FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

LEVEL 3 ACADEMY LECTURES 08/10

**************************************************

LEVEL 3 TAPES

01 SHSBC-170 renumbered 189 17 Jul 62 E-Meter Reads and ARC Breaks
02 SHSBC-183 renumbered 201 9 Aug 62 Goals Listing
03 SHSBC-269 renumbered 297 28 May 63 Handling ARC Breaks
04 SHSBC-283 renumbered 313 11 Jul 63 ARC Breaks
05 SHSBC-286 renumbered 315 17 Jul 63 Dating
06 SHSBC-289 renumbered 318 24 Jul 63 ARC Breaks and the Comm Cycle
07 SHSBC-292 renumbered 321 7 Aug 63 R2H Fundamentals
08 SHSBC-293 renumbered 322 8 Aug 63 R2H ASSESSMENT
09 SHSBC-294 renumbered 323 14 Aug 63 Auditing Tips
10 SHSBC-298 renumbered 327 22 Aug 63 Project 80



R2H ASSESSMENT

A lecture given on 8 August 1963

Tape 6308C08 SHSBC-293

SHSBC-293 renumbered 322 8 Aug 63 - R2H ASSESSMENT

[Clearsound only. Not checked against the old reels.]

========BEGIN LECTURE========

Thank you.

This is the what?

Audience: 8th of August.

The 8th of August, A.D. 13.

The figure 8 is a symbol of money. Actually, its original derivation 
was two moneybags, one sitting on the other. And when Pythagoras 
came back, why, he gave us this datum and here we are in Greece, at 
the apex of the newest and the best: numerology.

Oh, it's the wrong lecture hall!

You have to laugh when you consider what man has considered 
knowledge to be at periods in the past.

All right. Here we are, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And 
today I have some good news for you, and this is the evolution of 
List One for R2H. I'm going to show you how you can evolve a List 
One. No matter if you have landed in the middle of Pago Pago, or 
something of the sort, and you don't have a textbook to your name, 
you can evolve List One.

Now, this has really taken some doing. I don't mean to exaggerate. 
It'd be impossible to exaggerate the difficulties which have been 
connected with this. R2H is a process with a new rationale. There's 
a new rationale connected with that process. This actually is the 
Level 2 process, Case Level 2. And R2H really goes into both 
channels, but isn't just headed at OT; this gives you your Clear 
way-stop. Because you can move up this process, and sooner or later 
you're going to start seeing free needles. And that kind of 
phenomena is very likely to occur in running this particular 
process. Not necessarily with every case. Some cases are going to 
run so head-on into a GPM that you're going to have to shift to 3N 
in order to carry out that particular GPM, and then shift back to 
2H. Just as you can shift from R3R over to 3N and back again.

Well, given the fact that you could shift over to 3N, and back to 
R2H, you're dealing now with a Case Level 1 process. This will boot 
them all the way on up the line. But if you are dealing with just 
your normal course of human events and just avoid any ideas of GPMs 
- don't bother with trying to clear up track in that particular 
direction - undoubtedly the pc will come back off the track, and 
you'll start getting key-out phenomena. You see how that process 
might very well, theoretically, branch?

In other words, you keep on running the process itself, you 
eventually make a track that looks pretty straight and pretty clean, 
and gives you an apparency of Case Level 2, which is Clear, see? And 
that would be with the benefit of key-out and free needle, and you 
probably find the phenomena, and this is probably ... Because you 
understand, this has not been done by this process, but we have done 
so many of these that it's pretty easy to predict on a process line. 
And you would get a phenomenon which looked very like - this is just 
pure R2H, see? You'd get a phenomenon that looked very like a Case 
Level 2. However, it's a keyed-out Case Level 2. The person's whole 
track really isn't available to them. But it would give you all the 
attributes of Clear, by all of its definitions.

All right. Now, if you introduce into it the factor that when you 
collide with a GPM you're going to shift over into 3N, then you've 
got one that goes to Case Level 1. In other words, you could take 
R2H, combine it with 3N when necessary, and wind up at Case Level 1. 
You understand that this process has this branch, fork, in the 
roads.

Now, therefore, it unexpectedly joins up with what we're calling now 
- and you really haven't started calling it yet - but Scientology 
III. Scientology III was more or less suspended in favor of 
Scientology IV. The levels of Scientology: there's been a recent 
policy letter out which divided Scientology up into five levels.

And there was Scientology I, that's for the public. That's your PE-
level Scientology. And we're putting out a plea to one and all to 
please contribute any data they think is vital and necessary to be 
in this.

And then there's Scientology II, which is healing, which we haven't 
had too much to do with. That's care of the body, and so forth. And 
HPA/HCA levels probably get quite a bit of Scientology II.

And then there's Scientology III, and that's advanced auditing, 
advanced Academy courses, that sort of thing, leading up to the area 
of Clear - such phenomena as we've had in the past. Now, it doesn't 
happen to be a well-wrapped-up area, because we jumped off of that 
area to go into Scientology IV. And this occasioned even some of you 
quite a few headaches, because there was a necessary speed-up in 
research, and the place to research toward, of course, was OT. Now, 
that's Scientology IV. And the material which you're learning right 
now is Scientology IV.

And then there is Scientology V. And Scientology V is the social, 
political, organizational levels of Scientology. This is a takeoff 
from the level of OT. And that isn't just Scientology applied to 
political problems. That would be a misnomer although it would read 
like that in a textbook, and so forth. That isn't that at all. It's 
actually what does an OT do about it? That makes quite a different 
subject, doesn't it?

So anyway, it is of interest to have picked up some of the earlier 
work at Scientology III, and carried it forward to something of a 
conclusion. Now, you're not really interested in Routine 2H - and it 
probably ought to be redesignated. You're probably not interested in 
Routine 2H, which is by the way also applicable at Scientology II, 
don't you see? - some other version of it, much easier to do, 
something like that. You're interested as R2H applies to Scientology 
IV, which is OT.

Now, I want to point out to you (and this is just a side note here) 
that these things fit with classifications as they exist today. See, 
so you have a Class I auditor: he can listen. And you have a Class 
IL well, he could probably cure something up and run repetitive 
processes and, you know, CCHs, something like this, Reach and 
Withdraw. You have Scientology III type auditor: well, he could make 
a better human being; that's the level of the better human being. 
Scientology IV, Class IV auditor: you're heading for OT. And V: 
we're heading for a sane universe.

