Subject: FZ Bible 5/9 LEVEL 1 TAPES 
Date: 1999/06/26 
Author: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net> 
   Posting History    
 
FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST
 
LEVEL 1 TAPE TRANSCRIPTS (SHSBC LECTURES) 5/9
 
**************************************************
 
Contents 
 
1 Contents + Appendix HCOPL 10 Oct 61 Problems Intensive
2 SHSBC-18  renumbered  20  22 Jun 61  Running CCHs
3 SHSBC-21  renumbered  23  27 Jun 61  CCHs-Circuits
4 SHSBC-46  renumbered  50  29 Aug 61  Basics of Auditing
5 SHSBC-64  renumbered  68  10 Oct 61  Problems Intensive
6 SHSBC-65  renumbered  69  11 Oct 61  Problems Intensive Assessment 7 SHSBC-295 renumbered 324  15 Aug 63  The Tone Arm
8 SHSpec-17 renumbered 379  21 Apr 64  Problems and Solutions
9 SHSpec-42 renumbered 405  13 Oct 64  Cycles of Action
 
Based on the modern clearsound academy cassettes plus 6 of the 8 lectures were also checked against the old pre-clearsound cassettes (omissions marked ">"). 
 
Note that two of the tapes posted by Zenon in the FPRD cassettes are also often included in level 1.  These are:
 
SHSBC-61  renumbered  65  3 Oct 61  The Prior Confusion
SHSpec-12 renumbered 374  19 Mar 64  Flattening a Process
 
Note that two of the Freedom Congress lectures are also
included in the modern level 1 academy cassettes.  We will
be doing these as part of the complete Freedom Congress
later this summer.  They are
 
FC-4  5 Jul 57 Basic Theory of CCHs
FC-15 7 Jul 57 CCH: Steps 1-4 Demo
 
A complete list of Freedom Congress, SHSBC, and all other tapes
can be found in Pilot's tape master list available at fza.org.
We recommend it for use in keeping track of tape renumbering.
 
**************************************************
 
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 
 
Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.
 
The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.
 
They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians, 
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.
 
The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.
 
We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.
 
But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.  
 
We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.
 
We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.
 
Thank You,
 
The FZ Bible Association
 
**************************************************
 
 
PROBLEMS INTENSIVE
 
A lecture given on 10 October 1961
 
SHSBC-64 renumbered 68, 10 Oct 61 Problems Intensive
 
[rerecorded by Pubs WW]
 
[Checked against the old pre-clearsound academy cassettes,
material missing from the clearsound version is marked ">"] 
 
 
> Naw, she was up all night writing up your - what tapes and
> so forth have to be done for security checking and that sort
> of thing.
 
What is the date here? The 10th of... ? 
 
Audience: IOth of October. 
 
10th of October 1961, Special Briefing Course, Saint Hill.
 
Now, supposing, just for fun, supposing that Dianetics and
Scientology did everything they were supposed to do.
Supposing Dianetics and Scientology did everything they
were supposed to do. Supposing that was a fact. And
supposing this was all perfectly true. And that when you
got processed, why, all of these problems would resolve,
everything would straighten out, and there was no vast
difficulty of any kind. And this was the answer. And man
hadn't had the answer before, but now we've got the answer.
Now supposing all that were absolutely true. Now, just a
moment now; supposing that were all true, completely true,
and that was totally factual and that was it. Got that?
 
Now just supposing that were all perfectly true: What would
your problem have been before you came into it? What would
your problem have been before you came into it? Just before
you came into Dianetics and Scientology, what would have
been your personal problem in existence? Can you answer
that question? Hm-hm. Is this a new look? Have you just
suddenly realized something? Hm? Have you? Have you just
suddenly realized that there was a problem there immediately 
before you came into Dianetics and Scientology? Do you get 
a somatic at the same time? No?
 
All right. Now let's sort it out again. Was that really the
problem you had? Was that really the problem you had? Has
that problem been carrying along since? 
 
Audience: Yes.
 
All right. Now I've just been giving you the approach you
should use on a PE. That is the approach you should use on
a PE.
 
[PE = Personal Efficiency course - an introductory lecture
or course]
 
Supposing Dianetics and Scientology were everything that
they were supposed to be - and you can go on, of course, ad
infinitum, and add it all up. And there's one old bulletin
I wrote about a year ago, or something like that, that gave
all of its firsts. What is Scientology? And that gives a
tremendous number of firsts that Scientology had - for the
first time this, for the first time that. Supposing all
this were true? And then you ask the people after you had
carried on this way for about a half an hour and described
Scientology to them completely, and give them the broadest
possible description of it, then ask them, what would their
problem be that would make them come to this?
 
Now, of course, you're old-timers. You've been processed a
long time. Most of these things are dead and gone and long
buried, but not with a group you'll get on PE. It will take
their heads off. And that should be the first
 
lecture given on a PE course. I got that taped. Take it
from me. That is a piece of technology, not a piece of
propaganda nor administration.
 
Why? What exactly are you doing? What exactly are you
doing? You're giving them a stable datum. You're punching
it in. You're making a conditional stable datum. And then
if you carried it on that this was a very desirable stable
datum, if it were true and if it existed - you keep adding
that in - this is a very desirable stable datum, you, of
course, have restimulated that basic problem of continued,
long-time worry and agony up to a point where it's ready to
blow their heads off. And then you ask them, "What was your problem? Why did you come to Scientology? What problem do
you have that has driven you to this?"
 
Now, every other group in the history of man would at once
conceal this tremendous mechanism, because it would hold a
group together endlessly just because they're pressured in.
If they never gave them the answer, if they never had
anything out of it, they would be pushed together by the
duress. They would be told all the time that this was it,
and this was the exact thing, and so forth, and there they
were, and it would restimulate that problem if processing
or something of that sort was not adequate to relieve it.
But we are rich in technology, and we have a little more
nerve than that, so you could actually ask them the first
crack out of the box.
 
A lot of them there for the first time, you could ask them
just bang! "What is the problem that would cause you to
accept this? What problem do you have in your personal life
that would bring you to us?" Well, of course, you've keyed
it in, only they haven't noticed it being keyed in. And
when you ask them, of course, the problem is just staring
them in the face.
 
And on a certain percentage of these people, you will
produce a fundamental and startling change in case. Just
like that! Bang! You'll turn on somatics on them in many
instances, but they will be happy to have them, because
they'll say, "Oh, is that what that is? Oh, is that what
this is all about?" And they will have a personal
recognition.
 
Now you can go on and describe to them what processing is,
how problems are relieved, that sort of thing, and go ahead
just from that point of view.
 
You could send them into a co-audit or into the HGC. And it
would be better, actually, to send them to the HGC than
into a co-audit. It's always better, in spite of the fact
that they can fool around for a long time in a co-audit - 
unless you've got a co-audit running that is going to do 
something about problems. And if we're going to use that 
kind of an approach, then we had better doctor up the 
co-audit so it takes care of that exact situation.
 
We're not dealing with what the co-audit would do about
this. We're dealing, actually, with what a Class II auditor
would do about this - a Class II auditor.
 
We have a new series of classifications. A Class I auditor
is simply an auditor who runs anything, and that Class I
exists for just two purposes. First and foremost, it lets
an old-timer, who has a stable datum that a process will
work, actually do auditing for you without training, so as
to give him an opportunity to get trained while he audits.
That is an administrative problem in HGCs, and is an
administrative problem in any clinic or any center. You
have that basic administrative problem. You have people
around, and instead of training them for nineteen weeks, or
something like this, before they do a speck of auditing for
you, you give them something on which they have reality and
let them go ahead, because they will win with it, and they
will get some wins, and it'll be a passable show. And this
gives you an opportunity at the same time to train these
auditors up to a Class II. And we're talking now about,
really, Class II. I've just given you the key question,
disguised as a PE question, that will take apart any case,
providing you go at it right. And there is a new rundown, 
which you will see very shortly. It's just like a Preclear 
Assessment Sheet. And it has two new sections on the end 
of the Preclear Assessment Sheet.
 
