CLASS VIII CONFIDENTIAL COURSE PACK PART 5/16 CLASS VIII COURSE PACK CONTENTS: Part 5 46. HCOB 21 MAY 62 MISSED WITHHOLDS, ASKING ABOUT 47. HCOB 25 MAY 62 E-METER INSTANT READS 48. HCOB 2 JUL 62 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS 49. HCOB 4 JUL 62 BULLETIN CHANGES 50. HCOB 21 JUL 62 URGENT - INSTANT READS 51. HCOB 10 JUL 64 OVERTS-ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING 52. HCOB 12 JUL 64 MORE ON O/Ws 53. HCOB 8 SEP 64 OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM? 54. HCOB 4 APR 65 ARC BREAKS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS 55. HCOB 21 FEB 66 DEFINITION PROCESSES 56. HCOB 5 AUG 68 CHANGE OF COMMANDS - OVERT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE 57. HCOB 3 SEP 78 DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM 58. HCOB 10 AUG 76 R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN 59. HCOB 17 APR 77 RECURRING WITHHOLDS AND OVERTS ************************************************** CLASS VIII CONFIDENTIAL COURSE PACK PART 5/16 ************************************************** 46. HCOB 21 MAY 62 MISSED WITHHOLDS, ASKING ABOUT HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY 1962 Central Orgs Franchise MISSED WITHHOLDS, ASKING ABOUT Since a pc can give a motivator response to the question, "Have I missed a withhold on you?" and since a pc's case can be worsened by permitting the pc to get off motivators rather than overts, the following becomes a must in asking for Missed Withholds: "What have you done that I haven't found out about?" Use "done", not "missed a withhold" in all missed w/h questions. The prior confusion aspect will be found to operate also if this is followed and the missed withhold will blow. In short use done not "missed withhold" in rudiments and middle rudiments questions and stress doingness rather than withholdingness. L. RON HUBBARD LRH :jw.cden Copyright ©1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 47. HCOB 25 MAY 62 E-METER INSTANT READS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 25 MAY 1962 Central Orgs Franchise E-METER INSTANT READS An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor. The reaction of the needle may be any reaction except "nul". An instant read may be any change of characteristic providing it occurs instantly. The absence of a read at the end of the major thought shows it to be nul. All prior reads and latent reads are ignored. These are the result of minor thoughts which may or may not be restimulated by the question. Only the instant read is used by the auditor. Only the instant read is cleared on rudiments, What questions, etc. The instant read may consist of any needle reaction, rise, fall, speeded rise, speeded fall, double tick (dirty needle), theta bop or any other action so long as it occurs at the exact end of the major thought being expressed by the auditor. If no reaction occurs at exactly that place (the end of the major thought) the question is nul. By "major thought" is meant the complete thought being expressed in words by the auditor. Reads which occur prior to the completion of the major thought are "prior reads". Reads which occur later than its completion are "latent reads". By "minor thought" is meant subsidiary thoughts expressed by words within the major thought. They are caused by the reactivity of individual words within the full words. They are ignored. Example: "Have you ever injured dirty pigs?" To the pc the words "you", "injured" and "dirty" are all reactive. Therefore, the minor thoughts expressed by these words also read on the meter. The major thought here is the whole sentence. Within this thought are the minor thoughts "you", "injured" and "dirty". Therefore the E-Meter needle may respond this way: "Have you (fall) ever injured (speeded fall) dirty (fall) pigs (fall)?" Only the major thought gives the instant read and only the last fall (bold-italic type in the sentence above) indicates anything. If that last reaction was absent, the whole sentence is nul despite the prior falls. You can release the reactions (but ordinarily would not) on each of these minor thoughts. Exploring these prior reads is called "compartmenting the question". Paying attention to minor thought reads gives us laughable situations as in the case, written in 1960, of "getting P.D.H.ed by the cat". By accepting these prior reads one can prove anything. Why? Because Pain and Drug and Hypnosis are minor thoughts within the major thought: "Have you ever been P.D.H.ed by a cat?" The inexpert auditor would believe such a silly thing had happened. But notice that if each minor thought is cleaned out of the major thought it no longer reacts as a whole fact. If the person on the meter had been P.D.H.ed by a cat, then only the discovery of the origin of the whole thought would clean up the whole thought. Pcs also think about other things while being asked questions and these random personal restimulations also read before and after an instant read and are ignored. Very rarely, a pc's thinks react exactly at the end of a major thought and so confuse the issue, but this is rare. We want the read that occurs instantly after the last syllable of the major thought without lag. That is the only read we regard in finding a rudiment in or out, to find if a goal reacts, etc. That is what is called an "instant read". There is a package rudiment question in the half truth, etc. We are doing four rudiments in one and therefore have four major thoughts in one sentence. This packaging is the only apparent exception but is actually no exception. It's just a fast way of doing four rudiments in one sentence. A clumsy question which puts "in this session" at the end of the major thought can serve the auditor badly. Such modifiers should come before the sentence, "In this session have you ........?" You are giving the major thought directly to the reactive mind. Therefore any analytical thought will not react instantly. The reactive mind is composed of: 1. Timelessness. 2. Unknownness. 3. Survival. The meter reacts on the reactive mind, never on the analytical mind. The meter reacts instantly on any thought restimulated in the reactive mind. If the meter reacts on anything, that datum is partly or wholly unknown to the preclear. An auditor's questions restimulate the reactive mind. This reacts on the meter. Only reactive thoughts react instantly. You can "groove in" a major thought by saying it twice. On the second time (or third time if it is longer) you will see only the instant read at the exact end. If you do this the prior reads drop out leaving only the whole thought. If you go stumbling around in rudiments or goals trying to clean up the minor thoughts you will get lost. In sec checking you can uncover material by "compartmenting the question" but this is rarely done today. In rudiments, What questions, et al, you want the instant read only. It occurs exactly at the end of the whole thought. This is your whole interest in cleaning a rudiment or a What question. You ignore all prior and latent reactions of the needle. The exceptions to this rule are: 1. "Compartmenting the question", in which you use the prior reads occurring at the exact end of the minor thoughts (as above in the pigs sentence) to dig up different data not related to the whole thought. 2. "Steering the pc" is the only use of latent or random reads. You see a read the same as the instant read occurring again when you are not speaking but after you have found a whole thought reacting. You say "there" or "that" and the pc, seeing what he or she is looking at as you say it, recovers the knowledge from the reactive bank and gives the data and the whole thought clears or has to be further worked and cleared. You can easily figure-figure yourself half to death trying to grapple with meter reads unless you get a good reality on the instant read which occurs at the end of the whole expressed thought and neglect all prior and latent reads except for steering the pc while he gropes for the answer to the question you asked. That's the whole of reading an E-Meter needle. (Two Saint Hill lectures of 24 May 1962 cover this in full.) L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright © 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 48. HCOB 2 JUL 62 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 2 JULY 1962 Franchise REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS How to Get the Rudiments In I am in a hurry to get this bulletin to you and to get it into use for all except CCH sessions. For a long time I've been urging you to get rudiments in. For the past ten days I have been working hard to analyze and resolve why you sometimes cannot. Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the presence of a monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go gradiently dull in the presence of out rudiments. If you fail to get one IN then the outness of the next one reads faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you'll miss the rudiment's outness and there goes your session. To get over these difficulties, I have developed a Model Session that can be used, in the rudiments, as a series of repetitive processes. Then, with this, I've developed Repetitive Rudiments. The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks the rudiments question of the pc until the pc says there is no further answer. At this point the auditor says, "I will check that on the meter." And asks the question again. If it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to the answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again lays the meter aside and asks the question of the pc as above until the pc has no answer. The auditor again says, "I will check that on the meter" and does so. The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is clean of any instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962 for Instant Read). The cycle: 1. Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no answer. 2. Consult meter for a hidden answer. 3. If meter reads use it to steer ("that" "that" each time the meter flicks) the pc to the answer. 4. Lay aside the Meter and do I and 2 and 3. The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question. One does not "bridge out" or use "two more commands". When the meter test of the question gets no instant read, the auditor says, "Do you agree that that is clean?" covertly looking at the needle as he or she says "clean". If the question really isn't clean, there will be an instant read on "Do you agree the question is clean?" If there is such a read, do 1, 2 and 3 again. The trick here is the definition of "In Session". If the pc is in session the meter will read. If the pc is partially out the meter will read poorly, and the rudiment will not register and the rudiment will get missed. But with the pc in session the meter will read well for the auditor. Thus you get the pc to talk to the auditor about his own case, the definition of "in session", before consulting the meter by using the repetitive process. What a relief to the pc to have his rudiments in! And goodbye ARC breaks and no auditing results! Use this system always on the beginning rudiments for every type of session. Use this system on the Middle Rudiments in a havingness and sometimes on the Prepcheck type of session. But seldom on a Routine 3 (goals) type of session. Use this system always on the End Rudiments of a havingness session. Do not use it on the End Rudiments of a Prepcheck or Routine 3 type of session unless the session has been full of screaming pc (which with this system it won't be). Havingness Type Session: Repetitive Rudiments System on Beginning, Middle and End Rudiments. Prepcheck Type Session: Repetitive Rudiments on Beginning and sometimes Middle Rudiments. Ask End Rudiments against meter as in step 2 and 3 of cycle (Fast Checking, see below). Routine 3 Type Session: Use Repetitive Rudiments on Beginning Rudiments. Use 2 and 3 only (Fast Checking) for Middle and End Rudiments unless Session very rough. So that's where Repetitive auditing processes wind up. Addressed to rudiments! A tip-you can ARC break a session by overuse of Middle Rudiments on Routine 3 processes. Never use the Middle Rudiments just because the pc is talking about his or her own case. That's the definition of In Session. Use Middle Rudiments in Routine 3 when you have not had any meter needle response on three goals read three times (not one goal read disturbed the needle). Then get your Middle Rudiments in and cover the first consecutive nul goal above (the three that gave no response). Don't use Middle Ruds just because 3 goals went nul. Only if no reading of a goal disturbed the needle for three goals in a row. Also use Middle Ruds when the pc "can't think of any more" in listing of goals or items. Don't use every time you shift lists now. Only if the pc "can't list more". -------------- In Prepchecking use Middle Ruds Repetitively after 3 Zero questions have each been nul on a list of Zeros and recheck those Zeros if Middle Ruds were out. Use Middle Ruds after each What question was nulled and check the What question again and rework it if alive. Also check the Zero questions if a What went nul. If a Zero advanced to a What, both What and Zero must be checked for nullness and found nul before leaving them. One Middle Rudiments use may suffice for both unless one was found still alive after the Middle Ruds were gotten in. Repair it and recheck if so. FAST CHECKING A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of steps 2 and 3 of the cycle done over and over. Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up only what reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One does this as many times as is necessary to get a clean needle. But one still says, "Do you agree that that is clean?" and catches up the disagreement by getting the additional answers. When both the question and the agreement are seen to be clean, the question is left. In using Fast Checking NEVER SAY, "THAT STILL READS." That's a flunk. Say, "There's another read here." ----------------- You cannot easily handle a transistor type meter more sensitive than a Mark IV. The needle would be so rapid in its swings you would find it nearly impossible to keep it centred. Therefore a more sensitive meter was no answer. The TR 1 of many auditors lacks any great impingement. And this is remediable only when "altitude" can also be remedied. There had to be a better answer to getting out rudiments to read better on a Meter for all auditors and all pcs. Repetitive Rudiments is the best answer to this. (Note: I am indebted to Mary Sue, when I was working on this problem, for calling my attention back to this system which I originally developed for Sec Checking and where it worked well.) L. RON HUBBARD LRH :dr.cden Copyright © 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 49. HCOB 4 JUL 62 BULLETIN CHANGES HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JULY 1962 Central Orgs Franchise BULLETIN CHANGES (Changes in Model Session HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962, HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962 and HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962) (Note: Make changes on your copies of HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962, HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962 and HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962 so that students passing these bulletins do not have to give the outdated data in their Theory Examination of HCO Bulletins May 3, 1962, June 23, 1962 and July 3, 1962. This HCO Bulletin July 4, 1962 is to be passed also in Theory as it gives Why.) HAVINGNESS RUD The Room Rudiment is dropped from Model Session in the Beginning Rudiments but remains in the End Rudiments. Abolish its use in Beginning Rudiments. Retain its use in End Rudiments in all HGCs, Academies, staff auditing and the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. The Room Rudiment spoils the evenness of Repetitive Rudiments and as often as not takes the pc's attention out of session. MISSED WITHHOLDS The question: "In this Session have you thought, said or done anything I have failed to find out?" is to be used in all Model Sessions as a Random Rudiment to be used in strict accordance with HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962, "ARC Breaks-Missed Withholds". It remains also as part of End Rudiments. The word "about" is deleted from the end rudiment question as it is unnecessary. Change your copy of HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962 to give the above as the standard command. This is used whenever the pc starts to get tense or tries to explain urgently. Don't let the pc get into a full ARC Break. See it coming. But if pc does get into a heavy ARC Break it is of course used. It means the auditor was slow observing. Its use is always repetitive as in any other Repetitive Rudiment. The "said" is added to prevent upset from poor TR4. OVERT/WITHHOLD At the start of any session, after starting the session, General O/W may be used on any pc who is feeling ill or misemotional before session beginning by reason of heavy restimulation or acute PTPs. This is run only until the pc feels better and has cycled to present time. It is not run until both questions are nul (as given in HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962). Use the cyclic type ending on the process. Follow this action by Repetitive asking of the Missed Withhold Rudiment above to prevent a missed withhold from occurring. END WORDS The E-Meter has two holes in it. It does not operate on an ARC broken pc and it can operate on the last word (thought minor) only of a question. Whereas the question (thought major) is actually nul. A pc can be checked on the END WORDS OF RUDIMENTS QUESTIONS and the charge on those single words can be made known and the question turned around to avoid the last word's charge. Example: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" The word "difficulties", said to the pc by itself gives an Instant Read. Remedy: Test "Difficulties". If it reads as itself then change the question to: "Concerning your difficulties, are you willing to talk to me?" This will only react when the pc is unwilling to do so. Caution: This trouble of END WORDS reading by themselves occurs mainly in the presence of weak TR1 and failure to groove in the question to a "thought major". With good TR1, the END WORDS read only when the question is asked. IN PRACTICE you only investigate this when the pc insists strongly that the question is nul. Then test the end word for lone reaction and turn the question about to make it end with another end word (question not to have words changed, only shifted in order). Then groove it in and test it for Instant Read. If it still reacts as a question (thought major) then of course, it is not nul and should be answered. CLEAN Change HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962 to read: Do not pay attention to any reaction consequent to asking "Do you agree that that is clean?" Trying to handle a reaction to this second question is too involved for ordinary handling. If the main question reads nul, ignore a read on "Do you agree that is clean?" DOUBLE CLEANING "Cleaning" a rudiment that has already registered nul gives the pc a Missed Withhold of nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A missed no-answer then occurs. This is quite serious. Once you see a Rudiment is clean, let it go. To ask again something already nul is to leave the pc baffled-he has a missed withhold which is a nothingness. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.aap.cden Copyright © 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 50. HCOB 21 JUL 62 URGENT - INSTANT READS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1962 Franchise Sthil Students URGENT INSTANT READS (Adds to HCO Bulletin of 25 May 1962) On Rudiments, repetitive or fast, the instant read can occur anywhere within the last word of the question or when the thought major has been anticipated by the preclear, and must be taken up by the auditor. This is not a prior read. Preclears poorly in session, being handled by auditors with indifferent TR One, anticipate the instant read reactively as they are under their own control. Such a read occurs into the body of the last meaningful word in the question. It never occurs latent. In other words all reads occurring when the major thought has been received by the preclear must be taken up and cleaned. This does not mean all needle reactions occurring while question is being asked must be cleaned, but it does mean that the instant read is often to be found before the last meaningful word is spoken fully, and it is catastrophic not to take it up and clean it. Goals and items are however read only when the read occurs exactly at the end of the last word. This will give you cleaner sessions and smoother needles. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.pm rd Copyright © 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 51. HCOB 10 JUL 64 OVERTS-ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JULY 1964 Remimeo Sthil Students Franchise OVERTS-ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING (STAR RATED except for Forbidden Words List) It will be found in processing the various case levels that running overts is very effective in raising the cause level of a pc. The scale, on actual tests of running various levels of pc response, is seen to go something like this: I ITSA - Letting a pc discuss his or her guilt feelings about self with little or no auditor direction. I ITSA - Letting a pc discuss his or her guilt feelings about others, with little or no auditor direction. II REPETITIVE O/W - Using merely "In this lifetime what have you done?" "What haven't you done?" Alternate. III ASSESSMENT BY LIST - Using existing or specially prepared lists of possible overts, cleaning the meter each time it reads on a question and using the question only so long as it reads. IV JUSTIFICATIONS - Asking the pc what he or she has done and then using that one instance (if applicable) finding out why "that" was not an overt. Advice enters into this under the heading of instruction: "You're upset about that person because you've done something to that person." Dynamics also permissively enter into this above Level I but the pc wanders around amongst them. In Level III one can also direct attention to the various dynamics by first assessing them and then using or preparing a list for the dynamic found. RESPONSIBILITY There is no reason to expect any great pc responsibility for his or her own overts below Level IV and the auditor seeking to make the pc feel or take responsibility for overts is just pushing the pc down. The pc will resent being made feel guilty. Indeed the auditor may only achieve that, not case gain. And the pc will ARC break. At Level IV one begins on this subject of responsibility but again it is indirectly the target. There is no need now to run Responsibility in doing O/Ws. The realization that one has really done something is a return of responsibility and this gain is best obtained only by indirect approach as in the above processes. ARC BREAKS The commonest cause of failure in running overt acts is "cleaning cleans" whether or not one is using a meter. The pc who really has more to tell doesn't ARC Break when the Auditor continues to ask for one but may snarl and eventually give it up. On the other hand leaving an overt touched on the case and calling it clean will cause a future ARC Break with the auditor. "Have you told all?" prevents cleaning a clean. On the unmetered pc one can see the pc brighten up. On the meter you get a nice fall if it's true that all is told. "Have I not found out about something?" prevents leaving an overt undisclosed. On the unmetered pc the reaction is a sly flinch. On a metered pc it gives a read. A pc's protest against a question will also be visible in an unmetered pc in a reeling sort of exasperation which eventually becomes a howl of pure bafflement at why the auditor won't accept the answer that that's all. On a meter protest of a question falls on being asked for: "Is this question being protested?" There is no real excuse for ARC Breaking a pc by 1. Demanding more than is there or 2. Leaving an overt undisclosed that will later make the pc upset with the auditor. FORBIDDEN WORDS Do not use the following words in auditing commands. While they can be used in discussion or nomenclature, for various good reasons they should be avoided now in an auditing command: Responsibility (ies) Justification (s) Withhold (s) Failed (ures) Difficulty (ies) Desire (s) Here There Compulsion (s) (ively) Obsession (s) (ively) No unusual restraint should be given these words. Just don't frame a command that includes them. Use something else. WHY OVERTS WORK Overts give the highest gain in raising cause level because they are the biggest reason why a person restrains himself and withholds self from action. Man is basically good. But the reactive mind tends to force him into evil actions. These evil actions are instinctively regretted and the individual tries to refrain from doing anything at all. The "best" remedy, the individual thinks, is to withhold. "If I commit evil actions, then my best guarantee for not committing is to do nothing whatever." Thus we have the "lazy", inactive person. Others who try to make an individual guilty for committing evil actions only increase this tendency to laziness. Punishment is supposed to bring about inaction. And it does. In some unexpected ways. However, there is also an inversion (a turn about) where the individual sinks below recognition of any action. The individual in such a state cannot conceive of any action and therefore cannot withhold action. And thus we have the criminal who can't act really but can only re-act and is without any self direction. This is why punishment does not cure criminality but in actual fact creates it; the individual is driven below withholding or any recognition of any action. A thief's hands stole the jewel, the thief was merely an innocent spectator to the action of his own hands. Criminals are very sick people physically. So there is a level below withholding that an auditor should be alert to in some pcs, for these "have no withholds" and "have done nothing". All of which, seen through their eyes is true. They are merely saying "I cannot restrain myself" and "I have not willed myself to do what I have done." The road out for such a case is the same as that for any other case. It is just longer. The processes for levels above hold also for such cases. But don't be anxious to see a sudden return of responsibility, for the first owned "done" that this person knows he or she has done may be "ate breakfast". Don't disdain such answers in Level II particularly. Rather, in such people, seek such answers. There is another type of case in all this, just one more to end the list. This is the case who never runs O/W but "seeks the explanation of what I did that made it all happen to me". This person easily goes into past lives for answers. Their reaction to a question about what they've done is to try to find out what they did that earned all those motivators. That, of course, isn't running the process and the auditor should be alert for it and stop it when it is happening. This type of case goes into its extreme on guilt. It dreams up overts to explain why. After most big murders the police routinely have a dozen or two people come around and confess. You see, if they had done the murder, this would explain why they feel guilty. As a terror stomach is pretty awful grim to live with, one is apt to seek any explanation for it if it will only explain it. On such cases the same approach as given works, but one should be very careful not to let the pc get off overts the pc didn't commit. Such a pc (recognizable by the ease they dive into the extreme past) when being audited off a meter gets more and more frantic and wilder and wilder in overts reported. They should get calmer under processing, of course, but the false overts make them frantic and hectic in a session. On a meter one simply checks for "Have you told me anything beyond what really has occurred?" Or "Have you told me any untruths?" The observation and meter guides given in this section are used during a session when they apply but not systematically such as after every pc answer. These observations and meter guides are used