So this compares with your classifications, and I think you will 
find that it's very neat to have the subject organized like this. 
For instance, you can slap onto the covers of textbooks, one right 
after the other, Scientology 1: Perfectly safe issue for general 
public, don't you see? For instance, we have a newspaper reporter 
prowling around right now, and we're feeding him Scientology 1, 
which of course is about all he should have anything to do with. And 
he doesn't know even what he's looking at, see, right now. He thinks 
he came down here to investigate our marriages. Crazy, you know?

Anyway, he's got a copy of Reg's book, and he probably looked at its 
title, I hope, and he'll probably read something of that. We're 
getting this thing in some kind of order, however. We're getting 
this thing squared away one way or the other. He's looking for 
sensationalism, so we'll give him sensationalism at Level 1.

Do you see? It brings a little more order to the subject. Instead of 
just - it's all spattered out across these lines, why, we can 
subdivide it into its materials. And this only becomes possible 
because we are reaching up at a high level of attainment in each one 
of these levels. We have quite a bit of accomplishment in the lower 
levels, and we need codifications and publications; and in 
republishing and codifying, and that sort of thing, we need 
designations.

Now, it's very baffling for you to have a process which moves on up 
through more than one of these levels, which attains different 
things at different levels, and so on. And it is phenomenal to have 
such a process at all. It moves around. It handles the thing called 
an ARC break.

Well, there are many ways you could handle the thing called an ARC 
break. There are probably many versions of processes which you could 
handle ARC breaks with. So you'll probably see this material 
splintering off into these various levels. ARC, just the explanation 
of what ARC is, is Level I, you see? Perhaps specific and directed 
ARCs at various body parts and that sort of thing, and perhaps O/W, 
and that sort of thing, would constitute healing applications of 
ARC. And at Clear level, of course, you're trying to raise 
somebody's ARC; you can do some remarkable things with picking up 
their ARC breaks in this lifetime. It would be quite phenomenal to 
do that.

Well, ARC has been with us for quite a while, and to push demands of 
ARC this high - the theory of ARC, the triangle of affinity, reality 
and communication - to push that much stress onto it and say, "All 
right. Let's try to push this into Scientology IV, OT," well, that's 
really asking for a few blown gaskets. Because it's obvious that if 
this much stress is put on the theory of ARC, then any slightest 
frailty in any scale is going to show up. In other words, you're 
really going to have to have the stuff there.

We haven't been asking very much of this, but now we're asking 
everything of this. And boy, some of our - not very much of it, 
fortunately, but there were some holes. There were some holes in 
what we knew of ARC. It was, you might say, insufficiently embracive 
or insufficiently complete to do a totality of work.

It's all right to run a machine, let us say - you can run a machine 
just fine, and it gets along fine. And then you put more load on it, 
you see, and it starts to heat up a little bit and its life seems to 
shorten, and that sort of thing. And you put a little bit more load 
on it, then any bad connection or any bit of weak metal in it is 
going to go spling! You see? And that's approximately what's 
happened to ARC and the CDEI Scale. Now, those two things together - 
those two things together - needed an overhaul. And I've been 
overhauling these things empirically.

Now, R2H has only one frailty. And that is the list you use for the 
assessment. It's the only frailty it has. Given an auditor who will 
listen, given a meter that will react, given any kind of decent 
goodwill in the auditing session at all - well, the machine is 
pretty tolerant in those parts. You see? R2H: it'll work just fine. 
I mean, you can even flub it and mess it up here and there, and make 
mistakes with it, and it doesn't break down.

No, the point where it just breaks down absolutely with a crash 
would be a wrong assessment list. And if that assessment list - it 
could have a lot of things that weren't necessary on it, but if it 
lacked one single ingredient, then the bypassed charge on the case 
would not be located, and you would succeed in restimulating the 
case at certain levels, and the case would eventually move up to a 
stuck tone arm, because the charge would be wrongly placed and 
encysted here and there, and the track wouldn't straighten out. You 
see the liability of this?

In other words, you could miss the charge on one ARC break or 
another ARC break without making the case crash. That's one or 
another ARC break. But if one specific, very important type of 
charge was missing from the list on all ARC breaks, eventually that 
charge would overwhelm the pc, and you'd result in a good, high 
stuck tone arm and an ARC-broke pc, and so forth.

In other words, the limit of this particular process would be the 
embraciveness of the list which was used. So there is the weak point 
of this process: the list.

So I had to sweat and fume and fuss and fiddle and overhaul and try 
it again and ... I've had some of the fanciest systems, you know? 
These things would make a whole psychotherapy up at London 
University, or wherever they teach the stuff here in England. They 
would, you know? It'd just be marvelous. Whole new systems of 
interlockings and all of this kind of thing. Beautiful. The logic in 
them, impeccable. See? But they didn't work. That was all that was 
wrong with them. Like modern psychiatry: it's terribly convincing 
but doesn't work.

Now, that list with its liability of bogging a case down if an 
important type of charge is missing ... You understand that you can 
miss the charge on an ARC break and then get the next one well, and 
then miss the real charge on the next ARC break and get the next two 
well, you see, and you don't ruin anybody, you see? But if 
consistently that type of charge is missing on that list, sooner or 
later your pc has had it, see?

So what is the totality of the list? What formula is it that makes 
this list a completely embracive list? Well, you'll laugh when I 
eventually show you this thing, because it's always these simple 
things. It seems like anybody can discover anything that's 
complicated. I mean, that seems to be very easy. They go out and 
they discover the plutons running into the neurons, and these 
fantastic chemical formulas that run on for eight pages and give you 
better lipstick. It's these simple things. It's these simple things 
wherein lies the genius of the situation, you see? They're the ones 
that you can just take and knock your head off on.

And you come back to it, what makes a good auditor an auditor? And 
we've eventually broken it back to five points. And they're all 
fundamental points. And where you don't get auditing done in some 
HGC or something like that where you're supervising auditing, you 
watch it; you go back over those points and you'll find out there's 
one or two of them are just madly out - not even slightly; they're 
just madly out. But the reduction of auditing to just five basics is 
pretty wild.