Now, you know that anybody can do a Preclear Assessment
Sheet - anybody can do a Preclear Assessment Sheet. You can
sit there and ask these questions and fill out these forms,
and you can get the data from the pc and there it is. Do
you agree with me that that's a fairly easy thing to do?
 
All right. Now, what if you had a process which added a
section on top of that, which asked them simply some more
similar questions and got you a list of things; and then
you had a new section on top of that which you just filled
in as you process the exact processes given in that new
section? That would be a very easy thing to handle.
 
> In other words your "O" section which is - there is no 
> "O" section, I don't think, now, on it, or if there is I've 
> cut it off. 
 
[See Preclear Assessment Sheet, HCOPL 10 Oct 61 in old tech
volume 4, which has a PC Assessment sheet with the new O and
P sections added.  Section O is "Life Turning Points - list each major change the pc has experienced in life." and section P lists the processing commands for this.  A copy has been
included with these transcripts.]
 
There's your O section, and that asks a certain series of 
things and asks for a certain series of circumstances, and 
you get - you just write down this new series of circumstances
from the pc, and then when you've got those, you read them
off to the pc and notice the needle reaction of the E-Meter
for each one. And you take your steepest or most reactive
needle reaction. You don't do it by elimination. You just
read it off and you say, "Well, it fell off the pin or
wobbled more than otherwise."
 
You just take that one, and then with that datum which
you've gotten out of the O section, we move over into the P
section. And in that section we take that one datum and we
just do this, and then we write down we have done that; and
we do this, and we have written down we do that; and then
we process this exact process for a while, and then we
write down that the tone arm isn't moving anymore on this
process; and then we do this, and then we do the next, and
we write down each time we've done one of these things and
we come down to the end of it.
 
Now, that is one P section. And the P sections are
interchangeable - I mean, they're additional. So we take the
same form that we've got now, including the O section, and
we do this assessment again down through the O section, and
we get the biggest read we get this time. And we move over
and do a whole new P section. And we finish that whole new
P section, and so forth, we lay that aside, we go back to
the O section, and we go down the whole list of the O
section, and then we write down what was the steepest
reaction now; we take that one and we move over into the P
section, and we do it down the same form of the P section.
We just keep doing this. That is a Class II action, and that
is a very easy one to do.
 
It includes the rudiments problems process, and it includes
a Security Check on the people in the prior confusion. Now,
I'll give you the modus operandi by which this is done.
 
O section simply asks for changes in the person's life. It
asks for them specifically: Times their life changed, and
it makes a list of each one of these things - whether that
life changed because of death or graduation or anything
else, we don't care. We just write down this particular
point of change. And now, because the pc has not noticed
the most significant points of change - if he has, it's all
right, but if he hasn't, it's all right - we've got a series
of new questions: "When did you take up a certain diet?" "When did you join a certain religious group?" "When did you decide you had better go back to church and go back to
church?" You get all this type of question. We fill out a
whole bunch of these questions. And they're all what?
They're all major change points in a person's life.
 
Now here's the sleeper: Each one of these change points
must be eventually taken up in the P section, because the P
section asks, after the assessment is done, for the problem
which they had immediately before the change - and you knock 
their heads off. That is the prior problem combined with the 
prior confusion. And the two things are deadly.
 
You find each time they had a problem just before that
change, and that the change was a solution to the problem.
And therefore, the problem has been hung up ever since
because they solved it. That is the sleeper. And of course,
just before that problem, there was a hell of a confusion.
So you're going to take up the problem, now let's see how
this would be done. O section, we ask them this long list
of changes. It's just very simple. It's "When did your life change?" you see?
 
And well, they say, "Well, life changed pretty much after I got out of that prep school." 
 
"Good. Prep school. When was that?"
 
"Well, I guess that was in uh ... oh, well, that was in
1942 - no, that was in 1932. No, that was in 1952. Uh...that
was in um...it's sometime in the past."
 
Well, you don't ask the auditor to date it particularly.
All you want is an approximate date. That's why I'm giving
you this lecture, is to give you the gen on how to run one
of these forms, and I'll tell you why in a minute.
 
The date can be very, very approximate. It can be ten years
ago or anything. We don't care, see? And we'll say, "All
right. When was another change in your life?"
 
"Well, when my mother uh ... ran off with the iceman. That
.. that was a big change in my life." Or whatever it was,
see?
 
Well, so we write down, you know, Mother ran off with the
iceman. "About when was that?"
 
"Well, I guess that must have been about, uh.., fifteen,
twenty, thirty, forty - I don't know. Twenty-five, six,
eight, fifteen. No, I was a small child at the time.
Uh...no, I was a small child at the time, and I'm so-and-so
now, and so on. And I must have been about uh ...I was
either five or fifteen or something like that."
 
Because all of these things, you're asking for stuff that
is floating on the time track, so you don't care about the
accurate date. You just get him to make a statement on it.
You just get him to make a statement. You put down, well,
it was twenty years ago, something like that, see?
 
And you keep getting these changes. Now, these other
changes have missed him usually, but every time he took up
a diet, a fad, changed his clothes, all of a sudden changed
his methods of living in some fashion, you get all those as
changes in his life, too. And you actually will have, by
the time you finish an O section, most of the changes in
the life. Now, of course, it's going to occur, later on
he's going to remember new changes in his life. And it's a
moot question whether you bother to add those onto the O
section of this particular questionnaire or not. We don't
care whether you add these new changes on or not. You'll
wind up with a lot of changes, and they'll be the most
significant changes in the fellow's life, and you'll hit
it.
 
This, you see, is not a very precision activity, is it? You
got to ask the questions and you got to get the answers to
the questions. The truth of the matter is, no pc is going
to kick the bucket because you miss.
 
In other words, this is a very safe activity. So this is a
safe activity, and that would be a very happy day for the
Director of Processing in any organization, to have a safe
activity.
 
See, that compares tremendously different than Routine 3.
Routine 3 is not a safe activity at all. You get the wrong
goal and the wrong terminal, and you run it and you've had
it. Oh, you can patch the case up and hang it back together
again with sticky plaster, but this is a very precision
activity,
 
Routine 3.
 
Well, we're talking about Routine 2, so we've got an
imprecise activity. What I have discovered, actually, just
as a side comment here, is an imprecise activity that will
change the living daylights out of a case. I'm not
exaggerating now. You run this and you'll see. And it can
be done rather imprecisely, and it can be done rather
skimpily, and they can forget to flatten things, and they
can do other goofs, and they can have the rudiments out,
and other things can happen, you see, and they're still
going to get results. So that's a good thing to have
around, isn't it? All right. You see, you've defeated me
down to here.
 
Now, anyway, here's this long list of changes. Now just
reading off these changes: "All right. Your mother ran away with the iceman, and so forth. And later on...and you
joined the Holy Rollers of God Help Us, and..." this and
that. And you just read each one of these changes you've
written down. And you've written it down in his language
and he can spot it. That's the thing. It's just a
communication that he can spot. And you read your needle
reaction; you put your needle reaction down. But you're
doing the P section, you see, by the time you do this.
 
And you get the needle reaction. And then it's number so.
And you'll find all these changes are all numbered over
here. It's easy. So it's number so-and-so. And you write
that down in the P section, and you put a descriptive note
on it if you want to, to make it very plain. And now we
spring the big question.
 
And it's written right there in the P section on about the
third line, something like that. And it says, "Now say to
the pc, "What problem did you have immediately before that
change?'" Now, you think I'm being sarcastic, but I am not
being sarcastic. I'm showing you that this is an easy one
to get across. And I'm trying to ease your mind, because
you will be administering people doing this one, you see?
And I'm trying to give you an easy mind on doing it.
 
And they're going to have worries. And I'm just telling
you, now don't have these worries. I'll tell you the
only - about the only two things they can do wrong in the
test. We will take those things up, and they're rather
minor.
 
All right. So we say now, "What was your problem?" And we get him to state the problem. Now, this is the first thing
that can go wrong, is that he states a fact and the auditor
writes it down as a problem. He's got to state a problem,
so you've got to keep him stating it if he persists in
stating facts instead of problems.
 