always at the end of every session on the pcs to whom they apply. L. RON HUBBARD LRH: nb. cden Copyright © 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 52. HCOB 12 JUL 64 MORE ON O/Ws HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JULY 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students SCIENTOLOGY I to IV MORE ON O/Ws The Itsa processes for O/W are almost unlimited. There is, however, the distinct must not at Level I, as at upper Levels, DON'T RUN A PROCESS THAT MAKES THE PC FEEL ACCUSED. A pc will feel accused if he is run above his or her level. And remember that temporary sags in level can occur such as during ARC Breaks with the auditor or life. A process can be accusative because it is worded too strongly. It can be accusative to the pc because the pc feels guilty or defensive anyway. At Level I proper O/W processes can take up the troubles that are described as peculiar to some pcs without getting too personal about it. Here are some varied Level I Processes: "Tell me some things you think you should not have done." "Tell me what you've done that got you into trouble." "What wouldn't you do over again?" "What are some things a person shouldn't say?" "What gets a person into trouble?" "What have you done that you regret?" "What have you said you wish you hadn't?" "What have you advised others to do?" There are many more. These at Level II all convert to repetitive processes. At Level III such processes convert to lists. At Level IV such processes convert to how they weren't overts or weren't really done or justifications of one kind or another. Care should be taken not to heavily run an out-of-ARC type process. This is the command which asks for out-of-Affinity moments, out-of-Reality moments and out of-Communication incidents. All after charge is based on prior ARC. Therefore for a withhold to exist there must have been communication earlier. ARC incidents are basic on all chains. Out of ARC are later on the chain. One has to get a basic to blow a chain. Otherwise one gets recurring answers. (Pc brings up same incident over and over as you don't have the basic on the chain.) You can alternate an ARC command with an out-of-ARC command. "What have you done?" (means one had to reach for and contact) can be alternated with "What haven't you done?" (means not reached for and not contacted). But if one runs the out-of-ARC (not reached for and not contacted) process only the pc will soon bog. On the other hand an ARC process runs on and on with no bad side effects, i.e. "What have you done?" "What bad thing have you done?" is a mixture of ARC and out-of-ARC. Done reached and contacted. Bad wished one hadn't. So solely accusative commands upset the pc not because of social status or insult but because a pc, particularly at lower levels of case, wishes so hard he hadn't done it that a real bad done is really a withhold and the pc not only withholds it from the auditor but himself as well. L. RON HUBBARD LRH :jw.cden Copyright © 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 53. HCOB 8 SEP 64 OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM? HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 8 SEPTEMBER 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students LEVELS II to IV OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM? I recently made a very basic discovery on the subject of overts and would like to rapidly make a note of it for the record. You can call this the "Cycle of an Overt". 4. A being appears to have a motivator. 3. This is because of an overt the being has done. 2. The being committed an overt because he didn't understand something. 1. The being didn't understand something because a word or symbol was not understood. Thus all caved-in conditions, illness, etc, can be traced back to a misunderstood symbol, strange as that may seem. It goes like this: 1. A being doesn't get the meaning of a word or symbol. 2. This causes the being to misunderstand the area of the symbol or word (who used it whatever it applied to); 3. This causes the being to feel different from or antagonize toward the user or whatever of the symbol and so makes it all right to commit an overt; 4. Having committed the overt, the being now feels he has to have a motivator and so feels caved in. This is the stuff of which Hades is made. This is the trap. This is why people get sick. This is stupidity and lack of ability. This is why Clay Table Auditing works. Clearing a pc then consists only of locating the area of the motivator, finding what was misunderstood and getting the word made into clay and explained. The overts blow. Pure magic. The trick is locating the area where the pc has one of these. This is discussed further in Saint Hill lecture of 3 Sept 1964, but is too important a discovery to leave only in tape form. The cycle is Misunderstood word or symbol-separation from ARC with the things associated with the word or symbol-overt committed-motivator felt necessary to justify the overt-decline of freedom, activeness, intelligence, well being and health. Knowing this and the technology of auditing one can then handle and clear these symbols and words and produce the gains we have described as being clear, for the things causing the decline are cleared out of the being. L. RON HUBBARD LRH :jw .cden Copyright © 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 54. HCOB 4 APR 65 ARC BREAKS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 4 APRIL AD15 Remimeo Franchise ARC BREAKS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS The primary error one can make in ARC Break handling is to handle the pc with ARC Break procedure when the pc really has a missed withhold. As some auditors dislike pulling withholds (because they run into pcs who use it to carve the auditor up such as "I have a withhold that everybody thinks you are awful --") it is easier to confront the idea that a pc has an ARC Break than the idea that the pc has a withhold. In case of doubt one meter checks on a withhold to see if it is non-existent ("Am I demanding a withhold you haven't got?"). If this is the case the TA will blow down. If it isn't the case the needle and TA remain unchanged. If the pc's nattery or ARC Breaky condition continues despite finding by-passed charge, then of course it is obviously a withhold. ARC Break finding does work. When the pc doesn't change despite skillful ARC Break handling, locating and indicating, it was a withhold in the first place. The hardest pc to handle is the missed withhold pc. They ARC Break but you can't get the pc out of it. The answer is, the pc had a withhold all the time that is at the bottom of all these ARC Breaks. Scientology auditing does not leave the pc in poor condition unless one goofs on ARC Breaks. ARC Breaks occur most frequently on people with missed withholds. Therefore if a pc can't be patched up easily or won't stay patched up on ARC Breaks, there must be basic withholds on the case. One then works hard on withholds with any and all the tools that we've got. ARC Breaks don't cause blows. Missed withholds do. When you won't hear what the pc is saying, then you have made him have a withhold and it responds as a missed withhold. In short, the bottom of ARC Breaks is a missed withhold. But an anti-social act done and then withheld sets the pc up to become "an ARC Breaky pc". It isn't an accurate remark really since one has a pc with withholds who on being audited ARC Breaks easily. So the accurate statement is "the pc is a withholdy type pc that ARC Breaks a lot". Now that type exists. And they sure have lots of subsequent ARC Breaks and are regularly being patched up. If you have a pc, then, who seems to have a lot of ARC Breaks, the pc is a "withholdy pc" not an "ARC Breaky pc". Any auditor miss causes a pc blow-up. The auditor by calling this pc an "ARC Breaky pc" is not using a description which leads to a resolution of the case as thousands of ARC Break assessments leave the case still liable to ARC Break. If you call such a case that ARC Breaks a lot a "withholdy pc that ARC Breaks a lot" then you can solve the case. For all you have to do is work on withholds. The actual way to handle a "withholdy pc that ARC Breaks a lot" after you've cooled off the last of his many ARC Breaks is: 1. Get the pc to look at what's going on with his sessions. 2. Get the pc in comm. 3. Get the pc to look at what's really bugging him. 4. Get the pc's willingness to give withholds up on a gradient. 5. Bring the pc to an understanding of what he's doing. 