Now, the breakdown of a communication cycle, and the breakdown of 
the auditing cycle and that sort of thing - these things are 
terribly simple. But it takes some discovery like this itsa line. 
I'm sure you sat there when you saw this itsa line, and you said, 
"Yeah. Yeah, yeah, of course, you know. Simple."

Well, frankly, when you discover these things, you feel like a 
complete idiot. Very self-invalidative, you know?

It's like you've been running into this rock all the time, and you 
finally come back and take a look at it; you say, "Hey, it's a 
rock," you know? And you've never noticed it, nobody else has 
noticed it. There it's been! See? These are the discoveries that are 
something. And it's this type of discovery that finally wrapped up 
this other list so that it just springs engrams, you know, bang, 
bang, bang.

And you could put any kind of significance you ever heard of and you 
might still miss it on this list, so I better give you the formula 
of derivation. And this is a derivation formula. I'm going to give 
you the full derivation formula. I'm not going to give you any 
little shorthanding of it. You, by the way, don't use this full 
formula in making up List One. But I can show you a very trick 
system by which you could employ it without assessing forever, see?

Now, it works like this: The CDEI Scale has an upper and a lower 
band. And it was on this band that we all fell down. Now, here's 
your CDEI Scale: Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit. You're very 
well aware of the CDEI Scale. But that's only a piece of the scale. 
Now, we only needed that piece to do everything we've been doing up 
to this time. And the missingness of the remainder of the scale was 
not something that destroyed empires. But when we run into something 
like R2H and ARC breaks if we haven't got the whole scale here, 
we're in trouble.

Well, what is the whole scale here? K, U - Know, or Known, and 
Unknown. Well, look, let's look it over. Let's look it over. What 
about that Know? Well, Know is already - you had to postulate you 
didn't know up above it, but that isn't unknown yet. See, the Not 
Know goes up above this. The basic four-postulate stuff is already 
in this stuff, and we don't happen to need that because that simply 
measures case gain. This we do need: Known, Unknown. Why does that 
fit in? How come?

It's elementary, my dear Watson. You never get curious about 
something you know about. I mean, it's these damn fool, idiot 
things, see, that ... So knowingness must have disintegrated, 
because we know as a case progresses its knowingness rises. So as 
the case progresses, its knowingness rises, and therefore we must be 
running out unknownnesses. And this tells us that things have to be 
unknown before you enter into the CDEI Scale at all. That gets to be 
very interesting.

And you'll find out a very, very interesting part of ARC breaks is 
the unknownness. You know, the unknown datum - we've even got it in 
our early logics. An unknown can cause a confusion, and so forth. 
And there's obviously where that belongs. So that's part of your 
CDEI Scale, oddly enough, which is a scale of the way one looks at 
things.

But that isn't the complete scale. I'm sorry to have to get into 
this thing any further. But what's that? That's nothing. Nothing. 
That belongs on the CDEI Scale, believe it or not: nothing. It's 
neither known nor unknown. There's nothing there to inhibit, 
enforce, desire, to be curious about, to be unknown or to be known. 
There just isn't anything there. And that is pretty obvious too, 
isn't it? In fact it's an idiotic obviousness. It's just an absence. 
That's all. You haven't got something now to inhibit.

That's the black panther mechanism. And you feel more idiotic about 
this thing appearing on this thing when you realize that it's in 
Book One. It's the black panther mechanism: ignore it; do nothing 
about it. It's just a no-action level. It's pretty grisly. It 
doesn't mean no ARC. We're not into ARC yet. This is just, well, you 
can inhibit things - well, how about just doing nothing about them? 
Just nothing? Well, of course, that's one of these "of course" 
mechanisms, because man routinely does nothing about things. That is 
one of his best mechanisms. In fact, no government on earth could be 
the way it is if they didn't specialize in this one. Do nothing 
about it until it's too late or something of the sort, which is 
again just doing nothing about it.

All right. Well, that's fine, but is there anything else on this 
scale? Well, unfortunately this is the one, man; this is the one 
that broke the camel's back. This is the one. We've talked about it. 
We know it exists. We've had it around. I mean, everybody knows 
about it. But we know all about it and so we've never defined it.

But the basic part of this one was designating it. Finding some word 
that designated it that would communicate - that would communicate. 
And it's F: falsify. And after you do nothing about it, there's 
nothing there, you can falsify. You're not inhibiting something, you 
can falsify it. You're not doing nothing about it, you're falsifying 
it. But of course that puts something else there. So it tends to 
turn the whole scale up here again in an inversion.

See, after you've gone down this whole scale, how do you start it 
all over again? Well, your K at the top, Known, becomes False. And 
then of course, you don't know about falseness, and then of course 
you're curious about, you see, the falsifications, and so forth. And 
this scale then turns round and round on that basis, but it's just 
the same scale now. It now hits level after level after level after 
level all the way down by just running this one point. So that's 
what makes the scale invert.

So it's a probability in this universe that you almost never see the 
K. The whole scale probably lies below F. That part of the ARC 
scale, then, which most people are working with, and so forth, are 
[is] below F. So you see, as you go downscale, it requires all of 
those primary designations to bring about lower harmonics. You see 
what I mean here?

Let me give you an example. Let me give you an example of a 
tremendously involved scale: K - we'll do this very small - K, U, C, 
D, E, I, 0, F, U, C, D, E, I, 0, F, U. See this? See what's 
happening here? [See Lecture Chart in the tech vol for 1963.] 
See, there's your whole scale. Got it? It goes on south. Perversions 
of perversions. Falsifications of falsifications. Don't you see? You 
finally get modern science - you go far enough south - all based on 
a false premise that man is mud. You see, something like that, and 
then you can go all the way, see? You get this now? Well, that's how 
that thing inverts.

So, there is it. Top, K, U, C, D, E, I, 0, F - Zero, F. It's not an 
0; it's a zero. Probably better be spelled with a Z. And that is a 
complete band. And it takes each one of those levels to make a 
complete band. And as long as we only had the CDEI Scale, this was 
very pure and very upscale, but we couldn't deal with aberration. We 
couldn't deal with the raw aberration of an engram, because we 
didn't have enough lower inversions, because the scale wasn't 
complete, so we couldn't invert it.