Now, the difference between a fact and a problem is simply
this: A problem has hole or what or which. It has a
question, it has a mystery connected with it. It is not a
fait accompli. A fait accompli, a fact, is this: "My head
hurt." See, that's not a problem; it's a fact.
 
So you ask that change, and you say, "What problem did you
have immediately before this?" And he says, "My head hurt." "Good," you say, "All right. Now how would you state that as a problem?" And he says, "Well, my head hurt pretty bad." And you say, "Well, did you have a problem about it?" You see? And he said, "Well, also my head uh.., sometimes
didn't hurt." And you say, "Yes, well, good. But did you have a problem around this?" And it finally drives home to
him that you're asking for a problem.
 
And he says, "Well, yes. Sometimes it hurt and sometimes it .. Oh, well, a problem. Yes. Well, it's 'when my head was
going to hurt.' Yeah." And you actually have to work at
this point until you get the person to state the problem - 
as a problem, not as a fact. And you're going to find some 
auditors that are under training in Class II that will have 
a rough time doing this, because you'll get the slips back 
and they will be saying on them "My head hurt." What is the problem? And then the fellow has run an hour and a half of 
processing on this fact, you see? And he couldn't fit it in, 
because it isn't...so on. And it's all very complicated. 
And he couldn't run the right process. He didn't do anybody 
any harm, but he didn't get very far either. You want a 
problem, not a fact.
 
All right. Now having gotten that, it says right on the
next line that what you ask is simply your problem process.
It gives you the wording of the rudiment for problems. Of
course, you're running what? You're running a present time
problem of long duration. Naturally, you're into it with a
crash.
 
Now, your next point is that you're just going to run that
till the tone arm quiets down. Now, that doesn't say how
long. Supposing they leave it unflat. Oh, it doesn't
matter. It'd be nice to get a nice, neat, workmanlike job
done on it, where "unknown" was run against the problem until the tone arm no longer moved for twenty minutes. That
would be nice, but it is not vital.
 
Now, it ceases to be vital after the somatic that turns up
with it has disappeared. It ceases to be vital. But if a
person just backed off of it while the somatic was in high
gear, there possibly might be a little repercussion.
 
When we first gave, oh, I don't know, let's see, "Is this a withhold from Scientologists or is it an overt to say so?"
You know, you come against that all the time. Would it be
an overt to say it, or is it a withhold if you don't?
 
We gave Mike Pernetta the gen on how you flattened a level,
and we said you ran it until the tone arm didn't move, you
see? He got the tone arm into motion and then left it. And
that was his interpretation of it, and he did that on three
consecutive levels on a pc I'm looking at right this
minute. I had his head and dried his ears, but it didn't do
any good. This is what he had done.
 
So you see, that can be badly interpreted even by a
relatively good auditor. That tone arm motion, on just an
old point like that, you know, everybody knows "Well, you
run it till the motion goes out of the tone arm and it
finished," and so forth. And you'll get somebody that'll
turn it square around and say, "Oh, you get the tone arm so it's moving, and then you knock it off." I know this sounds utter idiocy, but I'm telling you something that has
happened. So you'll have to do a little police work on that
point. And that is the other point you have to be a little
bit shy about. Just make sure that the problem gets
flattened, the tone arm motion disappears, on that rudiment
command.
 
Now, you're not running that rudiment against the needle,
as you ordinarily would, because this has directed us to do
what: This has found for us the present time problem of
long duration which will produce hidden standards. And I've
just shortcut the route into hidden standards here with a
large, wide knife. So it's a present time problem of long
duration that you're running, so therefore you'd better run
it by the tone arm.
 
So you run the tone arm motion out of that. Now how long is
that going to take? Well, at a conservative estimate, I
would say that it was two to five hours of auditing. I
would say it was something on that order, two to five hours
of auditing.
 
Now you say, "Well, what happens to Model Session while
you're doing all this?" and so forth. Well, we assume that
some kind of a session was set up at the time they started
the assessment. We assume this, and we assume that the next
day that they start auditing, that they're going to do a
Model Session and move into it. But what if they hit a
present time problem?
 
Well, you're running a present time problem, so you are
running a rudiment. So a nice, precise job of auditing
would include running the pc on this particular rundown
with Model Session in full play. Yes, that would be a nice,
neat job of auditing. But let me tell you something. It
doesn't much matter if the whole rudiments and Model
Session are omitted. That's a nice, sloppy process, isn't it? 
I designed a real sloppy one here. That's real good. You can 
make lots of mistakes with it.
 
All right. Now what happens when he's got the tone arm
motion off of this problem? Now, he asks, it says right
there, the sixty-dollar question: "What was the confusion
in your life immediately before that?" "What confusion was in your life?" And it does an assessment of the people in
the confusion. You write down then all the names of the
people connected with the confusion in his life, see? And
the idea of listing and asking for another person in the
confusion of the life will keep putting the person back
into the confusion, and stop him skidding forward, and you
will wind up with a list of personnel. And now you security
check this personnel.
 
Now this, of course, perhaps could require a little bit of
acumen and alertness, because you've got to sort of make up
a Security Check. But at the same time, there are other
Security Checks, and so on, and there will exist a Security
Check that matches up to almost any person, you see? You
know, the idea "What have you done to him?" and "What have you withheld from him?" is about all it is.
 
Now you could put in at this point - run overt-withhold on
that person and get some result out of the thing. You
actually could do just that. You could run O/W rather than
security check, but it is much slower, and it doesn't get
you anywhere near as far as it should, and it is running
against a terminal for which they have not been assessed.
And so it has a point of danger to it. It is better to
security check the terminals. Now, that question is going
to come up, and you're going to be asked why you just don't
run O/W on each one of these terminals. Well, it's because
you're using a terminal process on a terminal that has not
been assessed on the goals line. And if the terminal is not
on the goals line, it can beef up the case. The only thing
you can do is security check it. That won't beef up the
case, and all you want to get off are the withholds, and
you don't want the overts at all. Simple, huh?
 
All right. This is the kind of a list you've got: "Now,
what was the confusion immediately before that?"
 
"Oh, my God, I'd forgotten all about it, but there was an
automobile accident, and this and that happened, and so
forth. And uh ... my father was very upset, and there was a
terrible confusion. And uh.., uh.., actually, I had to pay
for the car and I borrowed some money from my uncle George,
and then they all ... oh, that's just terrible."
 
You say, "All right. That's fine. That's the confusion
area. Now, who did you say, now - your father?" and you
write that down, you see? The people in the confusion - it
provides a long list there for the people in the confusion.
You write down, "Well, the people in the car. These were
so-and-so and so-and-so. And there's your father. And this
was so-and-so and so-and-so. And your mother was part of
this, and your sister and ..."
 
"Oh, yes," he says, "and my ... my ... my boss. He was part of this, too. Yeah." So you write down boss, you see?
 
And you just take this list ... Now, if you were doing a
very workmanlike job, of course, you would assess that
list. But again, it isn't important. You could just take
them in order of rotation, and you just get the withholds
off on each one of these people with this type of question:
"What were you withholding from your father at that time?" you see? "Good. Well now, had you done something else that
you didn't dare tell your father about?" you see? "What didn't your father find out about that?" You see? "What hasn't your father ever found out about that?" You know,
just keep plugging this type thing to get the withholds
off.
 
Now we get the withholds off of Father, and that seems
pretty good; and then we get the withholds off of the next
person, and that seems pretty good; and we get the withholds 
off the next people, and that seems pretty good. And it isn't 
done thoroughly, it doesn't have to be done thoroughly. It's 
going to resolve the confusion. Why? You got the problem off 
the top of it already. And you can just take a sort of a lick 
and a promise at the thing.
 
Now, it'd be nice if it were done thoroughly, and it would
produce a much better case gain, and all of this, and you
would for sure have this thing out of the road if it were
well done well, but you understand that if it were done at
all, why, it's successful - you'll have success on every
hand just doing it at all, don't you see? So that could be
kind of sloppy too. You try to get them to do it well, but
they do it sloppy and they still win.
 