6. Get the pc's purpose in being audited in plain view to him or her. Those are of course the names of the first six grades. However, low down, these six things are all crushed together and you could really pursue that cycle in one session just to get the pc up a bit without even touching the next grade up. Whenever I see a sour-faced person who has been "trained" or is being "trained" I know one thing-there goes a pc with lots of withholds. I also know, there is a pc who ARC Breaks a lot in session. And I also know his co-auditor is weak and flabby as an auditor. And I also know his auditing supervisor doesn't shove the student auditor into doing the process correctly. One sour-faced student, one glance and I know all the above things, bang! So why can't somebody else notice it? Auditing is a pleasure. But not when an auditor can't tell a withhold from an ARC Break and doesn't know that continual ARC Breaks are caused by missed withholds on the bottom of the chain. I never miss on this. Why should you? The only case that will really "bug you" is the CONTINUOUS OVERT case. Here's one that commits anti-social acts daily during auditing. He's a nut. He'll never get better, case always hangs up. Unless you treat his continual overts as a solution to a PTP. And find what PTP he's trying to solve with these crazy overt acts. You see, we can even solve that case. BUT, don't go believing Scientology doesn't work when it meets an unchanging or continually misemotional pc. Both of these people are foul balls who are loaded with withholds. We've cracked them for years and years now. But not by playing patty-cake or "slap my wrist". Takes an auditor, not a lady finger. "Mister, you've been wasting my time for three sessions. You have withholds. Give!" "Mister, you refuse just once more to answer my question and you're for it. I've checked this meter. It's not a withhold of nothing. You have withholds. Give!" "Mister, that's it. I am asking the D of P to ask the Tech Sec for a Comm Ev on you from HCO for no report." If skill couldn't do it, demand may. If demand couldn't do it, a Comm Ev sure will. For it's a no report! How can you make a man well when he's got a sewer full of slimy acts. Show me any person who is critical of us and I'll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate's hair on end. Why not try it? Don't buy "I once stole a paper clip from the HASI" as an overt or "You're a lousy auditor" as a withhold. Hell, man, people who tell you those things just stole your lunch or intend to empty the till. Get clever, auditor. Thetans are basically good. Them that Scientology doesn't change are good-but down underneath a pile of crimes you couldn't get into a Confession Story Magazine. Okay. Please don't go on making this error. It grieves me. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.rd Copyright © 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 55. HCOB 21 FEB 66 DEFINITION PROCESSES HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 21 FEBRUARY 1966 (Amends HCO B of 12 November 1964) Remimeo Franchise Sthil students SCIENTOLOGY II PC LEVEL O-IV DEFINITION PROCESSES The first thing to know about DEFINITION PROCESSES is that they are separate and distinct and stand by themselves as processes. In The Book of Case Remedies we find on page 25 REMEDY A and REMEDY B. These two remedies are A and B because they handle a primary source of worry to supervisors and auditors. AUDITING STYLE Each level has its own basic auditing style. The Auditing Style of Level II is Guiding Style. The Secondary Style is GUIDING SECONDARY STYLE or Guiding S Style. ASSISTS An assist is different from auditing as such in that it lacks any model session. Assists are normally short periods of auditing but not always. I have seen a touch assist go on for months at the rate of 15 minutes a day, two or three days a week. And it may take hours to do a touch assist on an accident victim. What characterizes an assist is that it is done rapidly and informally and anywhere. "Coffee Shop Auditing" isn't really an assist as it is usually done over coffee too casually to be dignified by the name of auditing. The pc is never informed at all of the existence of a session. The pc, in an assist, is however informed of the fact and the assist is begun by "This is the Assist" and ended by a "That's it", so an assist, like a session, has a beginning and an end. The Auditor's Code is observed in giving an Assist and the Auditing Comm Cycle is used. As an Auditor one sets out in an Assist to accomplish a specific thing for the pc like relieve the snivels or make the ache in the leg better. So an Assist also has a very finite purpose. SECONDARY STYLES Every level has a different primary STYLE OF AUDITING. But sometimes in actual sessions or particularly in Assists this Style is altered slightly for special purposes. The Style altered for assists is called a SECONDARY STYLE. It doesn't mean that the primary style of the level is merely loosely done. It means that it is done a precise but different way to accomplish assists. This variation is called the SECONDARY STYLE of that level. REMEDIES A Remedy is not necessarily an Assist and is often done in regular session. It is the Remedy itself which determines what auditing style is used to administer it. Some Remedies, as well as being used in regular sessions, can also be used as Assists. In short, that a process exists as a Remedy has no bearing on whether it is used in an Assist or a Model Session. GUIDING STYLE The essence of Guiding Style is: 1. Locate what's awry with the pc. 2. Run a Repetitive Process to handle what's found in 1. In essence-steer the pc into disclosing something that needs auditing and then audit it. GUIDING SECONDARY STYLE Guiding Secondary Style differs from proper Guiding Style and is done by: 1. Steering-the pc toward revealing something or something revealed; 2. Handling it with Itsa. Guiding Secondary Style differs from Guiding Style only in that Guiding Secondary Style handles the matter by Steer + Itsa. Guiding Style Proper handles the matter with Steer + Repetitive Process. DEFINITIONS PROCESSING Definitions Processes, when used as Remedies, are normally processed by Guiding Secondary Style. Both Remedies of The Book of Case Remedies A and B are Guiding Secondary Style in their normal application. One would expect them to be used by a Class II Auditor. One would expect the Assist to last 10 or 15 minutes, perhaps more, but less than a regular session would take. One would expect that any case in a PE class, any student that was getting nowhere, would be handled by the Instructor with Guiding Secondary Style using Remedies A and B as precision processes. REMEDY A PATTER One would not expect the person or student in trouble to be turned over to another student for handling. It's too fast, sharp and easy to handle that trouble oneself if one is Class II or above and far more certain. You can do it while you'd be finding another student to do the auditing. It would be uneconomical in terms of time not to just do it right then-no meter- leaning up against a desk. The auditor's patter would be something like what follows. The pc's responses and Itsa are omitted in this example. "I am going to give you a short assist." "All right, what word haven't you understood in Scientology?" "Okay, it's pre-clear. Explain what it means." "Okay, I see you are having trouble, so what does pre mean?" "Fine. Now what does clear mean?" "Good. I'm glad you realize you had it mixed up with patient and see that they're different." "Thank you. That's it." In between the above total of auditing patter, the student may have hemmed and hawed and argued and cognited. But one just steered the pc straight along the subject selected and got it audited and cleaned up. If the student gave a glib text book definition after challenging the word preclear, we wouldn't buy it, but would give the student a piece of paper or a rubber band and say "Demonstrate that." And then carry on as it developed. And that would be Remedy A. You see it is precision auditing and is a process and does have an Auditing Style. And it works like a dream. You see this is Steer + Itsa as to its style. And that it addressed the immediate subject. What makes A Remedy A is not that it handles Scientology definitions, but that it handles the immediate subject under discussion or study. REMEDY B What makes Remedy B Remedy B is that it seeks out and handles a former subject, conceived to be similar to the immediate subject, in order to clear up misunderstandings in the immediate subject or condition. Remedy B, run on some person or student, would simply be a bit more complex than Remedy A as it looks into the past. A person has a continuous confusion with policy or auditors, etc. So one runs B like this (the following is auditor patter only): "I'm going to give you an Assist. Okay?" "All right. What subject were you mixed up with before Scientology?" "I'm sure there is one." "Okay. Spiritualism. Fine. What word in Spiritualism didn't you understand?" "You can think of it." "Good. Ectoplasm. Fine. What was the definition of that?" "All right, there's a dictionary over there, look it up." "I'm sorry it doesn't give the spiritualist definition. But you say it says Ecto means outside. What's plasm?" "Well, look it up." "All right. I see, Ecto means outside and plasm means mould or covering." (Note: You don't always break up words into parts for definition in A & B Remedies.) "Yes, I've got that. Now what do you think spiritualists meant by it?" "All right, I'm glad you realize that sheets over people make ghosts ghosts." "Fine, glad you recalled being scared as a child." "All right, what did the spiritualist mean then?" "Okay. Glad you see thetans don't need to be cased in goo." "All right. Fine. Good. You had Ectoplasm mixed up with engrams and you now realize thetans don't have to have a bank and can be naked. Fine. That's it." (Note: You don't always repeat after him what the pc said, but sometimes it helps.) Student departs still cogniting. Enters Scientology now having left Spiritualism on the back track. Doesn't keep on trying to make every HCO Bulletin studied solve "Ectoplasm", the buried misunderstood word that kept him stuck in Spiritualism. DEFINITIONS PURPOSE The purpose of definitions processing is fast clearing of "held down fives" (jammed thinking because of a misunderstood or misapplied datums) preventing someone getting on with auditing or Scientology. Remedies A and B are