There were more things in each band than we had, and the things that 
were missing was Known, Unknown at the top; and down at the bottom, 
Zero and False. And there we have a total cycle, you might say, of 
the scale. Now, again I show you, that cycle can turn over again. 
Instead of Known, now, you have False, so it goes down to you unknow 
falseness, you see; you're curious about falseness; the desire of 
falseness; the enforcement of falseness. You see? And then you get 
down - the inhibition of falseness, and then no falseness, and then 
you get a falseness about falseness. You see that? And you just keep 
on adding this up and you will get more and more and more and more 
involved lower levels.

I see you're sitting there a bit stunned. Now, what don't you dig 
out of this? What do you see there that you don't understand? Seemed 
to me to be perfectly obvious.

You're looking, by the way, at only one band - when you look at the 
full scale like that, you're looking at only one band of the old 
Tone Scale. That's shown up: You can take Science of Survival, the 
old Tone Scale of one kind or another, and let's take one band. 
Let's drop down just one band. Let's go from 1.0 to 2.0. Let's just 
take a look at that. Let's say 2.0 to 1.0. And you're going to find 
all those levels between 2.0 and 1.0, and they'll be at some 
harmonic or another of the upper levels, you see?

A pure scale - call it the CDEI Scale just for lack of a better term 
at this particular time - is so unimaginably high that it's probably 
never envisioned. It's terrifically high. And most of the scales 
that we see, and so forth, are already with falseness at 
knowingness. See? It's a false, a false, a false, a false...

Look what they teach you in school. George Washington never cut down 
any cherry trees, because he was an Englishman and they are orchard 
men, or something. You wait. You'll just see that legend go along 
far enough and it will become blong, see, and it'll go down another 
one, see? Very interesting.

So all truth or actions or data or almost anything else goes down 
this CDEI Scale in that fashion: Known, Unknown, Curious, Desire, 
Enforce, Inhibit, Do Nothing, Falsify. Do you see that now? All 
right.

Here we have our old friends, A, R and C. [See Lecture Chart in the
Tech Vol for 1963.] Nothing to this. Here you have ARC for the 
incident, and here you have - that's for the incident itself (now 
we're getting into R2H) - and then we have earlier incident. Got it? 
And we have A, R and C for the earlier incident. We've got it for 
the incident we're working with, and we've got it for an earlier 
incident. See? And you just do this: And each one of those levels 
has six. We have them for the incident, we have them for the earlier 
incident. Got that? And then just for fun, in case they didn't get 
the word, and so forth, on each one we put - this is for the 
purposes of really getting the thing scatted into sight - we put a 
missed withhold. And over here, of course, it's an earlier missed 
withhold.

That's your List One. Let you digest that for a minute. That's List 
One. Now, that's actually all possible levels that will have any 
reaction on anybody about anything. That's an ARC break laid out, 
man. Each one - Known, Unknown, Curious, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit, 
Do Nothing, Falsify - each one of those levels has eight questions. 
Each one of those levels has eight questions. And those eight 
questions are the incident attitude, communication, reality - see, 
the attitude, reality, communication and a missed withhold. And 
then, is there an earlier incident with a bypassed charge of the 
attitude, the reality and the communication and the missed withhold, 
see? Put the missed withhold in there just for kicks. You'll find 
out it's a bucketload of stuff.

Now, that's a full list. Now, you can add that up mathematically. 
There are eight questions. Can count them up: there's one, two, 
three, four, five, six, seven, eight. There are eight questions for 
each level, and there are eight levels (and that chimes in to my gag 
about the figure 8, beginning of the lecture), and you have eight 
times eight and that gives you sixty-four questions. "And that's all 
the questions there is." That's a total List One - would consist of 
sixty-four separate questions.

Do you see how to evolve this? I'm teaching you how to evolve it. 
I'm not trying to give you a list. There's somebody sitting back 
there saying, "Well, he's going to give us the list in a moment," 
and so on. That isn't what I'm going to teach you. I'm teaching you 
how to evolve this thing. I'm assuming that you're on Pago Pago. You 
have collided one way or the other with the wrong asteroid or 
something, and you're trying to put Scientology back together again 
and run some R2H on somebody, and there you go. How do you put a 
List One together? And there is your List One. Very important thing.

Sixty-four questions. I actually, at this stage of the game, don't 
care what you do with the sixty-four questions, you see? It's just, 
there is the totality of all possible combinations of an ARC break 
charge. That's all the charge there can be on an ARC break.

Now, you can dream up a whole bunch of additional ones. Oh, you can 
dream up additional ones madly. I don't care if you do, maybe some 
of them will communicate, maybe some of them won't. But they will 
actually come back to this one. And they will not be central charges 
that really are bypassed charges to amount to anything.

Now, this list, this list with its sixty-four questions, gives you 
very interesting application possibilities, so that you don't have 
to assess sixty-four questions. Well, let's assess the CDEI Scale 
first on the incident, and then take the biggest read on that, and 
then move that sideways onto its eight questions. So that leaves you 
with a totality for assessment of eight and eight-sixteen questions. 
I'm showing you there are trick systems by which you can break this 
thing down.

In other words, you figure out some communicating name, see, for 
each one of these things. Well, for instance, Enforce, you put "too 
much." Right now you're using the Inhibit Scale all the time, all 
the time. An attitude refused, you see, a communication ignored: 
that's really your Inhibit Scale - and an unknown this and an 
unknown that, and so forth. But you can say, "Was there something 
known about the incident? Was something unknown about the incident? 
Was [there] some curiosity about the incident? Was [there] some 
desire in the incident? Was there an enforcement in the incident? 
Was there an inhibition in the incident?" Or you can - Enforcement, 
you say "too much something in the incident?" "Was it a nothingness 
that upset you in the incident?" Or "Was it something that was 
falsified?"