All right. So you go down the end of this list, and that is
the end of that P section. And you put that over here, and
that is that.
 
Now you take up the next item assessed off of the O
section. Now you assess the major changes in the person's
life - you've got a new P section formed, see - you assess
the major changes in the person's life from the old O
section that you had, and you write down the one which you
now find produces the biggest needle action. And you go 
through the same routine on it: Find out the problem that 
preceded it, run the rudiments process on that problem, 
find the prior confusion to that thing, get a list of 
personnel involved in that prior confusion, get the 
withholds off from those people.
 
This is kind of a different Security Check, in that it's
withholds from those people specifically. It's the
not-knows, actually, that he's run on that personnel. And
you got that nicely cleaned up, and then you, of course - 
that's the end of that P section.
 
And you get a new P section form, and you go back to the
old O section and you do a new assessment. And you just run
the whole thing down till you can't get any needle motion
anymore on that old O section.
 
And at that point, we could say at that point, with a
considerable amount of truth ·- when we have finished up
this activity - we could say that the person was a release.
We could say it just like that. And we could also say, with
some security, that the person had no hidden standards and
would do auditing commands.
 
All right. Now you could go ahead with general Security
Checks. You could go ahead with checking against any
lingering chronic somatics, using Model Session, getting
the rudiments in and that sort of thing, and you could
finish up the activities that a Class II auditor could do.
You could do all of them. But you know these things are
going to be fairly functional, because you've gotten the
hidden standards out of the road. You've gotten the basic
problems of a lifetime, the hidden standards have been
swept away by this particular packaged activity.
 
Then you'd go ahead, now, and you would assess for goal - 
you turn him over to a Class III activity. The pc would 
have to be turned over. After all the Security Checks anybody 
could dream up, or any Security Check published anyplace 
had been given, why, that would be as far as you could 
take him at Class II. But you've gotten quite a ways. You've 
got Security Checks done. You've got hidden standards off. 
You've got chronic problems of long duration off the case. 
And that seems to me like that would really be setting one 
up, wouldn't it? And the case would have an enormous reality! 
Let me tell you, some enormous reality can greet this particular activity, because this is a sneak way of finding the present 
time problem of long duration, which I've just dreamed up for 
you and squared around, and you'll find it very functional and 
very workable.
 
NOW, a case that had had this done to it, coming into a
goals terminal assessment and a goals terminal run, of
course, would run like hot butter, because the only thing
that's getting in your road in clearing is the hidden
standard and the withhold. That's all. The present time
problems of long duration and the hidden standards - let me
say that - and the withholds that you get off in Security
Checks: those are the only things standing in the road of
people going Clear. And if you could handle all of those,
why, bang! that would be very profitable. And it isn't just
turning somebody over to an auditor, because you haven't
any auditors that can do anything else. It actually is very
profitable to set a case up.
 
Now, this would be a much more profitable way of running
1A, and it supplants 1A in full. This is how you get the
problems off a case. You find out this is more workable,
and it will work on people who have not had their goals and
terminals found - even better than 1A. Short, it's very
fast; it produces a high level of reality in the pc. It
produces a tremendous amount of interest. The interest goes
way up on this particular activity.
 
Well now, just look at the assessment alone. Let's go back
over the points of improvement now. Look at the assessment.
You mean to say that somebody is going to sit there and
actually have spotted for him all the changes in his life
without getting a case gain? He'd cognite. He'd cognite on
some things, because these things will start turning up,
you know?
 
And after he thinks he's given you all the major changes,
you ask him when he went on a diet, or something screwball
like that, or when he started eating special food, you
know, and he ...
 
"Special food? Yes. Well, you know, uh ... well ... I've
just been doing it for so many years. Actually, I'm not any
vegetarian or anything like that, but the doctors put me on
.. uh a diet, and I actually haven't ever much exceeded it
since. It's no salt and uh ... so on. It's a very mild
thing. But come to think about it, guess I am on a diet,
and uh ... Well, good heavens, when was that? Must have
been about '50 or 1935. No. I wasn't born yet in 1935." And all of a sudden, a new area of track opens up. So this type
of assessment just keeps opening up track - in this lifetime, 
you see; opening up track in this lifetime - just the 
assessment all by itself.
 
Now, you've already asked him earlier than this, on the
straight Preclear Assessment Form, for his operations, and
for everything, and you've noticed that that sometimes
opens up track on pcs. Well, an assessment of the major
changes of a person's track, that certainly does. And now
we take these things apart, because every one of them sat
on top of a problem. And don't be surprised.
 
Now, here are the limitations of all of this, and things
you shouldn't be surprised about in doing this particular
rundown.
 
Don't be surprised at all if it always turns out to be the
same problem before each change. And if it again turns out
to be the same problem, what do you do? Now, you will be
asked this. You will be asked this pleadingly and
burningly. "This is the second assessment we did. We've
already got the personnel all 'hidden confused' out, and we
got the thing flat with the rudiments process - and it was
flat. And we had an awful time because he kept going back
into a space-opera engram. And we kept him out of that."
(Knucklehead.) "Um ... and we guided him as well as we
could, and all of a sudden we find this 'left school,''left
prep school,' and he comes up with the same problem, and
it's still alive on the meter! Now how about that?"
 
Well, your proper answer to that is, "What came up on [the] form of the P section. What came up on that form?"
 
"Well, this problem - same problem. Uh... he had the same
problem just before he left prep school." "All right. Now what is the next line on the P form?" "Well - oh, well, I see what you mean. All right." So he goes back and he runs
the rudiments process on the same problem again. Of course, 
it has changed aspect and shifted over into a greater or 
lesser intensity of some kind or another. And he'll run that 
thing down. He'll find the area of prior confusion. And of 
course, the whole of the fellow's schooling opens up this 
time. And that had all been closed in. And so on. And he 
has a win. Everybody has a win, you see? But it'll worry 
people because the same problem will turn up, as it will 
often do. And it'll now turn up live all over again because 
it's got a new aspect.
 
Of course, the joke about this is, is he's had this same
problem for the last hundred trillion, see? So, it doesn't
matter. It doesn't matter. You just get some more running
on the same problem, and then get the application of that
problem to this life by getting off the area of prior
confusion, don't you see? And you're just unbailing the
case and unbailing it and - naturally, and so forth. But
it'll worry people. You mark my words.
 
Now, sometimes the person is dispersed off the main problem
and nothing happens with this; nothing will happen, I
guarantee you, for the first four sections that you fill
out. The first four P sections that are filled out, there's
nothing - nothing really happening. The person is just
plugging along and ... Find the areas of prior confusion.
The problems are wildly different. And on the fifth one,
you get the problem. And it almost blows their head off.
You get the idea?
 
So that may happen in the first one you do, and it may
happen in the fourth one you do, and it may happen in the
tenth one you do. It's going to happen. Sooner or later he
will move onto this, because the other problems are simply
bailing off the center-line problem. And he'll recognize
that all problems are this problem, and so forth, and he
will run it.
 
Well, after you've addressed this problem for quite a
while, this problem will move out into another perimeter
and he will feel freer and more in communication in this
lifetime. And more important than that, you will have keyed
out his hidden standards.
 
Now, let me warn you about something: Until you have the
goal and terminal of the pc, all you can do with a case is
key it out. That's all you can do with a case until you
have his goal and his terminal and start running them. You
say, "Well, then it's unfair to the case." Ah, well, but this is a double sort of a package. You can have his goal
and terminal without getting off his hidden standards and
problems of long duration, and they won't run.
 
So, you could find his goal and terminal, and then go back
and do this problems straighten-out - I've been calling it a
Problems Intensives. You could straighten out all of his
problems and hidden standards, and so forth, and then go
back and run the thing; or you could do the Problems
Intensive and then assess him and then go back and do all
the thing. But you're going to have to, in any case that's
going to hang up - and that is something on the order of 90
percent of the cases you'll audit - you're going to have to
do something like this to get the present time problems of
long duration and the hidden standards off the case,
anyhow. So it doesn't matter whether you do it before the
goal and terminal are found; you will certainly have to do
it after the goal and terminal are found if you do that
first, you see? So it doesn't matter which side of the
thing you do it on. It really doesn't matter very much,
except that the pc cognites faster if he knows what his
goal and terminal are. He gets a little bit more zip out of
this particular activity. That's about all you can say
about it. If you haven't got the pc's goal and terminal,
and you aren't running pre-have levels on the pc, all you're 
doing is keying things out. You are keying things out.
 
Now, the funny part of it is that when he gets his goal and
when he moves over into his terminal and when you go on
down the terminal line, the Prehav runs, and he collides
with engrams as he goes down the thing, this headache that 
he thought desperately was turned on by having left prep 
school, this difficulty he has had with women, and all of 
that sort of thing, are suddenly found to be resident when 
he was a telegraph operator on the Mason and Dixon line. 
There they sit. And it's there in full, and the somatics 
come back on in full, but this time they run out. A somatic 
is where it is on the track, and it's no place else.
 
But you've put him in shape to be able to function without
the somatic for a while, don't you see? And then when he
runs into it, it runs out rather easily. Otherwise, you're
always running him in the engram when he was a telegraph
operator on the Mason and Dixon line. See, that's the
silliness of it all.
 
You can't get anyplace if you don't key it out, because
he's in 7,762 engrams, various kinds, and your goals
preparation keys out the hidden standards and fixes these
things up and gets this life so it's functioning, and so
forth. And then you've got a pc who can stay in session.
And then you can run him on down the track and really find
where they are. Otherwise, you're only going to run into
locks anyhow, and you're going to do a key-out and a
key-out and a key-out as you run with the Prehav Scale, and
so forth, see? You're going to do key-outs, key-outs,
key-outs, then all of a sudden he goes into the engram.
 
And on a Class IV proposition, don't be too surprised to
have somebody almost Clear, or actually reading Clear, that
moves over then into a Class IV activity. And the reason
they came into Dianetics and Scientology is because they
had terrible pains in their appendectomy - the pain is not 
in their appendix, it's in their appendectomy. And all of a
sudden, they find out this has nothing whatsoever to do
with an appendectomy. Actually, it wasn't that type of
thing, but earlier on the track they used to install meters
in people at about that period of time, and so on, and
somebody's screwdriver slipped. Something real goofy. And
it comes off - right where the somatic went in, the somatic
will come off. Somatics are where they are, and they are no
place else.
 
So this is a key-out activity so that you can run a pc. Of
course, he gets very happy about all this and straightens
out his life to a remarkable degree, and you are making
case gains, and they are stable case gains. No doubt about
that, because it'd take him another lifetime to get him
keyed in this nicely again, see? But if you just left him
at this point, that is what would happen. Next life, why,
he'd just stack them all in again, because you haven't got
them out at source. Got the idea? So this is the value of
it. It actually sets a person up to be audited, and
incidentally makes them much happier with life, and also
gives them a reality on Scientology.
 
Now, the reason you are handling hidden standards should
not be hidden from you.
 
You are handling a hidden standard not because the
individual has his attention stuck someplace, you are not
running a hidden standard because the individual vias
auditing commands through it, although that is one of the
things that it does; you are running a hidden standard only
for this reason: it is an oracle. Every hidden standard is
an oracle. The pc has got an oracle.
 
Now it may look to you this way: The pc every session takes
off his glasses and looks around the room to see if his
eyesight is better.
 
"Well," you say to yourself, "well, that is a test he is making to find out whether or not his auditing is
progressing." And that's what you think is going on, but
that is not what is going on at all. His eyesight somatic
knows, and it's the only data there is. That is all the
data there is. Observation and experience have no bearing
on his knowingness. Airplane crashes in the front yard: He
sees if his eyesight is worse. If his eyesight is worse, he
knows that the airplane crashed in the yard. If his
eyesight isn't worse, he knows it isn't there.
 
The fact that the airplane crashed in the yard hasn't anything 
to do with his knowingness. It does not much influence his 
knowingness. This you have to get straight.  A hidden standard 
is his present time problem of highly specialized import, but 
is in highly specialized use. And when you first collide with 
a hidden standard, when you first begin to study a hidden 
standard, you think of it rather loosely. You think of it as, 
well, it's just a specialized present time problem of long
duration of some kind or another. And the pc is via-ing his
auditing commands through this thing and he hasn't
therefore got his attention on the session, and therefore
anything that would disturb the pc during a session would
be a hidden standard. And actually, then, aren't the pc's
hidden standards all expressed in his goals for the
session? And therefore, isn't it true that a person who is
trying to find out if he is brighter or not after a session
is over would be operating from a hidden standard? And
therefore, isn't it true that everything the pc ever gains
is basically a hidden standard? And isn't it true, then,
that everything, every change the pc notices in his case
would be because of a hidden standard? You see, you can get
the hidden standard is no longer hidden, man. It's "any
change is a hidden standard."
 
Well, that's not its definition. That is not what a hidden
standard is, by a long way. And you at right this present
instant are labeling things "hidden standards" which are simply, oh, little bit of a present time problem of long
duration, or a goal for the session, or it's something else
and it hasn't any real influence on the auditing, see? A
hidden standard is a pretty vicious proposition. It is not
a tiny, light proposition at all.
 
The fellow does it every command or every session. And if
he does it every command, every session, it's constant - 
then it knows. Then you must assume this about the hidden 
standard: The hidden standard is, it knows and he doesn't. 
So he has to consult it to find out. But because you're not 
auditing him out of session, you don't notice that he does 
this all the time in life. Ear burns, it's not true. Ear 
doesn't burn, true.
 
What a way to adjudicate a piece of music. Now, most music
critics are pretty badly spun in, but here'd be a music
critic: All right. He listens to the Medulla Oblongata in
E-flat minor, and he listens to this.
 
I was listening to some music critics the other day on BBC.
They were criticizing jazz, and I thought this was very
amusing, because they were all sitting there, and every
once in a while they'd talk about "being sent," and so forth. And "it didn't do something," one of the fellows said. You know? It didn't do something," and he touches
his chest, you know? And these people weren't judging music
at all. They were reading their own somatics. The poor
composer. If the composer knew this, he would pay less
attention.
 
Well, let's take a music critic and actually he listens to
a symphony orchestra or something tearing off a long chunk
of the Overture of 1812. And afterwards he says, "Well,
actually, it was not a bad performance but it lacked
impact." What does he mean? Now, you go back over his
criticism and you'll find out that every time things are
pretty bad, they lack impact.
 
And if you, the auditor, were to ask him what impact, he
would say, "Well, here, of course." And then if you
searched a little bit further, you would find out that when
he heard a piece of music, he knew it was good if he got a
pressure on his chest, and if it was bad, he didn't get a
pressure on his chest, so therefore he knew it was bad.
 
And this tells us (hideous thing) that this person actually
never really hears the music. He is paying attention to a
circuit which gives him a pressure or doesn't give him a
pressure on his chest. Now, you're going to teach this
person?
 
All the composers in the world could hire all the symphony
orchestras in the world to play all kinds of music to him,
loud and soft and so forth. He would not notice any of this
music. Something else is listening to the music and reacting. 
And if it doesn't react, he knows the music is no good. That's 
why you get these wild criticisms on art.
 
You know, some kid has stumbled over a paint pot in a
kindergarten and spilled it on a piece of canvas, and
somebody has come along and put it up in an exhibition. And
you have a number of critics, then, all of a sudden raving
about the beauty of form and rhythm and impact of this
particular painting, don't you see? It was when they walked
by it, did it restimulate an engram or didn't it? Had
nothing to do with the painting. And so you get off into
wild schools of bad draftsmanship, bad music; you get
sudden popularity of somebody who goes flat on every note.
You know, she always wears green dresses when she sings,
and this adds up to certain producers getting a
restimulation from green dresses. You know? And so here's
this great singer. And then they put her on TV, you see,
and the eggs pour out of the television screen like mad,
and she gets no Hooper rating, and they say, "What
happened?" Well, you see, her impact wasn't singing, it was a green dress. And television is in black and white. You
see, it's as screwy as this. Just as crazy as that. It's
just as far offbeat.
 