not always used as Assists. They are also used in regular sessions. But when so used they are always used with Guiding Secondary Style-Steer + Itsa. As a comment, people who seek to liken Scientology to something, "Oh, like Christian Science," are stuck in Christian Science. Don't say, "Oh no! It isn't like Christian Science!" Just nod and mark them for a fast assist or a session the moment the chance offers if they seem very disinterested or aloof when asked to a PE Course. There's weapons in that arsenal, auditor. Use them. As Remedies A and B stand as the first and second given in The Book of Case Remedies, so before a large number of potential Scientologists stands the confusion of definitions. We have made Scientology definitions easy for them by compiling a dictionary, using words new to people only when useful. But those that don't come along at all, are so wound up in some past subject they can't hear or think when that earlier subject is restimulated. And that earlier subject is held down only by some word or phrase they didn't grasp. Some poor pawn howling for the blood of Scientologists isn't mad at Scientology at all. But at some earlier practice he got stuck in with mis-definition of its terms. You see, we inherit some of the effects of the whole dullness of Man when we seek to open the prison door and say, "Look. Sunshine in the fields. Walk out." Some, who need Remedy B say: "Oh no! The last time somebody scratched the wall that way I got stupider." Why say, "Hey. I'm not scratching the wall. I'm opening the gate"? Why bother. He can't hear you. But he can hear Remedy B as an assist. That's the channel to his comprehension. UNDERSTANDING When a person can't understand something and yet goes on facing up to it, he gets into a "problems situation" with it. There it is over there, yet he can't make it out. Infrequently (fortunately for us) the being halts time right there. Anything he conceives to be similar presented to his view is the puzzle itself (A=A=A). And he goes stupid. This happens rarely in the life of one being, but it happens to many people. Thus there aren't many such messes in one person in one lifetime that have to be cleaned up. But there are a few in many people. The cycle of Mis-definition is: 1. didn't grasp a word, then 2. didn't understand a principle or theory, then 3. became different from it, commits and committed overts against it, then 4. restrained himself or was restrained from committing those overts, then 5. being on a withhold (inflow) pulled in a motivator. Not every word somebody didn't grasp was followed by a principle or theory. An overt was not committed every time this happened. Not every overt committed was restrained. So no motivator was pulled in. But when it did happen, it raised havoc with the mentality of the being when trying to think about what seem to be similar subjects. You see, you are looking at the basic incident + its locks as in a chain of incidents. The charge that is apparently on the lock in present time is actually only in the basic incident. The locks borrow the charge of the basic incident and are not themselves causing anything. So you have a basic misunderstood word which then charges up the whole subject as a lock; then a subject charging up similar subjects as locks. Every nattery or non-progressing student or pc is hung up in the above 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 cycle. And every such student or pc has a misdefined word at the bottom of that pile. If the condition is new and temporary it's a Scientology word that's awry. If natter, no progress, etc, is continuous and doesn't cease when all is explained in Scientology or when attempts to straighten up Scientology words fail, then it's an earlier subject at fault. Hence, Remedies A and B. Hence Guiding Secondary Style. Hence, the fact that Definitions Processes are processes. And VITAL processes they are if one wants a smooth organization, a smooth PE, a smooth record of wins on all pcs. And if one wants to bring people into Scientology who seem to want to stay out. Of course these Remedies A and B are early-on processes, to be audited by a Class II or above on a Level 0 or I pc or student. However, some in Scientology, as of this date, are studying slowly or progressing poorly because A and B haven't been applied. One expects that very soon, now that auditors have this data, there will be nobody at upper levels with his definitions dangling. L. RON HUBBARD LRH :jw.ml.rd Copyright ©1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 56. HCOB 5 AUG 68 CHANGE OF COMMANDS - OVERT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 5 AUGUST 1968 Remimeo LEVEL II CHANGE OF COMMANDS OVERT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE IMPORTANT (This HCOB takes precedence over all other tapes and HCOBs on overts) Whereas it is workable to ask for "What have you done" and "What have you withheld", it is NOT the Level II Grade II process any longer. The original work on this used the overt-motivator sequence and the commands are "What have you done?" "What has been done to you?" There is a third "leg" which is "What has another done to another?" which can be used and if not used may stick as a flow. This is a problem in flows. (I) Inflow, (2) Outflow, (3) Cross Flow. Therefore the only commands to be used to clean up overts are three in number. They are run one at a time to floating needle on the process (not F/N on each leg). "What has been done to you?" "What have you done?" "What has another done to another?" (By drawing three symbols an auditor can put his pen on each as it is asked and so keep his place.) L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH :jp.js. cden Copyright ©1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 57. HCOB 3 SEP 78 DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1978 (Cancels HCOB 5 Dec AD12 "2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 and Routine 2-10 Modern Assessment.") (Cancels HCOB 13 Aug AD12) (Cancels HCOB 1 Aug AD12) Remimeo HCOs Tech Staff Qual Staff Confessional Courses All Auditors, C/Ses, Supervisors URGENT-URGENT-URGENT DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM The following is the only valid definition of an R/S: ROCK SLAM: THE CRAZY, IRREGULAR, LEFT-RIGHT SLASHING MOTION OF THE NEEDLE ON THE E-METER DIAL. R/SES REPEAT LEFT AND RIGHT SLASHES UNEVENLY AND SAVAGELY, FASTER THAN THE EYE EASILY FOLLOWS. THE NEEDLE IS FRANTIC. THE WIDTH OF AN R/S DEPENDS LARGELY ON SENSITIVITY SETTING. IT GOES FROM ONE-FOURTH INCH TO WHOLE DIAL. BUT IT SLAMS BACK AND FORTH. A ROCK SLAM (R/S) MEANS A HIDDEN EVIL INTENTION ON THE SUBJECT OR QUESTION UNDER AUDITING OR DISCUSSION. VALID R/SES ARE NOT ALWAYS INSTANT READS. AN R/S CAN READ PRIOR OR LATENTLY. HCOB 5 December AD12, "2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 and Routine 2-10 Modern Assessment" is an HCOB composited by others incorrectly and is CANCELLED as it misdefines an R/S as a single slash left or right. It contains the statements: "One or two slashes make an R/S.... If it slashed up or down once call it an R/S." The data is utterly false. By this wrong definition a rocket read could be mistaken for an R/S, or any sudden rise could be mistaken for an R/S. ONE SLASH DOESN'T BEGIN TO BE AN R/S. NOR TWO OR THREE FOR THAT MATTER. THE CORRECT DEFINITION OF AN R/S INCLUDES THAT IT SLASHES SAVAGELY LEFT AND RIGHT. DEFINITION OF A DIRTY NEEDLE The following is the only valid definition of a dirty needle: DIRTY NEEDLE: AN ERRATIC AGITATION OF THE NEEDLE WHICH IS RAGGED, JERKY, TICKING, NOT SWEEPING, AND TENDS TO BE PERSISTENT. IT IS NOT LIMITED IN SIZE. A DIRTY NEEDLE IS CAUSED BY ONE OF THREE THINGS: 1. THE AUDITOR'S TRs ARE BAD. 2. THE AUDITOR IS BREAKING THE AUDITOR'S CODE. 3. THE PC HAS WITHHOLDS HE DOES NOT WISH KNOWN. The definitions of a dirty needle as "a small rock slam" and "a smaller edition of the rock slam" in HCOB 13 August AD12, "Rock Slams and Dirty Needles," are CANCELLED. The definition of a dirty needle as "a minute rock slam" in HCOB 1 August AD12, "Routine 3GA, Goals, Nulling by Mid Ruds," is CANCELLED. All definitions which limit the size of a dirty needle to "one quarter of an inch" or "less than one quarter of an inch" are CANCELLED. A dirty needle is NOT TO BE CONFUSED with an R/S. They are distinctly different reads. You never mistake an R/S if you have ever seen one. A dirty needle is far less frantic. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ROCK SLAM AND A DIRTY NEEDLE IS IN THE CHARACTER OF THE READ. NOT THE SIZE. Persistent use of "fish and fumble" can sometimes turn a dirty needle into a rock slam. However until it does it is simply a dirty needle. AUDITORS, C/SES, SUPERVISORS MUST MUST MUST KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO TYPES OF READS COLD. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nc Copyright © 1978 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 58. HCOB 10 AUG 76 R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1976R REVISED 5 SEPTEMBER 1978 (Only revision is the correction of the definition of a rock slam. Revisions in this type style.) Ref: HCOB 3 Sep 78, DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM Remimeo All Sec Checkers All HCO All Meter Operators R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN (HANDLING OF CONFESSIONALS CHECKSHEETS) (PTS PROCESSING CHECKSHEETS) (EXPANDED DIANETICS CHECKSHEETS) (METER OPERATION CHECKSHEETS) (VARIOUS RUNDOWN CHECKSHEETS) The crazy, irregular, left-right slashing motion of the needle in the E-Meter dial is called "A rock slam" or "R/S." It repeats left and right slashes unevenly and savagely, faster than the eye easily follows. The needle is frantic. The width of an R/S depends largely on sensitivity setting. It goes from one-fourth inch to whole dial. But it slams back and forth. The term was taken from a process in the 50s which sought to locate "A rock" on the pc's early time track; the "slam" is a description of the needle violence, meaning it "slams" back and forth. For a time all left-right motions of the needle were considered and called "rock slams" until it was found that a smooth left-right flow was a symptom of release or key-out and this became the "floating needle." There is yet another left-right motion of the needle called the "theta bop." This occurs when the person has or is trying to exteriorize. "Theta" is the symbol for the person as a spirit or goodness; "bop" is an electronic term for a slight hitch in the sweep of a needle. A "theta bop" hitches evenly at each end of the sweep left and right and is very even in the middle of the sweep. Neither the "floating needle" nor the "theta bop" can be confused with a "rock slam." The difference of the rock slam is uneven, frantic slashing left and right; even the distances traveled left and right are likely to be different in each swing from the last. A "rock slam" can be caused sometimes by leaving rings on the pc's fingers or by a short circuit in the meter or by the cans (electrodes) touching something like a dress. These are the mechanical considerations and must be ruled out before the pc can be considered to have "rock slammed." If the pc is not wearing rings and if the meter needle is calm with the lead unplugged, if the lead is okay, and if the pc is not jiggling the ends of the cans against his clothes, then the pc's rock slam is caused by the pc's bank . One has to be very careful about the correctness of the pc actually having rock slammed while on the meter, that it was actually observed, that it was not mechanically caused as above. One puts the R/S down on the worksheet and also gives exactly what was asked. And also that the mechanical points were checked without distracting the pc. ONE MUST ALWAYS REPORT A ROCK SLAM IN THE AUDITING REPORT, NOTE IT WITH SESSION DATE AND PAGE INSIDE THE LEFT COVER OF THE PC'S FOLDER AND REPORT IT TO ETHICS INCLUDING THE QUESTION OR SUBJECT WHICH ROCK SLAMMED, PHRASED EXACTLY. Why? Because the rock slam is the most important needle manifestation! It gives the clue to the pc's case. In 1970 I began a full-scale research project into the subject of insanity and its relationship to cases and case gains and suppression. It was only then that the full significance of the rock slam was unearthed. This research developed into what is now called EXPANDED DIANETICS, a series of special processes and actions with their drills and training which permits the auditor to handle a specific case type. This was, by the way, Man's first system of positive detection and handling of psychosis and the first full understanding of what psychosis is. While this bulletin is not in any way a two-minute course in or a substitute for full training in Expanded Dianetics, any auditor who audits, Sec Checks, or handles people on a meter has to know what a rock slam is and how it behaves and what he should do about it. The first thing is to be able to recognize one and to quickly with the scan of the eye and unplug of the meter cord (without any distraction of or notice by the pc) make the checks for a mechanical rock slam as given above. You can make a meter "rock slam" with no pc or cord connected to it by (a) turning it on; (b) put the sensitivity at perhaps 2; © put the needle at "set"; (d) rapidly, very rapidly, move the TA back and forth maybe a quarter of an inch and do it unevenly. That, if you did it very fast and unevenly, would be something that resembled a rock slam. But no matter how fast you made your fingers move, a real R/S is a trifle faster. If you do that you will see what an R/S looks like. The needle in this experiment is not made to hit the sides of the meter. Now if you take the same set-up and smoothly slowly move the tone arm back and forth about 2 times a second without any roughness and the same distance right and left, you will have a floating needle. Note it very well as this comes at a time of release and is the thing a good auditor hopes to see and gives him the end-off signal for a process. It has to be well known as you NEVER bypass one in a session and to do so makes an uncomfortable pc. (The pc will often cognite-get a realization about himself or life at this point and one does not stop him from doing this.) This is the thing you indicate to the pc. You don't ever indicate rock slams or theta bops. When you see it, and without stopping or interrupting the pc's cognition, you always say, "Your needle is floating." Now the theta bop can also be shown to yourself by you. Set up the meter as above. Only this time, you smoothly swing it to the right and give it a tiny twitch in the same direction. Then you smoothly, at once, swing it to the left and give it a tiny twitch in the same direction. Then do it to the right. And so on. This is a theta bop. It is different than a floating needle only in that it hitches at each end of the swing. So learn to recognize it. There is a vicious smooth right direction slash that occurs when a pc hits a certain area of the bank that is called a "rocket read" and there is of course the small fall, long fall (which both go to the right and indicate a charged question or reaction) and there is the gradual rise to the left. But these do not repeat back and forth which is the characteristic of the rock slam, floating needle and theta bop. All right, so we know exactly what it looks like when we talk about a ROCK SLAM as a read of the meter. We know how it can be mechanically caused. And we know what we have to record and report when it is seen. But exactly what does a rock slam mean with regards to the pc? If you don't know this you can miss on the pc, on the case, on the org and humanity. A ROCK SLAM MEANS A HIDDEN EVIL INTENTION ON THE SUBJECT OR QUESTION UNDER DISCUSSION OR AUDITING. Two things underlie insanity, or to be more specific, there are two causes and conditions both of which have been lumped together by man and called insanity. He could not of course define it as he didn't know what caused it. The first of these two things does not concern us overly much here and is the subject of a separate checksheet and training and is called PTS or Potential Trouble Source handling. A "PTS" is a person who has been or is connected with somebody who has evil intentions. A PTS can feel uncomfortable in life or be neurotic or go insane because of the actions upon him of a person with evil intentions. Most of the people in institutions are probable PTSes. The second of these two things is insanity caused to the individual himself (let alone others) by hidden evil intentions. The extent of these intentions and what the person will do (and hide) in order to carry them out is quite shocking. These people are covert or overt criminals and many of them are insane-meaning beyond all rationality in their acts. Because their evil intentions are hidden and because they are often very plausible such individuals are what make "behavior so mysterious" and "Man look so evil when you see what Mankind does" and all sorts of fallacies. It is this last type, the chronic, heavy rock slammer, which Expanded Dianetics handles. One rock slam doesn't make a psychotic. Or a total menace to everyone. But it does mean there could be more and it might in rare cases mean you have, seeing enough of these R/Ses, a very dangerous person on your hands and in your vicinity. And that person must be handled by Expanded Dianetics. You won't see a great many rock slams in auditing people so you could be totally thrown off by surprise when you see one. And mess it all up because you are surprised. So know what it is and don't get all quivery and make mistakes and blow your confront. Just carry on. If you don't note the EXACT question that was asked and the EXACTLY worded statement the pc made when the R/S was seen, you can muck it up for the Expanded Dianetics guys. They won't be able to get it turned back on again easily and will lose a lot of time. So you have to be sure your auditing report is accurate, that the R/S is written BIG on the column and circled and, no matter what else you do in the session, you have to get it recorded in the left front cover of the folder giving the date and page of the session and you have to report it to Ethics. And also you don't third party the pc and give him a bad time in the session because of it. Now R/Ses most easily turn on during Sec Checks or Integrity Processing or when pulling withholds or trying to investigate something. So the people who see these most often are those engaged in that activity and not routine auditing (when they can also but more rarely turn on). Further the most likely person to collide with "needing to be Sec Checked" is an R/Ser, which again increases the numbers of R/Ses seen in these activities compared to routine auditing. But a very heavy R/Ser will also turn them on in routine auditing. It is the exact point of the R/S in the session, the exact question that was asked and the exact subject or phrase where the R/S turned on that are important. And these are very important as then