Now, one of those things bangs, and you've then got your standard 
scale, which of course ... You could put it on separate little 
cards, and it's written up specially worded for the level it comes 
from. See? "Did that incident have an unknown attitude? Did it have 
an unknown reality? Was there an unknown communication? In that 
incident, was that a restimulation of an earlier unknown attitude? 
Restimulation of an earlier unknown reality? Restimulation of an 
earlier unknown communication?" Restimulation of earlier missed 
withhold, of course. The missed-withhold questions are always the 
same. Not "an unknown missed withhold," see? It's just "Was there a 
missed withhold?"

Now, that would be quite a remarkable system. And you'll find that 
system would work. That system would work very well. But it doesn't 
happen to be a vital system to what you're doing. It isn't vital 
that you do the system that way, because a whole bunch of these 
levels are null. That's interesting. They don't have significant 
charge on them. And under the heading of significant charge you can 
cross off K, U, C, D, E, leaving you with I. You can cross off Zero. 
And F - you can leave F.

Now, if you're just going to do a short list that'll serve you in 
good stead, then the only thing you're really going to leave on the 
list to amount to anything at all is I and F. Those are the most 
pregnant sources of ARC breaks. They upset people! Which gives you a 
sixteen-question list.

I'm showing you different ways by which you can handle this 
situation. See, I'm not giving you that as a recommended action, I'm 
just giving you different ways by which you can put together this 
same scale, see? You can find out ... And that's the truth: You'll 
find out that for this lifetime, certainly, I and F - they cause 
nearly all of your bypassed charge. It's because of the case level 
you're dealing with, don't you see, and it's monitored by other 
factors. That leaves you here with I and F and nothing else that's 
going to worry your pc, at least in the beginning stages.

Then after a little while you're going to find your list starts 
falling short. There is something going on here now. The list starts 
falling short and so forth. And you'll find out that you have to add 
"too much": "too much attitude," see, "too much communication," "too 
much reality" - "too real!" You could expand it right back on out 
again, and you start processing somebody around Case Level 2, that 
has actually attained Case Level 2, you're going to find yourself 
with a greatly fanned-out list - greatly fanned-out.

I'm just showing you there are various ways by which you can put 
this thing together. Now, you can probably scratch your head and get 
into it and develop yourself quite a fancy system of identifying the 
type of charge and assessing that particular type of charge. Only 
thing I'm trying to put to you is the fact that if you've got 
something missing on List One, you've had it, because that tone arm 
is eventually going to go up and stick.

And I don't say yet that somebody three quarters of the way up the 
line isn't all of a sudden going to run into a type of charge which 
isn't there in his estimation. And as you go on down the line, of 
course, the lower a case is, the more complex the case tends to be, 
and so you're going to have to probably include "emotion" instead of 
just "attitude." That'd probably have to be on your scale.

Now, the only thing that varies the scale, however - this is your 
basic and fundamental scale - the only thing that varies this scale 
is the communication of it to the pc, this particular pc at his 
particular state of case. You say, "Was there a false 
communication?" If the pc is very odd indeed, very low scale or very 
high scale, he may only interpret this as a lie. A lying 
communication, see? He immediately interprets it over. But it's good 
enough, ordinarily. False communication. A false reality. A false 
attitude.

If you don't think false attitudes aren't in keeping, the most 
popular textbook on the handling of your fellow human being is Dale 
Carnegie. And that's a full textbook on how to create and maintain 
false attitudes and realities.

Psychology actually hasn't even come up to being able to maintain a 
false one. That gives you the prevalent popularity of some things, 
and gives you this.

Look at the newspapers people read. You don't think there's very 
much true in a newspaper, and so forth, and yet newspapers sell a 
lot of copies. Well, so where must they be on the ARC scale? Where 
must they be? False attitudes, false realities, false 
communications. But how false?

Newspaper goes even falser than false. The newspaper takes a false 
scientific fact and then falsifies it. And that's why I drew you 
that other picture there, so you could show the harmonics that that 
thing goes down on. You can get into the falsification of the 
falsification of the falsification. It's like trying to handle some 
of these trillions-ten that you run up on some cases.

I don't know how we're going to handle that. That's one of our big 
problems. Pc is sitting there trying to count the number of 
trillions you're saying so he knows whether or not it's the right 
date, you know? You start holding your hand up, so that it's 
trillions-five. But look, you only got five fingers, you need the 
other one for the E-Meter.

Now, there's your full scale. There's your full scale. There isn't 
anything more, really, that can cause an ARC break, because this is 
the full lay-down of life. The communication of this to the pc may 
cause you to make some ramifications of it, but you can abstract 
these ramifications from this scale.

So you got a new CDEI Scale which had to be expanded for its 
usability. Now, that's empirical. That doesn't necessarily fit in 
with anything, it's just what is there. What is there that is 
significant to a case. And that's Known, Unknown, Curious About, 
Desire, Enforce, Inhibit, Do Nothing About, and Falsify.

Now, there's some question as to whether it ought to be Zero and 
then F, you see, or F and then Zero. Because you say, "Well, even a 
lie is some communication." I think you're splitting hairs, because 
you'll find ordinarily that a falsification is worse than no 
communication, ordinarily.

Now, plotting that sideways - plotting that sideways - remember that 
your basic scale on all of your List Ones consists of affinity, 
reality and communication, and a missed withhold for the incident. 
And then for earlier - not even earlier incident, just earlier - 
restimulation of an earlier attitude, reality, communication, missed 
withhold. See, that's an earlier missed withhold. And missed 
withhold would actually only have to occur - if your big scale is 
out, it reduces the number of questions slightly.

Because you're simply repeating the thing if you break this down 
into separate cards. And that's there because ... And you break it 
down into separate cards, for God's sakes, don't omit the missed 
withhold. Because this is a peculiar communication of the same 
thing. See, it's a didn't communicate, you know? And also could 
falsify a reality, and also change an attitude completely, don't you 
see? But it's a peculiar little mechanism; it's asking, in essence, 
"Was there a bypassed charge?" But it speaks normally, "Was there 
something you didn't say or something which you were consciously 
withholding?"

Now, if you went and expanded this out and out and out and out and 
out, you would get yourself into trouble. If you say you're going to 
put a missed withhold on there, and then why don't you put an overt? 
Well, you don't put an overt because it mushes engrams. You start 
running O/W in the middle of an engram and you can get the pc in 
more energy soup than you've gotten him in for some time. There are 
too many GPMs, and there's too many this, too many that. And the 
effect of the bank is that if you run the eighteen buttons of a 
Prepcheck, or the handful of buttons that we constitute now the big 
mid ruds, or even the old little mid ruds, about and into an engram, 
specifically, you see, that thing will mush. It'll fold up. And you 
won't have a picture. See? An overt, and the big mid ruds 
particularly, run directly against an engram, can cause that engram 
to fold up into so much oatmeal. The energy structure of it breaks 
down and it no longer is able to hold its constituents, see, and who 
can tell what's in it.

So you don't do those things against engrams or secondaries. You 
say, "In that ARC break, has anything been suppressed?" Well, you 
might get away with that one, you see? "In that ARC break, is there 
anything you are careful of?" Uhhh, du-du-da-da-da-ooh. "Fail to 
reveal" is perfectly all right. "In that ARC break, has anything 
been invalidated?" Uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh! "In that ARC break has 
anything been suggested?" Oohhh! Pc will be going "What's happened?"

Because frankly, you're using 18-inch naval cannon to shoot rabbits. 
The buttons are just too fundamental. They're just too powerful. I 
did far, far too good a job in designing the big mid ruds and 
isolating those buttons. You could never say, "On the reactive mind 
has anything been..." Apparently it takes just so much aberration to 
hold a picture together so you can run it. Anyway. They go back too 
early, and they're too powerful.

But these, these buttons - they don't do anything to the picture but 
strip off and disconnect the charge and realign the thing. And it's 
a very smooth operation indeed, the way this happens.

You're essentially, in R2H, trying to make somebody's pictures 
better. That's what I'm trying to call to your attention. It's all 
right to say, "Since the last time I audited you..." you know, big 
mid ruds, and "in this session... big mid ruds. Don't worry too much 
about that. But, "On that ARC break... big mid ruds - oh, no. In 
other words, you can run against the physical universe in its near-
up environment. Right now you can run all the big mid ruds you want 
to.

"On that plank," see, "has anything been suppressed?" This is the 
same thing as "Since the last time I audited you has anything been 
suppressed?" Still got the whole physical universe around you, and 
you're not going to get this pc to knock the physical universe apart 
by running the big mid rud buttons - at this state of his case. 
There probably gets a point in his processing as you get up the line 
where you'll no longer be able to do this safely. "In this auditing 
room has anything been suppressed?" Cre-e-eak! Ghosts, see?

Now, the point I'm stressing here is that the list has another 
importance rather than its significance, is we don't want the list 
to be too beefed up. See, the list, instead of missing some levels, 
could use some buttons we know about in Scientology that would be 
totally destructive of the goals of R2H. Boom! See? This guy all of 
a sudden is covered with white energy, or something of the sort, and 
mushing engrams, and everything is getting blah, and so on. So there 
are things you don't want on the list. It isn't really all right to 
just anything you dream up, put on the list, see? You can go quite a 
ways.

I've tested out nearly all of these various variations of the thing, 
and they're actually not necessary. "Was anything misunderstood?" 
Well, that's covered, of course, in your Unknown level. "Was there 
any earlier misunderstanding?" and that sort of thing. And you know, 
I've had those on lists, and I've never seen them significantly be 
the cause of bypassed charge.

You'd think No Communication would be terribly important. Well, it 
isn't terribly important till you start walking up into engrams. The 
guy was in jail for a million years. What caused the ARC break? 
There was no communication. Shortly after he was locked up they had 
a war and he got killed - the jailer got killed, and they forgot to 
shut the power off and forgot to let him out. ARC break - no 
communication.

You'll find that this steeps up the line. But frankly, in usual 
running of cases and so forth, you'll find you won't need it.

Now, this is the woof and the warp of how you put together a List 
One. This is the formula by which you put together a List One. This 
doesn't necessarily give you a List One that you promptly and 
instantly should sit down and audit your pc with madly. There are 
too many ways you can put this thing together.

Now, the preassessment of List One probably itself could be done 
with a shortened number of CDEI points, see? Just take out those 
that ordinarily wouldn't fall, and leave about four in. See? Leave 
about four in. And preassess. "Was that ARC break caused by an 
unknown? Was it caused by too much of something? Was it caused by 
too little? Or was it caused by an absence? Or was ...?" You know? 
Any way you want to chop it up, see? But you for sure get False in 
there, and you for sure get Inhibit in there, see, because that's 
where those ARC breaks live. And you start running heavy engrams, 
you'll find out, sooner or later you're going to need Zero.

Also, somebody can be found holding on to a death. Now we're 
starting to run heavy stuff, see? Somebody runs a death. What's 
wrong with this death? Why is it in restimulation all the time? 
Well, he never could find out who shot him. That was the ARC break. 
Never could find out who shot him. Bullet came out of nowhere. It 
was a beautiful day in spring, and he was sitting on the lawn of the 
Ladies' Aid Society building in Des Moines, Iowa. There he sat, and 
he was suddenly hit with a rocket blaster! Cause a fellow to think 
for quite a while.

He's liable to keep that engram in his hip pocket and look at it 
every once in a while, wondering if somewhere around the edges of it 
he hadn't gotten a picture of who shot him. Wrong place, wrong 
atmosphere, wrong mood, you see'? And with an unknown in it. It's 
pretty certain.

You see how you can do this? Hm? All right, what don't you 
understand about that scale - why what is there? Is there anything 
in it that you don't understand why it's there? Hm? I see you all 
frowning, but I don't see you cogniting on anything. It's just too 
formidable; is that what's wrong with it? Or is it too - as I told 
you a little earlier - too nonsensically simple? It kind of strickens 
you with its simplicity, doesn't it?

Well, I've been overshooting this confounded scale and overshooting 
it. I've had some of the fanciest examples of this scale you ever 
saw, and assessed with them, you know, and so on, and just assessed 
with them, man, and gone clear on down to the end of the list, and 
TA remains high and the charge isn't on the list. That's how this 
scale was formulated. Total empiricism. See, just what is it? What 
is it? What is the missing charge? What is the missing charge? And I 
knew it didn't have it. Well, I finally managed to get around and 
found out that we were not missing charge, and so forth, so we 
obviously had it. And the last one on the list was F, False. And 
that is what a thetan mostly objects to. That is one of his heaviest 
buttons: a false communication. He himself feels guiltiest about 
uttering a false communication, or abetting a false reality or a 
false attitude. Under this heading, you could say, "Well, we should 
have a line that says 'Was there a betrayal in this incident?"' you 
know? Obviously that'd read, but unfortunately it doesn't respond, 
because a betrayal is actually just a falsity.

Betrayal. There's a big sign says Ice Cream Cones Free Inside. And 
so you walk inside and there's this cage drops down and the 
machinery grinds. See? Well, what on earth is every theta trap on 
the track but a false representation? Falsity. It's the one thing 
that aberrates a person, because his level of trust with the 
physical universe drops, you see? He can't trust the very reality 
he's looking at; in some way it's been falsified. And so he begins 
to ARC break with the stuff.

So that was a key button. And the funny part of it is I expressed 
that one time as "twisted" or "perverted" and you know, it didn't 
assess. Didn't communicate. Didn't even vaguely communicate. 
"Perverted communication," "twisted communication," "altered 
communication" - these things just didn't communicate, till I 
finally got down to "a false communication." And man, you'll find 
out, I think, that communicates.

The pc you assess this on or the pc that you run this process on, 
naturally, here and there, has to get a reinterpretation. You say 
"missed withhold." Well, that communicates to thee and me, but does 
it communicate to the pc you're running, don't you see? You say, "Is 
there something you were holding back? He-oo! Was there a kept 
secret?" That kind of thing. "Was there a kept secret in the 
incident?"

But it's actually senseless to give you all possible wordings of all 
possible questions. See, that's senseless, because that you can't 
work with. All possible wordings of all possible questions is just a 
gobbledygook. One ARC break: you assess a dictionary. One of these 
Webster dictionaries, you know? Complete with obsolete words.

So, therefore, therefore, I've given you the basic formula of 
assessment, and that formula of assessment is you take each level of 
the old CDEI Scale - now expanded to K, U, C, D, E, I, Zero, F - 
each element of that, and you move it over here into that.

Now actually, each level only has six, but if you put them on 
different cards, you have to add your missed withhold in the 
incident, missed withhold earlier, which gives you a basic list of 
eight. Your basic list of eight - you must never get less than 
eight. And by putting that over, you can do all sorts of things. You 
can preassess. You can bobtail the number of levels you're going to 
have. You can do this and that. But still, the least I can do is 
give you the absolute, complete list.

So for each one of the K, U, C, D, E, I, Zero and F, we have the 
possibility of affinity, reality, communication, and a missed 
withhold in the incident; and then an affinity, reality, 
communication and missed withhold in earlier incidents, or earlier 
charge, something like that. And you can make up one of the fanciest 
little wheels you ever wanted to see.

I imagine you can take this particular schema of some kind or 
another, and you can draw up dozens of different systems by which 
this can be used. And you can certainly draw up dozens of different 
wordings. For instance, right away you're up against at A, attitude. 
"Was there a Tone Scale ...?" That doesn't communicate, see, but 
that's what we mean. Affinity. Person says affinity, well, they must 
mean love. You know, bang. You know? But those semantics are for 
your delivery to the pc, so one of your basic breakdowns is you say 
attitude," and then you also say "emotion."

Now, you realize you could break that down further and put "effort" 
in there. You realize that the whole Know to Mystery Scale can go 
under A. I hope you recognize that. See? The whole know to Mystery 
Scale, and they're all part of that A. So you could have symbols, 
and so forth. You could get mighty fancy. You just substitute it for 
that. And you start getting that fancy, however, you sure better 
develop a system of preassessment to get it all sorted out.

Now, I have one correction to make in R2H. I have led you to believe 
- I have led you to believe, erroneously perhaps, that the best 
system was to clean every level. That is in actual fact the easiest-
to-audit system which gives you the least dirty needle, and does not 
necessarily release the most charge from the case. And I thought I'd 
better give you slight addendum to that. Because if you can skitter 
down a list rapidly and pick out the major charge, the biggest read 
off of that list, and bang that back at the pc, you're getting more 
tone arm action per minute of auditing time, you see? Which gives 
you then, if it can be done, the best system. That doesn't 
necessarily say that it is the most doable system. You got that?

Now, some pc who drags the bypassed charge through the remainder of 
the list every time you touch any charge at all - you get into 
endless difficulty if you try to assess the whole list and take the 
biggest read and give him that, and have him explain that in full 
with the itsa line in full, see? That gives you the most tone arm 
action per minute of auditing time, see? Obviously, because you get 
the blowdown right now, and so forth. But if you run into too much 
difficulty doing that - and an auditor who is having difficulty at 
all with a pc, or a pc who is having difficulties coping, a needle 
that is hard to read, a meter that is hard to read, and all these 
things are quite usual in auditing, you see - you treat it like end 
rudiments. Treat it like end rudiments and clean it up all the way 
down.

But in any event, no matter what system you use, you have to be 
satisfied.

Now, there's a liability to treating it with end rudiments that I 
must inform you of. I say this is the easiest for the auditor to do, 
and is very often the most easy and comfortable on the pc because 
the pc is, after all, sitting there all during the rest of the 
assessment - by the time you've bypassed the bypassed charge the pc 
may almost have steam coming out of his ears, you see? As you go 
down this list, you can, by treating it like end rudiments (this has 
a liability) destroy the major read, because you've bled the charge 
of read already, and all you get is a slight hump of the needle as 
you go past this thing. You don't get the major charge that is going 
to give you the blowdown, reading with a good sharp tsk! see? You 
don't get that. Instead of that, it now, when you meet up with it, 
simply puts a hump on the needle.

See, because if you took it without bleeding the ARC break of any 
charge, the ARC break has got enough charge in it to give you a good 
sharp read. But if you bleed that ARC break down by taking every 
tick of it off, why, you're liable to get to a situation where the 
meter is very difficult to read, because it's just a slow or a speed 
will become the major charge.

So if you're going to do this rudiments system all the way down like 
rudiments, then you also have to take those slows and speeds. So it 
gives you a new problem in reading the meter in return for having 
solved your dirty needle. See, you get a new problem.

There are many ways by which to do this. The way that gives you the 
most tone arm action that you can run, that the pc will sit still 
for, is the way to use - obvious. Obvious, that's the way to use.

Now, if you've got a preassessment on this particular list, and you 
could preassess, and move right in on the hard charge - see, that is 
the list, bang! - it's rather brief assessment, don't you see? And 
therefore it goes powie! see? You just go right on down the line and 
get your biggest read, bow! And you say, "That's it. What is it?" 
And the pc has to figure it out and give you the itsa on it and be 
perfectly satisfied with it. And you'll see that tone arm go pow! 
and down she'll come, see? You're all satisfied with that one. That 
ARC break doesn't read on the meter. Up goes your next one. "Recall 
an ARC break"; your tone arm starts up with the whatsa - the whatsit 
line. And do your assessment. Get, of course, your "What was it? 
Where was it? When was it?" Get your assessment in on it. Get that 
charge. And you'll see that tone arm, pow! It'll come down again as 
soon as the pc picks it up. And you'll get a tone arm which is 
moving, moving, moving, moving, moving, getting looser and looser 
and looser, if you do it that particular way.

Too shortened a list, too abbreviated, so as to miss the principal 
charge, leaves you with a high TA. In actual fact what happens is 
charge moves the time wrong in an incident. The incident is all 
charged up because of something that happened in 1912. So the charge 
of the incident is in 1912, the incident is in 1920. Wrong date.

Now, if your List One does not specify that charge, you of course 
are going to miss the 1912 charge, and the incident will continue to 
look to the pc like 1912. It's very interesting. Your TA will get 
higher and higher and get stickier and stickier, and the thing will 
eventually go over the moon, and you'll have it riding up here at 
5.25, and R2H is working less and less well, no matter what you do.

Well, actually, you're restimulating charge which you aren't picking 
up, and the inevitable fact when you do that is the pc will get 
harder and harder to audit and eventually he'll ARC break, just on 
the diagrams I gave you concerning the itsa - the whatsit and itsa 
line.

Want to make one little more remark to you. That's all there is 
about that. I hope you can evolve one of the things. Okay?

I want to make one other remark to you. I thought of a process. This 
is just research, see? I thought of a process by which you could 
possibly see a tone arm pump at your will. See? You could probably 
see it go. You say, "Recall a worry" - see, whatsit. Because a worry 
is obviously whatsit, like crazy! See? "Recall a worry. What was it 
about? Recall a worry. What was it about? Recall a worry. What was 
it about?" You'll be able to drill your tone arm up and down on a pc 
with that particular type of process. It's not particularly 
therapeutic. I'm just showing you, here's a way to make a tone arm 
actually work for you so you would see the whatsit-itsa line in 
complete operation, providing you let the pc tell you what it was 
about.

Now, I can show you how to get a tone arm high and keep it there: 
"Recall a worry; recall a worry; recall a worry; recall a worry; 
recall a worry. That's all right. Don't bother to tell me what it 
is. Recall a worry..."

The other thing you're going to worry about, and I already had some 
questions on it: You've probably audited a pc one time or another 
that got very good tone arm action but didn't get any better. This 
is a possibility that you may have run into. Let me call to your 
attention something in that bulletin that came out there, is tone 
arm action, if present, will take the pc eventually to OT. But let 
me point out the word eventually, and even later in that bulletin it 
says, "even if it takes thousands of years," you understand? You 
understand?

You're at least getting somewhere if you have tone arm action, is 
the only point I'm putting across. Well, what is the expectancy? 
Well, that's pretty long. You have to run the right significances. 
Very often you've got a pc who is getting tone arm action all right, 
tone arm pumping around. You may have changed the process right in 
the middle of the tone arm action. See? Well, now you've got a whole 
bunch of new charge without blowing the old charge, and the pc is 
going to go on feeling very uncomfortable while getting better. 
Charge is coming off, don't you see, but the specific thing that you 
were after didn't happen with the pc.

The way to analyze something like that is, what did you consider 
"better"? And how long did you just sit there and let the tone arm 
waggle, without chipping off new charge and throwing it into 
restimulation on the case? Of course the case was getting better, 
but a case can get better comfortably, and a case can get better 
very uncomfortably, and a case can get better insufferably bad off. 
That's right. You start running screen implants - stuff that's been 
restimulated on these screens in the between-life area, you see? You 
got a tremendous quantity of track back to the last date that has 
never been restimulated by the screens, see? More modern stuff is 
not screen-restimulated. You get back earlier, and you'll run into a 
span where you've got screen-restimulated engrams. And my God, 
they've been restimulated every sixty or seventy years, don't you 
see, for the last ten thousand or something like that. Every time 
you died, you got that particular set of engrams beautifully, 
gorgeously steamed up. And man, you get in and you start to run them 
today, you get tone arm action, but you just wish that you just 
hadn't started it in the first - why not just go up through the 
between-lives area again and get it all over with.

You're getting tone arm action, but getting better is not how the pc 
feels. See? It's whether he's making more progress to more 
knowingness and more ability. Also, his current state in auditing is 
not a measure of his getting better. He can have a beautiful memory, 
hit the between-lives area and his memory goes blop! He's getting 
better. He can't remember a thing. But he is closer to being able to 
remember everything. You understand?

So you can put certain things into restimulation in a case that 
bring about temporary conditions on the case. And they're pretty 
ghastly sometimes. And sometimes they're not well taken care of, and 
they stay that way for quite a while, and then one day they all blow 
out.

You've got to review a case over a period of the thirty days. You've 
got to review a case at least over the period of an intensive, or 
the period of thirty days, or something like that. I had an example 
of that the other day. I was thinking about organizations and 
Dianetics and Scientology. Matter of fact I was giving an auditing 
session, and a bunch of data was coming up that spanned that period. 
And you know, I was absolutely amazed. I had never taken a look 
between the improvement of 1951 and 1963, and its interim states. 
You know, I mean just - you know - what were we doing then? What 
were the organizations like then? What were our communications like 
then? Wow, you know? I thought, "Good heavens. At this rate of speed 
we're going to take this planet over practically tomorrow!" It's 
true, too. We are.

Thank you very much!

========END OF LECTURE========


_


