can you date that? Yeah, there it
is," and so on. "Can you date it?" Good trick is just give
it order of magnitude: "Is it hundreds of years ago,
thousands of years ago, millions of years ago, billions of
years ago, trillions of years ago, trillions of trillions
of year - ? It's trillions of trillions of years ago."

"No kidding? All right, that's fine." That's the end of it,
see? That's a way of parking one without getting yourself
all solidified in a dating. You know that the PC's
attention is still stuck on this thing, and he's still
trying to sort out what incident it was, and that sort of
thing. Well, one of the ways to get rid of it is find its
order of magnitude - not go ahead and date it and find its
duration and run it by R3R when you, in the first place,
were doing 3N. You understand? You can go that far.

But locating - locating it on the list - is where the semantic
error turns up here. You don't locate it on the list. The
list only locates the type - the type of charge bypassed. In
other words, the type of communication cycle that began and
was never completed, never detected, see? That's all. That
just locates its type.

Now it's up to you to take the additional steps of locate
and indicate to the PC the charge. In other words, doing
the assessment is really not locating the charge. The
charge is not on the list, it's in the PC. You get this?
I'm not saying that just to be clever. The truth of the
matter is, it's only the type; the list will only give you
the type of charge. And you haven't accomplished the step
of location. You've only found the type, see? People are
saying "All right. Well, you locate and indicate. That
means you do an assessment. Bang - that is located now, and
we indicate it to the PC." Well, the funny part of it is,
this is so good that even that works. See, there's where
you get tripped up. You can short-circuit it to that degree 
and still make it work.

Well, recognize what you're doing. That's terribly
short-circuited. You've only found the type of charge. You
haven't done the location step at all. So in some ARC
breaks you are totally baffled as to why the ARC break
doesn't evaporate. You're totally baffled. You say, "Why
doesn't it go away?"

Well, the primary reason is you haven't done it on the
right list. That, oddly enough, is the most flagrant one.
But you've never done the location step at all. The
assessment is not the location. See? And an earlier
incident was restimulated. You say, "All right, an earlier
incident was restimulated." Well, the magic of it is so
great that occasionally this works, and it gives you
a - gives you a bit of a win, so you say, "Well, this ARC
Break Assessment stuff - pretty good. Ha-ha! That's it. Yeah,
fine." And it'll work like that, and it'll always work if
you've got the right list. And you've produced this minimal
effect on the PC and PC isn't all coming apart now at the
edges.

See, because that works, this whole system tends to get
very short-circuited. You see, the assessment is not the
location. That isn't the way you locate the charge. That is
the way you find the type of charge that you now want to
locate. You go down this - pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-
pocketa-pocketa - and sometimes when you go over it you
retrigger it, and your dirty needle turns off, and your
next time down, why, it reads purely. See? You've had a
dirty needle on the first assessment. Expect that as
normal. Next time you go through and flick those off that
were still in - bang - one is standing out there clean. Now you
can say, well, it says so-and-so and so-and-so. "That's an
earlier incident was restimulated. Earlier incident
restimulated - that's what it says here. How do you feel
about that?"

The PC says, "I feel lots better. Yeah, it's fine."

Well, let's not plow up the field after it's plowed, man.
See, this is just handling ARC breaks as they occur in
session. You know? No reason to go into this, stir it all
up again, find some more bypassed charge, bypass ... No,
you had it handled - let sleeping dogs lie. Your assessment,
location and indication all occurred in the same breath,
see? Then you verified to find out whether or not it was
okay, and obviously it all occurred in the same breath, so
why are you going to go into any trouble from here on?
Everybody's satisfied, why are you going to any trouble?
You're just going to stir up more trouble.

But remember, you have done a very short-circuited,
shorthand version of an ARC break rundown. That is very
short-circuited. If you got the right charge, it can
happen. But, "Earlier incident restimulated. Yeah, that's 
what it says here. An earlier incident was restimulated 
in this session."

PC says, "Ah, well. Okay now, that's good," and starts
getting interested in something else, see? Ah-ah-ah, that's
all right. Nobody's going to quarrel with him doing that.

But you say, "Well now, how do you feel about this?"

"Ah, maybe so, but ... uh ... Yeah, it was that earlier
incident that was restimulated. Aorrwr-rahr! That earlier 
incident was restimulated!"

You haven't found the charge, man. And the first thing you
should suspect is not your assessment but that you had the
wrong list. Reach for another list. Do you know that you
can do 3N and inadvertently do some 3R - and be accidentally
into 3R making ARC breaks of 3R? You can sometimes do R3R
and get inadvertently into 3N, and your ARC break lies in
3N. Do you realize that? And if you have an ARC break on
R3R and 3N, it is never the session ARC break list. But
sometimes after you've cleared them up you then have to get
the session ARC break that resulted from having had those
out. You get the stunt here?

But remember that there is an assessment, a location and an
indication, and it has to be all right with the PC. So
there are four steps, always four. You could say five:
Finding out that the PC has an ARC break would normally be
the first one. But that is the score on your ARC Break
Assessments. And recognize - recognize those steps, in
handling the existing ARC break, actually exist to that
number, and that the assessment is not the location. The
assessment is just finding out the type of charge. You
might have to go quite a bit further to find the location.

You say, "Wrong date." You've done nothing the whole
session but date, you see? The ARC break's caused by a
wrong date. Well, it reads well and it is a wrong date, and
that is the ARC break, but the PC says, "What date is wrong?"

Well, you think that you now have to redate everything in
the session, and so forth. Well, just call off a few of the
dates you found and ask if they're right, that's all. Bang,
bang, bang, bang, bang, bang - do they read as wrong dates?
That's one way of doing it. Another way of doing it is
"first half of the session, last half of the session."
There's a dozen ways of doing it.

I'm not going to try to teach you that trick. But you can
go ahead and locate it right on down.

Well, what as the right date for that thing? One of the
ways of doing it is simply get order of magnitude. That
makes the PC very happy. That causes it all to go back into
place very smoothly.

You ran the goal "to spit." You thought it was in the
Helatrobus implants; you have a wrong date on the thing all
the way along the line. And you find the goal "to spit" had
the order of magnitude of trillions of trillions of years
ago. It's good enough. Not to go on to run the goal "to
spit," you understand, but to find out that you'd found the
goal "to spit" and you want to get it out of your road so
you can keep on with the goal "to spat," see? Well, you
find the order of magnitude for the goal "to spit" and
it'll move out of your road.

These are all just shorthand methods of handling the thing.
But you are dealing with an assessment for type. You are
dealing with a location. You are dealing, then, with
indicating what that was, and then you are dealing with
another factor here, is was it all right with the PC, does
he feel okay now? And that's what you were doing it for in
the first place, so you're a ruddy fool not to find it out
in the last place. Okay?

All right. Well, because you can get away with it on the
basis of do an assessment - bang - you say, "That was it," 
and suddenly your location and indication take place just 
like that, see? You don't, then, break them down and realize
that there are that additional steps.

If you wanted to know a complete list of all types of ARC
breaks in this whole universe, you would have to find all
types of communication that could be partially detected
when originated and all the things, then, thereafter that 
could be misunderstood. And you would have a full list of 
all ARC breaks. Because we're dealing with the mind, we know 
the ones that are important, and we know what really causes 
the explosions and we include those. Otherwise, 150 million
books printed, each one, to the size of the Encyclopedia
Britannica, could not give you a partial list of the number
of communications that could leave bypassed charge by being
incomplete.

Okay?

Audience: Yes.

That's the lot. Thank you.


=================== TAPE

_