All I'm trying to punch home is that the person's
knowingness is not a result of experience; the person's
knowingness is as a result of circuit. And now you're going
to prove to him that Scientology works? And Mamie Glutz is
going to get well? And everybody is going to get happy? And
everybody is going to live better lives, and they're going
to make more money, and that sort of thing. And this
character goes on, and he knows it isn't working. Why?
Well, you see, it lacks impact. Well, what impact? The
impact that moves in and out against his chest, of course.
You see how this could work?
 
Now, I'm not berating anybody who has a hidden standard,
particularly, because it's too easy to knock these things
out. But recognize what they are. They're consultation
mediums with which one knows.
 
And I think it'd be a highly risky thing if, flying an
airplane, you knew you were on the right course if you had
a pain in your right hip, and didn't have to pay a bit of
attention to the instruments. I would say that ... 
 
Female voice: Hm, that's my impression.
 
This is the lower mockery of the great pilot who has a
homing-in pigeon built in and actually can fly a straight
course and wind up in the - with tremendous accuracy, and so
forth. But he does that because he's a great pilot, not
because he's got a circuit.
 
You see, anything a circuit can do, a thetan can do, and do
better. Any knowingness which can be imparted to the person
is the mechanism of Throgmagog, which was handed out in
Dianetics: Evolution of a Science. You can set up an
independent intelligence alongside of you that tells you
right from wrong.
 
Now, most criminals are the product of circuits. It isn't
true that people who have circuits are criminals, but a
criminal is a specialized part of this. Now let's look at
what a criminal does: A criminal knows right from wrong
because a circuit is active or inactive. In other words,
because something is restimulated or not restimulated, he
knows right from wrong. And therefore he knows the cops are
crazy, because they don't agree with his circuit.
 
They say, "You shouldn't have stolen the car." Well, he's got a little green light that lights up, and when he's
doing right, why, the green light lights up, and when he's
doing wrong, why, the red light lights up. And it happens
inside of his skull, and when he passed this car the green
light lit up, so he knew he should get in the car and drive
off and that that was a right and proper action.
 
And the cops pick him up, and the cops tell him that wasn't
a right and proper action. Well, man, they're crazy, if
they're observed at all. And he is very puzzled as to why
he's in court. You never saw more baffled people than
criminals. I've studied this breed of cat and found it a
very interesting breed of cat, because it's a type of
intelligence which isn't generally credited with being
insane. But it isn't there. And they are very baffled.
 
They say, "People pretend that you can tell right from
wrong. Talk about silly. Nobody can tell." That's the
extreme one, see? Or, "Yes, of course I can tell right from wrong. When I'm doing right, I feel well, and when I'm
doing wrong, I get a terror sensation in my stomach. And as
long as I only do things that make me feel well, that is
right, such as murder babies and steal jewelry. And if I do
those things, that's fine. But if I become - if I get a job,
this terror sensation turns on, so it's wrong to work." And if you went into it closely with one of these characters
and had a conversation of that depth and that searching
type of questioning, you would learn some of the most
fantastic things you ever heard of.
 
Well, to some slight degree, anybody with a hidden
standard, you see, is no blood brother to this
criminal - that's just a lie - but he's doing this to some
degree. So the auditor says, "Are you in session?"
 
And the pc looks inside to find out if the little white
bulb is burning. And the white bulb is burning, so he says,
"Yes, I'm in session." 
 
"Now, did you get any result from the processing?"
 
Now he looks at the little white bulb, and it's not on, so
he didn't get any result from processing.
 
But what during the auditing did he do? He would do the
command on a sort of a via. It'd come from the auditor, and
then he put the command over here, and something over here
gives him the command and then he follows the command. He's
on a self-audit. It knows, he doesn't.
 
Now this is the way people get that way: First, they're a
thetan as themselves, actually, and then they become so
invalidated, or they invalidate people so much that they
get overwhelmed with their own invalidations, and they pick
up a valence. Now, everybody's got a valence - everybody's
got one of these things. Even people with hidden standards
have valences and you can find them.
 
But the steps are two more than this. There are two more
steps of overwhelm. The next step to the valence overwhelm
is the somatic overwhelm. While being the valence, he got a
hell of a somatic. Now, an impact is easily substituted for
knowingness. Impact, knowingness - these can integrate in a
mind as the same thing. Impact and punishment can also
integrate. They don't necessarily integrate as knowingness,
they sometimes only integrate as punishment.
 
So the fellow is walking down the street, and something is
thrown out of an airplane and a wrench hits him on side of
the head, and after he gets out of the hospital he has a
definite sensation that he must have done something. Well,
the only thing he was doing was walking down the street.
But he got a definite sensation he must have done
something. Now the truth of the matter is, he doesn't even
have to go back and pick up his own overts, but he must
have had them to make the thing hit him, but he doesn't
even have to go back and pick up the overts to feel that he
must have done something. The fact that he was hit meant
that he was being punished.
 
So the punishment must have had a crime that goes with it,
and he's got a terrible problem: What has he done? What has
he done that caused him to be punished? And he doesn't
know. Well, of course, the answer is very often he hasn't
done anything. But he can't separate this thing out.
 
Now, an impact, then, can go into that category. And people
with guilt complexes - which is a small section, by the way,
of mind. You say everybody has a guilt complex, it's like
saying everybody has an inferiority complex. It
hasn't any level of truth, you know, at all. It's just
taking a small class of cases. There are a small class of
cases have guilt complex. There are a small class of cases
have inferiority complex. There's a small class of cases
that have superiority complex. There's a small class of
cases that have complexes that tell them they can never do
anything wrong. You know, there's classes of cases. But
this is not a broad generality at all, that everybody is
guilty or that aberration comes from guilt. No, that's a
hangover from old psychotherapies, and sometimes they ride
along and you've given them credence at sometime or
another, and it takes a shake of the head to get rid of
them.
 
Well, now, an impact can interpret as knowingness. Because
the person's been hit, he feels he now knows something.
You'll sometimes have a person coming out of an operation
telling you he knows something. Well, the odd part of it
is, two things can happen: He can come out of an operation
knowing something, or he can come out of an operation
feeling that he knows something. In the second case, he
doesn't know anything.
 
For instance, if you take a thetan, you operate on his body
and he blows out of his head, and during the operation he
finds himself outside, he will wind up later on knowing
that he can exteriorize. That's a perfectly valid piece of
information. Because this other thing happens so often,
that gets invalidated. Lots of patients wake up out of the
ether and then now they know something. Only they don't
know what they know, see, and the more they search for it,
the less they find out. They don't know what they know, but
they know they know something. Got the idea?
 
Well, a circuitry can get set up in more or less that
fashion. The person himself has been invalidated - his own
knowingness, as a valence, is invalidated - and so he's got
an impact knowingness that he keeps around, which is part
of an engram. The engram is actually on his goals-terminal
chain - that's where it comes from - but it is not reachable
or attainable because it's right in the middle, and you
can't audit him down to the goals-terminal chain because
he's got this thing in the road. But it's on the chain, and
you can't audit him through it or past it, but you can't
audit him because of it, and yet unless you audit him he's
not going to get rid of it. This is the kind of a problem
one of these circuits sets up.
 
So here he is with this thing, and it actually - his own
knowingness has been terribly invalidated. As a circuit,
then, he can go on being validated in his knowingness, but
he has to be careful because this thing knows more than he
does, and it's a somatic of some kind. It's a pressure
ridge. It's a sensation. It can be almost any one of these
things. It's a difference of light. It's an occlusion. It's
a singing in the head. It's bubbling in the beer, you know?
Doesn't matter what it is, it just is. And he's going to
have bad luck tomorrow.
 
Well, actually, all of Roman superstition, and everything
else, stem out of this circuitry. Rome had a circuit called
the auguries. And they used to shoot down birds and gut
them, and they'd examine the entrails and then they'd know
whether or not tomorrow was going to be a lucky day. Well,
that's a circuit. You'll find in superstitious peoples that
have very little and have been knocked around very badly,
you have just absolute huge catalogs of superstitions.
You've got some superstitions yourself, and so forth. Well,
this is just a hangover on the third dynamic. That's a sort
of a third-dynamic circuit.
 
They were looking at the moon one night on some planet way
back when, and it was half full. And they get a restim on
the thing every time they look at the moon half full. And
it was half full this particular night, and a couple of
spaceships came in and blew up the planet. So they know
that a half-full moon is dangerous. And this kind of gets
established somehow or another. So you have to be careful
when the moon is half full.
 
What are you saying? Well, the moon knows more than you do,
because you couldn't find out what happened. But the moon
obviously knows what happened because it's a symbol of what
is happening. So now the moon knows, and you can set up a
whole moon circuit. Quite interesting.
 
The circuit knows, the pc doesn't; the circuit can observe,
the pc doesn't; the circuit can give auditing commands and
the auditor can't. All kinds of these things happen.
 
Now this moves out into a secondary state, which is the
fourth state up the line, and it becomes an audible,
dictational circuit. It's worst off. It's where the ideas
come from. It dictates to a person. It speaks. It gives him
his orders aloud. All kinds of wild things go on with
regard to it. But the person never does anything unless
he's told by this particular mechanism. Well, what is this?
This is the total, final result of a valence that has been
overwhelmed by a somatic, which has been overwhelmed in
itself by some other thinkingness, and you've got just
continuous, consecutive overwhelms.
 
Now, of course, there can be many cases after this where
these conditions are consecutively and continuously
overwhelmed, but they will all be of the same character.
They will not be more personalities; they will be circuits,
from the acceptance of the first valence on out. And that's
something to know. You haven't got an endless number of
valences on the pc, but you can have a near-endless
number - it will seem to you sometimes - you can have a
nearendless number of hidden standards. You can have a lot
of them on a case, if they're real hidden standards.
 
Now, what is the test of a real hidden standard? It's
whether or not the pc consults with something each command
or each session. Consults is the clue. Now you see, he
could look around to find out if his eyes changed. But does
he always look around to find if his eyes changed?
 
Now, the change of his eyes is not particularly the hidden
standard. The hidden standard lurks in the vicinity of
that. And it moves on and off his eyes. The day is bright.
The day is dull. This is the way life goes. It's going to
be a good day because the day is bright. It's going to be a
bad day because the light is dull. There's going to be
something going on like that to make that a real hidden
standard. And then it becomes a consultational circuit.
 
Now, that is a rather mild form of one. That is not
particularly a very bad hidden standard; possibly a person
could even be audited through it without much trouble.
 
But now let's take this one. This is how bad a hidden
standard can get: Pc sits down in the auditing chair, and
the hidden standard says to him - says to him - "Uh.., well, that auditor is going to do you in today." So he relays all the commands through the hidden standard, because the
hidden standard will give him the safe commands. So he can
do some commands and he can't do other commands, because
the hidden standard will only relay the safe commands. And
oh, wow. You haven't got a pc under control. You haven't
got a pc there. You're not auditing a pc. See, this is all
vastly removed from the thing.
 
But these hidden standards key in with problems and areas
of prior confusion. And that is what kicks in a hidden
standard. It comes in because of a problem of magnitude or
an area of prior confusion. Now, I've put in the or there
just in case sometime or another the guy got a problem
without a prior confusion. But the usual course of human
events is that the individual went through a lot of trouble
and a lot of confusion, and he couldn't quite figure any
part of it out, and it left him hung with a problem.
 
Now, he's an active cuss - any thetan is a fairly active
thetan - and he will up and solve it every time. He solves
that problem by changing his life in some way. Now, this
can get so bad that the effect I talked to you about the
other day, the effect whereby, because something happened,
the individual felt - and I've mentioned in this lecture - 
because something occurred, then the individual must have 
done something. He didn't do anything, but something occurred.
 
So some of these changes in his life are going to be red
herrings. That is to say, there was a change in his life,
so he figured he must have had a problem ahead of it. A
person could have a change in his life without having a
problem before it.
 
He's got a couple of very active parents that go flying
around to every place, and so on, and they change his
location rather continuously, but one day they stopped
moving around. And he finally finds himself sitting
someplace, and it was a change in his life because he was
now in one place. And you ask him for a problem before
this, and he'll almost beat his brains out trying to dream
up what problem he had that caused this to occur. Well,
actually, he didn't do anything to cause it at all.
 
In other words, the change in that particular case is
other-determined than by the person. So there can be
other-determined changes, and they, however, do not assess
by an E-Meter reaction. So, therefore, assessment becomes
necessary in doing the O section of this type of Problems
Intensive I was telling you about - necessary to assess - 
because it eliminates those changes which occurred without 
a problem having preceded them.
 
All right. So there's the one, two, three of the hidden
standard. The hidden standard develops out of problems of
long duration. Individual solves the problem with a hidden
standard, has solved the problem at some time or another
with a hidden standard, and says, "Well, I just won't think anymore. I will let this think for me."
 
Now, I should say just one brief note on, where does a
circuit come from? Well, frankly, you'll find circuits
first mentioned in Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental
Health, so they're not very hard to find. They're quite
obvious. They're quite visible. You could go around looking
and asking people about circuits. You'll find plenty of
circuits. You'll find talking circuits and pressing
circuits and color circuits, and all kinds of things.
They're how-do-you-know things. This is circuitry as
different than valences.
 
Valence answers the question "who to be" or "how to be right with a beingness" - "how can you be right with a beingness?" A circuit answers it entirely differently. That is, "Without changing the beingness, how do you
know whether you're right or not?" They are two different
aspects. A circuit furnishes information. A valence
furnishes beingness.
 
Now a circuit, from furnishing information, can step
upstairs to furnishing orders. And then it can step
upstairs to furnishing orders and commands which are below
the level of consciousness. But they always express
themselves to some slight degree in terms of a somatic. One
knows they're there if the somatic occurs.
 
Those people live in haunted houses. There are a lot of
people around will tell you there are other thetans
inhabiting their body. These are just circuits. You will
occasionally run into somebody that after he got a bad
shock, why, just thousands of voices turned in on his body
in all directions, or a dozen, or six, or something. And
they all spoke to him, and so forth and so on. You'll run
into an experience of that character in somebody else.
 
All right. A circuit is very easy to set up, and you
actually think and use circuits all the time. A circuit
isn't a bad thing. It's only when it goes out of a person's
self-determinism, is no longer in the individual's control,
that a circuit becomes a bad thing.
 
A person is totally knocked in the head as far as a circuit
is concerned. He has no longer any life or reason of his
own. Only the circuit has life and reason. And when a
circuit is in this particular condition or state of
 
ascendancy, it, of course, furnishes a hidden standard.
It's right or wrong according to the appearance of the
circuit, or according to its behavior. It tells the
individual right from wrong, and the individual himself
never differentiates, never experiences, has no criteria, 
and so on. That is a circuit in operation. And this circuitry 
is set up by a thetan very easily, and is set up by him every 
time he turns around, and is one of the easiest things that 
he does and there is no reason he should stop doing it.
 
We're only talking about the obsessive, out-of-control
circuit. Circuits are very often completely reasonable,
that a person sets up. But he's still totally in control of
the circuit. He set it up and he knows it, see? And it's
gone. He doesn't set it up forever.
 
Well, you look at a motorcycle, and you say to yourself,
"What's wrong with the motorcycle?" You see? And you sort of set up a computer that is like a motorcycle engine or
something, you see? And you say, "Gosh, there it is, and it goes this way," and you kind of mock it all up. "And it goes this way," and so on. You go to bed that night, you no longer got the motorcycle engine in front of you, you see? 
Tesla, this great character Nikola Tesla, who invented 
alternating current and tremendous numbers of other things, 
set up the alternating current motor and let it run in his 
head. It wasn't in his head, of course; he probably had it 
out somewhere. I wouldn't want an alternating current in my 
head - motor in my head, see. Because if he set it up right, 
of course, it was greasy. But anyhow, he set up an alternating 
current motor and he let it run for two years just to find 
what parts of it would wear. That's right. So that was kind 
of a long time to let a circuit run, wasn't it?
 
Well, it was to tell him something, wasn't it? So he set up
a mock-up in order to find out from it, and there's nothing
wrong with this. This does not mean that Nikola Tesla, as a
result, had a hidden standard. He didn't have any hidden
standard. He knew he set it up and he knew he took it down,
and he knew when he set it up and he knew when he took it
down.
 
But you'll find circuits are not in this degree of control 
when they're obsessive, you see? Now the person doesn't know 
when he set them up, he doesn't know why he set them up, he 
doesn't know why he's listening to them, he doesn't know where 
they came from. All he knows is that he has a total slavish
obedience to them. See, that is the difference.
 
You can set up circuits that'll answer mathematical problems 
for you. You can do all kinds of wild things with your mind, 
you see? There's nothing wrong with doing this, you see, as 
long as you're doing it. If you're doing them, why, you can't 
hurt yourself any. But when you start burying them, and when 
you say "I'm no longer responsible for that thing," and when you say "This thing will now from hereinafter and aforesaid tell me which side of all electrical circuits will go this 
way and that way" ... The individual looks at a house and he hears a buzz-buzz-buzz. This is eight lifetimes later, see?
Buzz-buzz-buzz, he hears in this house, and he knows
there's something wrong with its currents.
 
You get an electrician sometime and you say, "Well, how did you know the house was old?"
 
"Well, I get this sensation," or something. "I knew the wiring was off," or something like this. And you talk with him, "Well, how did you know that?" "Well, I don't know, but I always get this sensation right under my left rib, you see, and so on. And
I can kind of hear a buzz-buzz, and so forth. It's very
easy to tell." That's a knowingness circuitry on the
subject of electricity, you see, which he doesn't know
anything about. He just told you so.
 
A thetan, you see, is totally capable of this operation - of
permeating the whole house and finding every short circuit
in it. And says, "Zzzzzzit! Well, that was one. Zzzzzzit!
There's another one. Zzzzzzzit! There's another one."
 
See? "Oh, well, guess we'll have to rewire that." Thetan is totally capable of doing this, so, therefore, it's one of
his skills.
 
The basic on this is setting something up on automatic and
taking no responsibility for it at all. And out of that you
get trouble. You always will get some trouble. And it
becomes a hidden standard, and so on. But to have set one
up and put it on total irresponsibility and let it run
totally automatically, the individual had one God-awful
problem just before he did it.
 
And just before he had that awful problem, he was in a
fantastic amount of confusion. And just before he got into
that fantastic amount of confusion, he had plenty of
withholds from all of the people connected with the
confusion. And those conditions must have occurred. And all
of those conditions need to be present to unravel a
circuit - to have a circuit set up this way - and you've got
to pay attention to all of those things to unravel a
circuit.
 
All right. So how would an individual get into this sort of
state? All right. Life would be pretty active, and he would
start withholding from everybody he was in contact with,
about everything, or about some special thing, or something
like that. He isn't free to communicate in any way. He's
withholding from here and he's withholding from there, and
he does an overt here, and he's got a withhold there, and
he does another overt someplace else, and things start
running a little bit wrong. Naturally, he's out of 
communication with it. You're answering the first requisite
of a circuit: going out of communication.
 
You see, the individual who has a circuit that tells him
about house wiring never has to permeate the house. Well,
he never has to communicate with the house. All he has to
do is communicate with the circuit. The circuit does all
the communicating for him, you see, and he doesn't have to
do anything about it. All right.
 
So he had all these withholds and all these overts against
all these people, and life became pretty confused, and it
got more and more confused. And it finally wound up to
where this confusion added up to a distinct problem.
Whether he could state it or not is beside the point,
whether he's aware of it analytically at that stage of the
game or not, but it got to be one awful problem. And it's a
statable problem. Blang! it went, and then he had a problem
on his hand. And then, of course, he solved the problem.
 
Now, if you got enough withholds and overts, you'll blow.
You get enough overts and withholds against any one person,
or any one thing, or any one area, you'll blow out of that
area or off that course of existence - if there's enough.
 
All right. So the individual had this awful problem, and he
blew. He blew that particular life channel that he was on.
And of course, this brought about a change. And the only
tag that is uniformly left in view for the problem, the
confusion, the people, and the withholds and the lot, is
the change. "When did your life change?" So, of course, by tracking that back, you can find the problem. You get the
problem more or less handled, you find the people. You get
the people security-checked out - this individual
security-checked out about the people - he comes off of the
nervousness of the confusion which was, after all,
yesteryear. But his withholds have got him pinned in that
area of time. He's stopping and not communicating in that
area of time, so nothing as-ises in that area of time, so
he's stuck there.
 
And this, of course, tends to turn on a circuit, because
it's a withdrawal. Now, the point of change, of course, is
a withdrawal. The point of change of life is a withdrawal
from his former change of life. So the whole story is out
of communication, out of communication, out of communication, 
and then out of communication.
 
Now, if he wants to remain out of communication safely, he
has to have a periscope up. So that the periscope is very
dangerous to approach the eyepiece of, so he has to have a
periscope that not only looks but tells him. And that
is a hidden standard. And when an individual has gone
through that cycle violently, he comes up at the other end
looking at life through a circuit. He never looks at life,
the circuit looks at life; he never gets audited, the
circuit gets audited. That is an experience. Experience
must not approach this individual. And remember, auditing
is an experience.
 
So, if the individual is living a life on a via called a
circuit, then of course, your auditing is only part of the
via, and of course never reaches the person. And you are
trying to audit the person, you are not trying to audit the
via. And when auditing takes a God-awful long time, it is
just because you are not auditing a pc, you are auditing a
circuit. You haven't got an Operating Thetan, you've got an
operating GE, or an operating circuit. And so all experience 
is filtered through the circuit, and it is true of auditing, 
too. Auditing also filters through the circuit.
 
Now, the trick in supervising auditors is to give them some
type of a rundown that hits all this, and knocks all this
out of the road. And they can do it rather sloppily, and
they don't have to finish it up in any terrific way, and
they'll still knock the circuitry out of the road so the
person can be audited. And that is what this Problems
Intensive is all about. And this thing is tailor-made for a
Class II activity. And people can be trained to do this much
more easily than they can be trained to locate goals and
terminals.
 
Why? Because goal and terminal operation, and Prehav Scale
running, requires a precision of auditing which is a very,
very high, hardly won precision. And you know that because
right this moment you are struggling up the line toward
that precision. But it requires a terrific precision.
There's only one goal; you must never get the wrong goal.
There's only one terminal; you must never get the wrong
terminal. There is only one level of the Prehav Scale live;
you must never audit the wrong level. The auditing commands
have to be exactly the right auditing commands. The
individual going up and down the track has to be run
precisely against the E-Meter. Precisely. When it is flat,
it is flat. And when it is not flat, it is not flat. And
furthermore, the individual cannot be run with rudiments
out, much less assessed when the rudiments are out. So that 
is a highly precise level of auditing, don't you see?
 
You have another level of auditing, now, in Class II, which
is imprecise and will get the job done.
 
Now, this has an additional advantage. Where you are shy
about an individual coming in off the street, this has to
solve this problem. The individual is coming in off the
street, he doesn't know very much about Scientology;
without giving him a broad, general education, you cannot
easily sit down and open up a Form 3 on him. You won't find
auditors doing it very glibly. And the individual, not
knowing what it's targeted at, is going to feel that he's
being suspected, and he's going to get some kind of an ARC
break with the people who are doing this to him.
 
Ah, well, on such a person, very simply, you run this
Problems Intensive. It is what? It basically goes back and
makes the most fundamental Security Checks that can be made
on the individual, without getting very personal about the
individual.
 
Now, when he's opened up and is expressing himself a little
bit better, and you've got the hidden standards out of the
road, you can, of course, uncork a Form 3. Now the
individual knows what it's all about. Now he'll go for this
now, he'll stay in session with this now, and he'll get it
off. And he'll know where he's going because he has a
subjective reality of what he's been doing to himself with
withholds. He got that out of this rundown.