the person can be fully handled with a full Expanded Dianetics Rundown by a qualified Expanded Dianetics Specialist. When, of course, the person gets to that point on his Grade Chart. The Grade Chart points are after Dianetics (like Drug RDs, etc.) but before grades, after grades but before Power, after Power but before Solo, and after OT III or after any single grade above OT III. These are the only points where Expanded Dianetics can be delivered and the R/S fully and completely handled. Now here is how you can turn off an R/S and mistakenly think it is handled: 1. The overt-motivator sequence has two sides. One is what the person has done (overt) and what is done to the person (motivator). You can ask, when the person R/Ses on something, if anyone has ever INVALIDATED him on that subject or action. He will find some and the R/S will turn off AND WON'T EVEN BE FAINTLY HANDLED BUT ONLY SUBMERGED. One can believe he has "handled" the R/S. Not true. He has just turned it off and maybe made it harder to find next time. One can ask what the person has done TO the subject mentioned and while this may unburden the case and make the person a bit better, the R/S is NOT handled, only turned off or submerged. It's almost as if there are so many overts and motivators on this subject or in this area that the push-pull of it makes the needle go wild (R/S). And indeed, this may be the energy cause, in the bank, of the needle reaction. But neither overt nor motivator handles an R/S finally because the CAUSE of the R/S is an INTENTION to harm and it isn't all that likely the basic intention will be reached. 2. Another apparent way the R/S can get "handled" and isn't is to take the R/Ser earlier similar on the subject of the R/S. The R/S will probably cease, go "clean." But in actual fact it is still there, hidden. 3. The third way an R/S can be falsely "handled" is to direct the person's attention to something else. If, when this is done, the exact subject of the R/S is not noted by the auditor, it will be difficult to find it again when the person goes into Expanded Dianetic auditing. 4. Yet another, and probably the last way to falsely "handle" an R/S is to abuse the person about his conduct or behavior or the R/S, or to "educate" him to do better, or to "modify" his behavior with shocks or surgery or other tortures like the psychiatrists do. In other words one can seek to suppress the R/S in numerous ways. Maybe the R/S won't occur (being too overburdened now) but it is still there, buried very deep and possibly beyond reach now. So if you understand the above four points you will see that although you can ease off the R/S, you have not handled it. It has merely gone out of sight. All right, what then DOES HANDLE an R/S? I warned you that this isn't a two-minute course on Expanded Dianetics and it isn't. An R/S is HANDLED by a fully qualified Expanded Dianetics auditor delivering full Expanded Dianetics to the person at that point on the Grade Chart where Expanded Dianetics is supposed to be delivered. If anyone thinks it can be done effectively any other way or if he C/Ses it to be done and the auditor is stupid enough to try to do that C/S, then it's Committees of Evidence and suspended certificates all around. With that warning, and only with that warning, I can briefly state what has to be done with the case. This is not what YOU do if you are not delivering full Expanded Dianetics at the right point on the Grade Chart. It is a brief statement so that you can understand what lies under that R/S. The pc with an R/S on any given subject and who R/Ses while discussing that or related subjects HAS AN EVIL INTENTION TOWARD THE SUBJECT DISCUSSED OR SOME CLOSELY RELATED SUBJECT. The pc intends that subject or area of life nothing but calculating, covert, underhanded HARM which will be at all times carefully hidden from that subject. Thus, the Expanded Dianetics Specialist, in handling that case (at the proper point on the Grade Chart) has to be able to locate each and every subject and question and R/S in that person's folder as noted by Sec Checkers and previous auditors or Cramming Officers or Why Finders. He has to have the complete list of R/S subjects. If they are noted as to session date and page and if all Sec Checking papers and cramming papers are in that person's folder, then the Expanded Dianetics Specialist can do a full and complete job. Otherwise he has to do a lot of other time wasting actions to get the R/Ses found and turned on again. What the Expanded Dianetics Specialist actually does is locate EXACTLY the actual evil intention for every R/S on the case and handle each one to total conclusion. When he is finished, if he has done his job well, the person's behavior will be magically improved and as to his social presence, menace and conduct, well that will be toward survival. When you see an R/S, if you are not an Expanded Dianetic Specialist doing Expanded Dianetics at the correct point on the Grade Chart, you don't say "Hey, you've got an evil intention!" and you don't ask "Say, what's that evil intention?" or do corny things like that because you'll get the pc self-listing, you may get a wrong item, you won't know what to do with it and you're just likely to get the auditing room wrapped around your neck right there. No, you quietly note it, make sure it isn't a mechanical fault, write it big on the worksheet, write down everything the pc is saying swiftly, note what question you were asking and let the pc talk and ack him and go on with what you are doing with the pc at the time. And after session you note it in the left-hand cover of the folder and send a report to Ethics. And some day, when he's done his Drug Rundown or gotten to one of the points on the Grade Chart where a full XDn can be done, why then it will be handled. And a good C/S will program or tip the case for that to be done. So that's the know-how you have to know about R/Ses to really help the guy and the society and your group. We're not in the business of curing psychos. The governments at this writing pay the psychiatrists billions a year to torture and kill because of R/Ses they don't know anything about. The crime in the society out there is caused by people who R/S. Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon and Caesar were probably the most loaded R/Sers of all time unless it was Jack the Ripper or your local friendly psychiatrist. So know what you are seeing when you see it and know what to do about it. And don't kid yourself. Or vilify or mow down people who R/S; we're not in that business. And the Expanded Dianetic Specialist and the pc someday will love you dearly for knowing your job and doing it right. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.dr Copyright © 1976, 1978 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 59. HCOB 17 APR 77 RECURRING WITHHOLDS AND OVERTS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 17 APRIL 1977 (LRH is quoted) Remimeo Tech Divs Qual Divs Auditors C/Ses RECURRING WITHHOLDS AND OVERTS Ref: HCO PL 7 Apr 70RA GREEN FORM HCO B 15 Aug 69 FLYING RUDS HCO B 10 Jul 64 OVERTS ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING HCO B 6 Sep 68 CHECKING FOR FALSE READS HCO B 11 Sep 68 FALSE READS DEFINITION The definition of recurring withhold or overt is an overt or withhold that keeps coming up, repeats again, or shows up again. Definition is obtained here from the American Heritage Dictionary and "the Scientology Tech Dictionary." Before a recurring withhold or overt can be handled it must be understood what one is. It is simply a withhold or overt that has already been gotten off and comes up again as an answer to an apparent reading withhold or overt question. The pc may also become exasperated at having to get off an overt or withhold that has already been gotten off. The pc may become upset, seem resigned or even protest a recurring overt or withhold. These are just a couple of the signs of a recurring withhold or overt. METHODS AND HANDLINGS 1. When a pc gets upset with a withhold being demanded that they already got off and they get into protest then "there is obviously a false read as the pc is getting off overts already gotten off." HANDLING: "Check for false reads on overts by asking the pc what overt he or she has gotten off more than once and tracing it back with the pc to what auditor or person said something read when it didn't. You would clean all these up." (Reference: HCOB 6 Sept 68 CHECKING FOR FALSE READS.) 2. When number 1 above doesn't handle the recurring overt or withhold: HANDLING: "Who said or seemed to infer something read when it didn't? Then this would be dated to blow and located to blow." (Reference: HCOB 11 Sept 68 FALSE READS.) 3. When a pc gets upset with getting off withholds or overts or mentions he or she felt his or her overts weren't accepted. HANDLING: Ask who wouldn't accept it E/S. (Reference: HCO PL 7 April 70RA GREEN FORM.) 4. "The pc has been invalidated for getting it off." HANDLING: Find out who invalidated the pc for getting off overts or withholds. (Note any terminals for later handling on the PTS RD.) 5. "The pc has been punished for getting it off." HANDLING: "Find out who punished the pc for getting off overts and withholds." The above methods of handling recurring overts and withholds can be found in the reference materials listed above. L. RON HUBBARD Founder Assisted by Paulette Ausley LRH Tech Expeditor LRH:PA:lf Copyright © 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED **************