FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

LEVEL 3 ACADEMY LECTURES 09/10

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

LEVEL 3 TAPES

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

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

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

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

AUDITING TIPS

A lecture given on 14 August 1963

SHSBC-294 ren 323 14 Aug Auditing Tips

[Proofed against the clearsound version only.]


Okay, well, how are we today? 

Audience: Fine. Great. 

Good.

I'm getting into the medical scene, I'm swapping terminals.
How are we today? Nurse, get the bedpan.

Well, you should be having a demonstration, of course,
today. But, there's a lot to - of ground to cover one way
or the other, and I'11 try to give you some helpful hints
in auditing which will make up for it. First and foremost,
this is what? 

Audience: 14th.

Fourteenth August - you surely keep my time track nice and
straight, thank you. 14 August, AD 13, Saint Hill Special
Briefing Course.

We have a lecture on auditing - style, kind, type, how do.
If you must audit, why, audit to a gain. The customer is
always right. I mean, the preclear is always right. It's
true. The significance - the significance is less important
than the TA action. TA action on the right significance
brings about faster clearing. The benefit is in the word
"faster." The right significance and no TA action equals no
case gain. Keep the itsa line in. Get TA action.

When training an auditor, get him to figure out how many
ways you can cut an itsa line. And maybe dawn will break.
The smoothest auditing is the auditing which least cuts
the itsa line. "Auditor" means "listener." It takes a lie
to hold aberration in place. Serious aberration surrenders
easily. It's the mediocre that takes the long haul - 
mediocre type aberration.

The primary difference between Scientology and psychiatry
is that psychiatry is authoritarian and tells the person
what's wrong with him - often introducing a new lie.
Scientology finds out what's wrong with the person from the
person. And then knows more about it than the person - but
listens anyway. Listening is the badge of superior
knowledge. He who has superior knowledge is privileged to
listen. It's only he who has no superior knowledge that
talks all the time - Confucius.

Now you got these maxims, and pearls of wisdom? In actual
fact, with that data you could go straight out and evolve
all of Scientology - just like that. It's remarkable, isn't it?

But, you mustn't in actual fact discount - just because it's
discounted to the pc - you mustn't discount the backbone
and body of knowledge of Scientology. Soon as you tell
somebody that he's lived for the last thirty trillion
years - of course, thirty trillion years is a drop in the
bucket - soon as you tell somebody he's lived the last
thirty trillion years, and so on, he's liable to be hit
with a feeling of unreality.

That unreality busily boils off. But he natters while it's
being boiled off. How it's all unreal, and that sort of
thing. Well, he's actually running off unreality and you
shouldn't pay much attention to it. Remember, he's now
talking about an unreality. And he never talked about that
before. And in the process of talking about it he actually
is raising his ARC with whatever it is. Even though he may
do it very slowly.

Now, there are two kinds of talk that a pc indulges in - two
kinds of talk. Talk one is theta talk, and talk two is
entheta talk. It's theta talk that brings you out of the
woods with a pc. And the entheta talk is the symptom of an
ARC break. So auditing actually divides down into two
actions. Is getting theta talk out of the pc, that's one
action. And that's keeping your itsa line in, because it's
the theta he's generating that's blowing his bank apart,
you see?

And the entheta talk is handled by locating the impeded
charge of theta which is barriered in the bank. We call
this bypassed charge. In other words there's two actions
here. One, you can let him talk, and keep his attention
directed indifferently, sometimes, but keep it directed in
the direction of the right significances. Don't keep it
directed to such a degree, however, that he ceases to get
tone arm action and ceases to talk, see.

The other action is in actual fact putting in the itsa line
for the pc. And that's how you cure an ARC break. You find
out by assessment what trapped charge has been ticked and
is trying to get loose. He'll just natter as long as that
charge is trapped. And the auditor can then locate that
trapped charge and free it. He'll desensitize it.

So there's two auditing actions in actual fact, you see.
This first and foremost is listing with tone arm action.
And then secondarily locating, by assessment or any other
means, the trapped charge.

Now a pc who is - who is talking smoothly and on and on and
on - even if the pc is crying about it - is not interfered
with. See, don't interfere with that line - that's
interfering with the itsa line. Just let the pc roll, see.
But the pc is not talking about the bank, but is talking up
out of the bank - natter, natter, natter, natter, natter,
"It's all bad; they're-they're after me; they're caving me
in; what you're doing to me; what everybody is doing to me;
how bad they are" - you know, talks like a newspaper! Then
you realize at that point that this talk is really not
doing the pc any good at all.

This pc is in an ARC break. He's protesting cut
communication lines, you see, in his environment usually,
and so forth. He's protesting unrealities. He's protesting
lack of affinity, or its absence. And what's happened there
is that charge has been ticked and missed. And unless the
auditor gets very, very busy and locates that charge and
indicates it and lets the pc see it and figure it out, why,
that pc is going to go on nattering and you're not then
going to get an increase of case.

Now, in the old days we said that if a pc could talk his
havingness down... Remember that? 

Audience: Mm-hm. Yes.

Well now, you've probably wondered how that sits today.
That only applies to Case Two, which I have just given you.
A pc only talks his havingness down when he's natter,
natter, natter, natter, natter. And youll find in Case One,
where the pc is talking about his case, is talking about
his bank, is talking about himself, his past and so forth,
and you're getting tone arm action - you'll find out that 
the longer he talks, the better his havingness gets. Do 
you see that?

Of course, the whole phenomenon of havingness is raising
his ARC with his environment. So if he is in a situation
where he's - he himself is cutting his ARC with his
environment, then of course his havingness will drop,
because his ARC with the environment is what we call
havingness. Havingness is simply - can be defined as ARC
with the environment. That's all. That should be very
elementary to you.

But now let's see, how many ways can you cut an itsa line?
Now, the best way to do this is to get somebody the graph,
of I - was it 2 August? The HCO Bulletin that has the big
graph on the back of it that gives you the cut itsa line,
shows you what the cut itsa line is?" 

Audience: Fourth August. 

Fourth August - thank you.

[HCOB 4 Aug. 63, E-METER ERRORS, COMM CYCLE ERROR]

Now that 4th August bulletin has a nice graph there and you
should - in training an auditor - you're going to make - 
you're going to make marvelous strides if you do this. In 
training an auditor, if you'll just give him that graph and 
you'll say, "Now go ahead and list the number of ways you 
could cut this itsa line." When he's done that, why, "Give 
me an example of each one of these" - that's your practical 
aspect, you see? Give me an example of each one of these cut
things. And then give me an example of each one of these
things how that needn't have been cut, or you would
overcome it if you did this inadvertently. In other words,
get him thinking on this subject. Get him to comb, his hair
out on this subject so that he is not walking around in a fog.

Because it's one of the most complex things you ever heard
of - if you want to make it complex. And everybody's going
to have a different bug on it.

Now, I can draw you up the communication cycles which are
contained in the auditing cycle. And these are all very
neat and there'll be drills for each one of these things,
eventually. But it all comes down to this. Initially
getting the pc in-session, which is interested in his own
case and talking to the auditor, and then keeping the itsa
line in, in such a way as to give maximal tone arm action.

Now, when we state it that way, we're stating it the way a
very skilled auditor would look at it. See, this is the
hallmark of a very skilled auditor. And it's simply an
expansion of a highly elementary definition which I gave
you in the first place. Now that's - this, where the skill
comes in. That's a skilled auditor.

In other words, he can get somebody interested in his own
case and talking to the auditor about it - and then keep the
itsa line in, directed in such a way as to give maximal
tone arm action. And if you add to that: And knocking out
the significances necessary to resolve the case fastest - 
now you have the super-super-superskiIled auditor! And 
there you have actually delineated the various levels and 
grades of auditing. That's just to the degree that you 
expand to the last definition I give you.

Now, if you want to move an auditor downstairs, in terms of
level - I mean, if you want to get an idea of the lower
levels of auditing, then the upper levels - all you have 
to do is keep snipping pieces off of that definition, and
you'll get lower and lower levels of auditing - till you even
snip off "tone arm action" and "assessment" at the level of
Book Auditor. You don't expect him to know anything about
a tone arm. You don't expect him to be able to give an
assessment, if he wasn't getting tone arm action. So you
just define for him that you keep somebody talking about
his own case and you continue to listen to him.

And the odd part of it is that he's going to get a lot more
results than mucking up crisscrossed actions that he
doesn't understand. You see, you've given him enough right
there and you're going to give him an E-Meter now and he
doesn't know anything about an E-Meter, and you're going to
give him an E-Meter - and he's going to wonder, "Let's see,
the tone arm, is that this knob at the bottom that snaps?
No, that - that's not it - uh - and tone arm action. Tone arm
action, what does quite that mean?" And he's watching this
tone arm action, he's putting down "3.001" - he's gotten so
he can read verniers, you see - "3.002, 3.001." Pc is
getting tone arm action, you see, obviously. Adequate tone
arm action.

In other words, you get the idea - you've got to keep giving
him these significances, and keep giving him these
significances, and keep giving him these - and finally train
him in on what a tone arm is. Well, you've been over that
yourselves so often, and so long that it appears absolutely
ridiculous that nobody would know anything about it.

Well, just sometime, just hand an E-Meter to - well, a
psychiatrist or somebody - and say, "How do you operate this
thing, bud?" And - keeping his professional lingo, see, "How
do you operate this thing, bud?" - and he comes up with the
same thing he's told the Food and Drug Administration of
the United States: "It cures things." Cures things. Thing
is around for eighty years - measuring emotion, and so
forth, in the world of psychology. And that's the best
technical opinion that they can come up with - it cures
things. I don't know, I think they - seven and a half volts
through the thing, that put on the person you see - and if
it runs through his hands for a little while, why then he
ceases to get speckled fever or something. I don't know - 
I don't understand this!

You see, you give a piece of equipment or something like
that, or you give a complication to somebody, and they Q
and A with the complication by making it far, far, far more
complicated, to a point where it no longer means what it
meant. See, you can just chase this thing over the far
horizon. It ceases to have any value at all. So it is
better to stay - now listen, because you'll be training a
lot of auditors - now, listen here - remember - remember:
Pound one simplicity home. Don't make it complicated, just
pound one simplicity home at a time. And you've got it made.

You've got some people on a co-audit - just keep him talking
and when you're absolutely sure he's shut up, and he's said
everything that he's going to say on the subject, why, you
just look at him intelligently and you just ask him for
something else. And that's all we want. See. And that's all
we want. We want you sitting there, and when he
finally - see, you don't even have starts of sessions or
anything else, see. And when he's finally finished up
talking and saying what he wants to say, then you say one
of these questions to him, you see. And it's here. And we
don't even care if it's the same question every time or
another question or something - but your idea is to keep
him talking about himself. You got the idea? And that's all
we want. We just want you to keep him talking about
himself. That's really what we want and let's not get off
into your inability to duplicate the auditing command, or
you're waiting there to get in a new auditing command.
Let's not get in there about whether you acknowledge what
he has said, let's not add any complication to it at all.

That appalls you suddenly, as you take a look at it. You
take all those things in as automatic, don't you? How cati
you get along without them? Well, it's up to you to find
out. Because at that level of auditing all you want to
have happen - all you want to have happen - is somebody
telling - B telling A about their troubles. We don't care
what they say. He's not going to have a tone arm to look
at. He's not going to have any complications like this. So
he'll want to know how can you tell.

So you add then, the next step. The pc gets brighter and
talks better. That's his index of success. You would
express that as more ARC. And that's the most elementary
basic of auditing there is. You could take some old-timer
and you could take his own auditing trained patterns - and
you could say, "If you were auditing you - if you were
auditing you, what part of your case would you start for?"
Sit back, man, that's it! Tone arm sit there and move
beautifully. Clean up all his past auditing, everything else.

Now, I've given you there the various levels of auditing.
See, if you'll only recognize it. See, those are the
various levels of certification, that. That actually
automatically establishes your zones and patterns of
training. Now where we exceed those things, we lose. It
would take quite a while to get administration wrapped
around that much simplicity. But you eventually will get to
a point where you'll see that simplicity achieved. And
that's the ideal. That is your ideal.

Now, as you move along in auditing a case, you're going to
be confounded with this basic problem. Soon as we move up
and put the E-Meter in somebody's hands - of course we're
confounded with this problem before. But because we haven't
got that level of skill in the auditor, we don't pay any
attention to the problem. And the second that we graduate
somebody up to putting a meter in his lap, then we want to
see that TA move. And when that TA moves, we've got charge
coming off. And there's your basic problem, is how do you
keep a TA moving? That's going to worry you, that worries
Mary Sue on your cases, that worries me on her case, that
worries people, people, people, that worries Mary Sue in
auditing - anything. How are you going to keep that TA moving?

Now, that is the deepest problem in auditing at this
moment. Not what to audit. That is not the deepest problem,
that problem has been solved. The other problem is how do
you keep the TA moving on that particular pc? That is the
problem, man. And when you walk upstairs to the highest
level of skill, you of course keep it moving by addressing
the case to certain significances. How do you keep it
moving? This gives you a lot of problems. I could delineate
these problems by the hour. Now we're getting into
complexity. So you're now going up to a supervisory level
of auditing. Takes quite a lot of knowledge. How do you
keep a TA moving?

Well, the basic stop of a TA is time. The reason they stop
is time. And the biggest time stopper is the GPM. I beg
your pardon, that's as far as a - that's as far as an
incident - type of incident is concerned. That's a great
time stopper. But a GPM never becomes a terrific time
stopper until it has been grouped in one of these
between-lives screens or some analogous type of incident
where things are redated, or cross-dated or something like
that and it gets stuck and at wrong times. The GPM is
incipiently, then - if it didn't exist, you see, you
probably would get no time stopping at all - probably nobody
could group a bank. You - you got that? That - because that's
perfectly true. I followed this out, painfully tagged it
out bit by bit. The only time my tone arm has ever stopped
moving is on GPMs. I've got good subjective reality on it,
good objective reality on it and so forth. It's a GPM. If
it weren't there, it couldn't get latched up on one of
these screens or anything else, you see. It's a big time
stopper because it gives the mechanism of instantaneousness
in present time. And it floats in time, so therefore it can 
appear anyplace. And then it gets pinned down in these 
between-life area screens and there goes your TA action - 
thud! Stops. That's it.

So, that's all - that's all very interesting. It sounds
terribly final. And it doesn't make it a simpler problem
but if you know that, you can get this thing disentangled
more easily. But that's - that's what that is. So then we
assume then, that as far as significance of incidents are
concerned, why, the GPM plus any grouping incident gives
you billy-o as far as the tone arm is concerned. That is
what is in the bank that will stop tone arm action. You got
that?

Now, what auditing action stops tone arm action? See, now
this is a different problem. This is a different problem.
There is an auditing action - it's the same action. It's
wrong dating. You get the wrong date on an incident and
your tone arm action starts folding up. Pc can't even run,
by the way - can't even run the incident you're trying to
run - can't do anything with it. It's got a wrong date on
it. You'll find that a wrong date tends to group incidents.
It does all kinds of wild things. If somebody has got a 3-D
visio of a facsimile, then I can tell you man, you've got
the right date. And as he runs through it, it stays 3-D and
stays in one place, boy, you've got the right date. Don't
start worrying about dates.

But if he's running it, and a half a dozen others at the
same time, then it's a lead-pipe cinch you've got the wrong
date. This doesn't necessarily mean that you can find the
right date, but it means you have got the wrong date. Got that?

Now, when you wrong-date a GPM, what do you think happens? Here 
is your greatest incipient wrong-dater anyway - it floats in
time all over the place - and when you get the wrong date on 
a GPM, brother! That is a grim situation. It will stop the tone 
arm almost as though it ran into a truck. Wrong date.

Now, this is mixed up with the fact that the GPM is
possible to date. Do you understand how faintly I make that
statement? It is possible to date a GPM. That is a very
faint statement. But the mere fact that it is a GPM gives
you the tiniest possible reads on dates. It gives you the
tiniest reads and the roughest job of dating of any
incident. And after you've dated one, why, that date is as
valid as it gets tone arm action. But that doesn't mean
that a half an hour later, on a redating situation you're
not going to find another date. How do you like that?
Perhaps you didn't realize that this amount of sneakery was
going on with regard to one of these confounded GPMs.

But I tell you this for this reason: The way you're dealing
with GPMs, there's no sense as an auditor of going into
tears back of your meter - because lord knows you will feel
like it! You've just got this thing beautifully nailed
down, at some incredible date you can't even keep in your
head, see? Gorgeous, see? Trillions all over the place, and
so on. Boy! You're sure glad to have that! Picture showed
up - fifteen minutes later pc is going into an ARC break or
starting to natter about your hairdo or something. You give
him an assessment. And it says "wrong date." It assesses
out to a wrong date! But how could it assess out to a wrong
date? We just had the right date. So we very often would be
foolish enough to back off. Be very foolish, you see, foolish
enough to back off and say, "We got that one right-dated.
Let's see if we can find something else that is wrong-dated."

No, you better take what's nearest and dearest to your
dating, because that GPM probably has another date. You
probably dated it onto a screen. In other words, this was
the screen date. That's still a right date - but it's a
screen date. And when you redate it again, that's - the pc
has blown enough charge now to be aware of the wrongness of
this date. That's all that's happened. So you redate the
confounded thing and you get it off the screen and it moves
someplace else. And you've now got a right date.

The difficulty with this - the reads are absolutely
microscopic! Hundred and twenty-eight on a Mark V, you see?
All rudiments in. All the pc has got to do, is you say,
"Greater than," he thinks, "Less than" and immediately you
get a read on something else and bzzong! Here we go, see?
So you delicately, cat footedly date this thing and you get
a beautiful read and you get a blowdown and you say,
aahhhhh! You know. Meter is up there at five-and-a-half on
the tone arm - you got a beautiful blowdown when you got
this new date-and you're all set and all ready to go.

You run some more items out of the thing and fifteen
minutes later the pc is finding fault with your necktie. So
you do another ARC break assessment and so on - pc
absolutely can't go on. The only time you do one is when
the pc just can't - he's passed into such a stage-two there
that you can't get any auditing at all. And you do an
assessment and by God, it comes up "wrong date." Oh, but
wait a minute! You had a blowdown on the thing! No, you
moved it to another screen. Nice.

Completely aside from the perils of just plain "his
rudiments go out" so you get a wrong date, you see. You've
got the thing that the thing has got a lot of dates! So,
you finally get it back and you finally - you say, "I heard
Ron say something about that one time, and I'm really going
to get in this thing real good. Is this an actual track
date?" And it reads - actual track date. You didn't also
ask, "On what screen?"

So, you get your new date and after that it runs like a
doll. But beware, you actually could start dating on a
certain series of GPMs - now listen - and go seven sessions
trying to find the date of the series. Be wonderful if you
kept the pc's itsa line in the whole way. And don't turn
off that itsa line. Because you've pulled a whole series of
GPMs off screen after screen after screen - you're
straightening out his track like crazy. But you could sit
there and just chop him to ribbons by never letting him
help you in any way, shape or form. Take all the data off
the meter. Never let the pc volunteer anything. And if you
then went seven sessions with all this, your pc would be
going downhill like mad, don't you see? You wouldn't be
getting any tone arm action either.

You see the liabilities - you see the liabilities of this
confounded thing called the GPM? False track actually is
nothing because it is never false track. They might show
you some pictures and say, "That is track," but they're
usually still pictures, solid pictures and very brief
pictures. When it comes to track - there are false pictures,
yes - but when it comes to track, false track - actually you
shouldn't use the word and I shouldn't have used the word
false track - because I've since found out what it is.

When you invalidate somebody's time track hard enough and
hit him hard enough, he puts dub-in over the top of the
actual picture. And the dub-in looks quite like the actual
picture but it's just a little - little film over the top of
it - and as you start to audit it, that film comes off and 
he sees the actual picture. And actually, it isn't too
different than his own track.

He won't find much variation in his time track by the
reason of having had his track invalidated it to dub-in.
I've now found this out, you see - he's still got his track.
He's still got his - still when he was a big thetan, he was
a big thetan, you see? And when that has happened to him,
it happened to him. He might have oddly askew pictures on 
the subject and the thing was all grouped in one locale by 
a screen, but that's his track. When you've run it over, the 
pictures all of a sudden start going into 3-D and he sees 
these things as looking a bit better than they did and he's 
got a better sense of reality.

The reason most of you have - in pc's particularly - find
unreality and the pc kicking back is because you haven't
run across it enough to scrub off the false picture. See,
that is unreal to the pc. Unreality is force and
invalidation, don't you see? That's what unreality is. You
ever run a car into a brick wall? Things momentarily looked
awfully unreal! Well, that's the same phenomenon - 
unreality. You hit somebody hard, and things get unreal.
They get unreal down to a point of unconsciousness. What is
unconsciousness but a total unreality. Now, that's all
unreality is.

Of course, unreality stems from the ARC pris- side of the
situation - it's a sudden, steep drop in ARC. That really
gives you some weird waves of this thing. At the same time
he's being hit, he's also got, not only the ARC break with
MEST, but he's got some other consideration on the subject
of ARC break. And it gives him an ARC break that that
particular thing would hit him.

See, it's compounded. That he runs the car into the brick
wall and the impact and so forth renders him unconscious - 
but he's got another ARC break on the ARC, you see, side of
the thing - this was the MEST Side of it, his unconsciousness, 
you see. But his other ARC break, with magnitude, is the fact 
that that wall would do that to his car! See? And it's an ARC 
break with the circumstances of the situation. Shouldn't 
happen, you see. Protest, one way or the other.

Now, dealing with pictures then, you get a considerable
unreality coming off, and when you deal with these
pictures, you get into ARC breaks - which is the only point
I'm making here about dating - and you'll notice that an ARC
broke pc only reads on the exact subject of the ARC break.
All other reads go out. A severely ARC broken pc, then,
does not read on the meter, except on the bypassed charge
which caused the ARC break. That's the one hole in the
E-Meter - because it won't read during an ARC break.
Well - wait a minute! In a GPM you're always auditing an ARC
break, aren't you? He's ARC broke like mad! Time is all
askew and he's been captured and stuck in that thing and
oh, you know, all this kind of stuff going on. And of
course the E-Meter doesn't read well - he's ARC broken with
himself for being such a fool as to be caught. You know,
there's all kinds of crisscross ARC breaks. He has ARC
breaks with matter, energy, space and time because somebody
would - it would obey - to quote an exact ARC break I noticed
myself at the beginning of a GPM - because it would obey such
low-toned people! Perfectly logical ARC break.

Well, so the ARC broken condition of the pc in the area
influences the meter read. Meter is reading very badly for
that area anyway. This is the hill that a very skilled
auditor climbs. But, now, listen to the good news back of it.

If you just keep trying and don't cut the itsa line, you
will get tone arm action in your effort to date it. And the
itsa line and blowing charge will increase the pc's reality 
on the incident to a point where the date is more and more 
real. And you will see bundles of facsimiles start to come 
apart.

For God's sakes, put this down in letters of fire because
someday as an auditor this is - well, I can give you a lot
of tips about auditing - but someday as an auditor you're
going to be - sit there and you just - just feel the tears
under your eyelids, it's just too desperate, you know? Gawd
You tried!

You don't dare say anything to the pc - you're out of
communication with the world, you know, and you've tried.

"Is this GPM more than two trillion years ago? Less than
two tr- what did you think of? Oh, all right. Is this GPM
more than two trillion years ago? Is it less than two
trillion years ago? Apparently less than two trillion years
ago. All right. Is this GPM more than five hundred billion
trillion years ago? Less - that's a wrong date, excuse me.
One and one-half trillion years ago? Less than one and
one-half - it doesn't read. It's all blank. Let's see. Have
you been thinking of anything?"

"Well, let's do another order of magnitude, huh? Tens of
years ago? Hundreds of years ago? Thousands of years ago?
Tens of thousands of years ago? Hundreds - tens of thousands
of years ago. Is this GPM tens of thousands of years ago?
Ah, is it more than tens of thousands of years ago? Greater
magnitude than tens of thousands of years ago? Less than?
Is it tens of thousands - oh, that's good, huh! Nice read!"
See? "All right. Is it more than fifty thousand years ago?
Less than fifty thousand years ago? It's less than. Is it
more than twenty-five thousand years ago? Less than
twenty-five thousand years ago? Less than. Is it more than
ten thousand years ago? Less than ten thousand years ago?
Less than. Is it more than five thousand years ago? Less
than five thousand years ago? Oh, you thought it was
greater than fifty thousand years ago? Oh! Oh, all right.
All right. All right. All right. Was it more than
seventy-five thousand years ago? Less than seventy-five
thousand years ago? That didn't read, did you...

You're very foolish if you don't interrupt that somewhere
along the line. "Well now, what's been occuring to you while
this has been going on?" And get yourself a little TA action, 
see? And bust it down. Because frankly, you can go on like 
that with a very, very tough GPM. It's just like - just like 
trying to catch a slippery fish. One time it's trillions and 
the next time it's thousands and then all of a sudden, you... 
Why does it do that? You're slipping it off one screen and 
another screen, you see? And its restimulation factors are 
blowing, and so on. So, you've got to keep your itsa line in 
while you're dating.

That is probably one of the toughest things that a pro has
to do - keep the itsa line in while dating. You get to
sweating over this E-Meter and you forget about the pc to
some degree - and if the pc is thinking about it and talking
about it, why, there it is.

So much so, that I like to try to run the tone arm action
out of it without dating it directly up. Get any idea the
pc might have of the date. And just let him talk himself
along the line until he either gets the date and gives it
to me on a silver platter - or gives up completely, throws
in the sponge so it squishes and then go ahead and date.
And then try - if I can't find the date, do it all over
again and just keep arguing and talking about this, you
know, back and forth and getting my tone arm action.
Because get this, now: If you just keep trying to find
something and keep the itsa line in while you're doing it,
you will eventually find it. Clang! But this is one of
those things that you wouldn't ordinarily discover in the
run-of-the-mill activities of auditing. You just wouldn't
ordinarily discover it!

Because how often are you going to be willing to put in
seven separate sessions trying to get the date of one GPM?
How often would you do this? You jolly well wouldn't! You
know, you'd say, "Well, it's amounting to no auditing, pc
every once in a while gets ARC breaks, this is a mess, I'm
in tears half the time, this is - the whole thing is just
sending me straight up the wall and so on."

Well, relax! Because this is a stable datum - and this is a
stable datum that you can just put back of your left ear
that isn't going to be cancelled by tomorrow's bulletin.
Because I've seen this happen, now, and I've seen it done.
I know it's true. You just keep chewing away at trying to
date or locate or get the character of something or get the
pattern of a GPM - you just keep the pc headed at it, keep
that tone arm moving and keep trying to find it - and
suddenly enough charge will have disappeared off the area
so it'll all go - sssthung! And you say - there it is like a
stage set. You wonder how in the name of God did anybody
ever miss it?

As I say, that is something you ordinarily wouldn't
discover because you probably wouldn't give seven
consecutive sessions to the - just one lousy little subject
of auditing. Like, what is the pattern of this wildcat GPM?
And one minute you're running this - you're trying to date
it, see, and your dating is kind of going haywire; but
you're trying to get the pattern - that's what you really
want. And the pc is down in the cellar. His morale is just
zero. How in the name of common sense is he ever on God's
green earth going to get the pattern for this GPM? Uhhhhh!
Wildcat GPM, my God - the thing - you tried out any other
kind of a pattern. You've asked him about it several times
and you've asked him about this and you've asked him about
that and it just - just uhhh Just horrible!

"Well, maybe the first one is - maybe the first one is - is
'to be a spirit.' I think it's here. I think it's a goal.
I - I think it's a goal. Maybe the first - I don't know that
there is a goal in it, you understand, but there is
certainly positive and negative items, or something in it."

Now, the more you put the itsa line in with the meter, the
more you ask the meter for this data, the less you're going
to win. And you've found that to be the case. Yeah. So, the
pc just chews away, and he says, "I think it's 
'spirited-never spirited'."

All right. Now, the wrong thing to do is to shake your head
and say, "No, that didn't rocket read" and so on. Just, "Go
on, tell me some more about the pattern." Don't keep him
repeating anything. And he says, "Well, I think the next
two items on it are - are 'undoubtaditably to be a spirit'
and 'doubtaditably to be a spirit'. That's what I think."

"All right, well, go on, go on, give me some more on the
thing. Your tone arm's moving, but you're not getting RRs."

He's going to tumble to it suddenly. He'll say, "Well,
hell, no! This thing has nothing to do with spirits, it's
'to be drunk'!"

You just keep him chewing at it and you'll see TA action,
TA action, TA action and all of a sudden he'll come up with
something. Well, all of a sudden he leans back - if you
don't cut his itsa line and chop him up - all of a sudden,
"Well, the pattern of this thing is very simple. It's just
plus and minus and then a dichotomy. See? It just goes
'drunk-not drunk, sober-not sober' I think - then it
it says, 'to be drunk.' Yeah! Yeah, that's what it is!
It's'drunk-not drunk, sober-not sober,''to be drunk.' Oh
yes! And then it fires the other way to. Then it fires with
the items reversed, to the left and right. Yes! That's the
way the thing goes. And it goes - it goes, over here it
goes, you got - got - got 'drunk' over here on your - on 
your right, now, see? So it goes - no, now wait a minute, 
now wait a minute. The way this thing goes - the way this 
thing goes is 'drunk-never drunk.'" And boy, you see that 
meter all of sudden take off, see, getting this one. Rocket 
read. "It's 'drunk-never drunk, sober-never sober, to be 
drunk.' No, no. No, no. No, I got it now! I got it now! 
It's 'sober-never sober, drunk-never drunk, to be drunk.' 
You know, I think this probably was the root of my alcoholism!"

And you just keep him chewing at it, rather than sitting
there trying to ride him into a hole. Now, the hell of it
is, is you take anything as complex as the Helatrobus
Implants, it takes you longer to get the charge off without
the pattern than with the pattern. But the pc trying to
understand this thing and trying to run this thing and so
forth and trying to get a grip on it, sometimes will kill
his own TA action if it's too evaluated. Why? The itsa line
is being put in for him. The itsa lines are being put in
for him. What is it?

Now, a meter is very, very didactic. It reads at a lower
level of consciousness than the pc, but remember it's just
a little bit lower. And you blow some charge and the pc
will become conscious of what the meter becomes conscious
on. All a meter does is become conscious of something
before the pc becomes conscious of it. It just reaches the
pc - it reaches him up just a little bit further along the
line, and therefore gives you a preview of coming attractions.

Well, now do you understand, you could look at the graph - 
you can look at a graph of your itsa line - whatsit-itsa, 
see, and you see that you can say, "Whatsit?" and the pc can 
say, "Itsa" and you've got auditing happening. Ah! But what 
if the pc says, "Whatsit?" and the meter - you use the meter 
to say "Itsa." You want to see tone arm fold up? You've 
reversed all this now.

Now, pcs will do this if you create a meter dependency. And
you should always keep your meter back. Don't do anything.
"What do you think?" is a very good way, although a pc
sometimes mildly ARC breaks on it. He very often says,
"Yeah, but I want to know!" You say, "All right. Horse?
Goat? It was a goat." "Reads on a goat" is the safer
statement to make. "Is that right? Is it a goat?" "Yeah,
it's a goat."

Pc is demanding information. Well, this means he's given
up. Now, when he's given up you can help him out, of course.

Well, let's take a look here - let's take a look at this
whatsit-itsa line. And supposing the pc - you ask, "Whatsit"
and then put the itsa in on the meter. And then you ask,
"Whatsit" and put the itsa in on the meter. And then you
ask "Whatsit" and put the itsa in on the meter. Don't be
surprised if your tone arm action ceases to exist. I don't
know, you must be doing some kind of an audit on
something - but it doesn't have anything to do with the pc,
don't you see? That's the way to get good and messed up.

You say, "All right, whatsit," and then, "Well, all right,
I'll help you out here. Itsa." I don't know what the
auditor's doing there, saying, "Whatsit, itsa. Whatsit,
itsa. Whatsit, itsa. Whatsit, itsa. Whatsit, itsa?" Where's
the session? See, it isn't anyplace! It isn't anyplace at all.

But your pc must not be pushed down into the depths of
despair. You say, "Well, what do you think the date is?"
It's a nice way of dating. The pc says, "Uhhhhh, daaaaoooo.
I just don't know. Ijust haven't got a clue." Date on the
meter for a while. And you're starting to get near it, "Do
you got any idea of the date now?"

"Oh, yeah! It's so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so." And
you say, "All right." And that's it. That's quite common;
but the reverse can also be true. You start dating, "You
got any idea of what the date is?" And he says, "Well,
that's a so-and-so, no, it's a so-and-so, what's it - 
so-and-so, and so-and-so. It might be more than billions, 
but it's less than trillions. Seems like it was just yesterday, 
you know, but it isn't really. And so on and so on and so on 
and so... It's pretty unreal. It all - and so on and so on 
and so on and so on and so on and... Well, I just don't know, 
my God, I just don't know. I just haven't got a clue!"

Oh, well! By all means, now, in R2H it's very simple, he
says it's 58, 57, 58, 57 - I don't know whether it was 58 or
57! You say, "Well, the meter flicks every time you say 58.
All right. Good. Is 58 a wrong date? That doesn't read.
Apparently 58."

That's more desirable, don't you see, than having him quit.
But, look at this trick of using a meter. "Well," you say,
"well, what - what do you think the date of this thing was?"

"Well, it might have been this, it might have been that,
but on the other hand, it was some - tha - it might have been
this and it might have been that and it might have been
something or other and I - well - bu - I give up. I don't
know. I don't know, I just don't have a clue."

You say, "All right, we'll do an order of magnitude on
this. Was it tens of years ago? Hundreds of years ago?
Thousands of years ago? Tens of thousands of years ago?
Hundreds of thousands of years ago? Was it millions of
years ago? Tens of millions of years - that reads. Tens of
millions of years ago? Tens of millions of years ago?
Millions of years ago. Millions of years agothat reads.
Millions of years ago is the order of magnitude" and so on.
"Have you got any idea what this date is?"

Now what are you doing? You're doing a different trick,
aren't you? The trick you're doing now is using the meter
to jog the whatsit line, see? Slippy, huh? 

Audience: Mm

Then the pc will sit there and say, "Millions of years ago!
Let's see, was it five million years ago? Six million..."

They sometimes develop systems. The picture comes in
clearly on six, but doesn't come in on five, you know? So
they say five and a half. Got a clear picture, so they say
it must be five and a half. Then they realize if they say
five and a quarter it turns on heat. "Must be five and a
quarter. Five and a third. Five and a quarter, five and a
third - five and a quarter! Five and a quarter. Must be five
and a quarter million years ago. Does it read on the meter?
Five and a quarter million years ago?"

"Well, do you think it was?" See, because if you said, "Oh,
yes, that reads on the meter!" You know, see? It's the
acknowledgment of what they've just done, but at the same
time they're still depending on the meter. And you
sometimes have them say, rather satisfied, "Well, it's a
five and a quarter million years ago!" See, they're saying,
"Does it read on the meter? Does it - five and a quarter
million years ago?"

"Well, do you think it is? Do you think that's the right
date?" See, that's a way of snapping back your itsa line
in, see? They tried to hand the itsa line to the meter. "Do
you think that's a right date?" "Yeah! Yeah, that's a right
date - that's a right date."

"Okay," you say, "that reads." See, by doing it in reverse,
you see, you get them certain - and then say, "Well, you
should have been certain about it all the time because it
also reads on the meter, see?"

Of course they have the feeling that you're sort of a spy
hanging over their shoulder anyhow, because you've got the
meter in front of you. So they're afraid to be right. And
the more evaluative auditors have been to them, the more
chopped they have beep in their auditing, the less itsa
line they have had in, why, the more queasy they are about
being right. So they will tend to invalidate themselves.
And yau can just pick up pcs any day of the week, they just
invalidate themselves like mad. All the time, all the time,
all the time - invalidate themselves.

One of the ways they do this is to invalidate what they've
just said and ask you if it reads on the meter in order to
be validated by the meter. And the more an auditor can do
this without being a nasty slob about it, see, "Well, I'm
not going to tell you what it says on the meter - you think
I want to create a meter dependence with you?" and so
forth. I'm afraid that wouldn't be very workable, you see.

But, if you can - if you can use that meter to boost the
whatsit line and coax the itsa line in, why, you'll be very
successful with the meter - very adroit. And only date when
the guy just throws in the sponge. It goes squash all over
the auditor's reports, you see. Because you can get up to a
point of asking him for more than he can give and that's
one of the ways of cutting an itsa line. See, every time
the guy gives you something, ask him for some more.

I'll give you a way I've done this, see - pc very proudly
says, "Ha! I got a picture here! A color picture. Got
a - got a color picture of some mountains." He's very
satisfied at this point, he's communicated the whole lousy
lot, see? And you say, "Well, what kind of mountains are
they?" "Well, they're just mountains mountains."

"Any - anybody in it? Any people on..."

"No, there's no people in it!" We can just hear their tone
come right on down.

So after the guy has said, "I can't find this date. I don't
know what this date is." After a guy has chucked in the
sponge and you say, "Oh, come on, give me the date." Cut
your throat! You see? Because what you've done is stretch
an itsa line beyond its ability to stretch. What you need
to do is plug in a little bit more restimulation. See? So
you've actually bled off all the restimulation that is
there. So you just use the meter to knock another block off
the glacier and let the pc clean it up.

"Order of magnitude bla-bla-blo-wow, bla-ba-ba-ba-bow,
bla-blow-blowblow, bla-bla-bla-blaw, bla, bow-bow-bow, bow.
All right, you ge - coming any closer to what the date is, now?"

"Oh," he'll say, "yeah, yeah, you say - you say the thing
is - is millions of years ago, and it's - yeah, yeah! Yeah!
It's so on and so on and so on and there it is and so on.
It's five - five and a quarter million years ago. What's it
say on the meter?"

"Oh, all right, well is that right? Is that five and a
quarter million years ago? Is that okay?" "Well, yeah,
that's okay, what's it say on the meter?"

You say, "Well, it says you're right." Or "It isn't reading
on the subject, at the moment." Slippy. Dangerous - awful
dangerous territory to be haunting around very much. "But I
want to know what it says on the meter!" "Well, at the
moment it doesn't say anything on the meter." "All right,
then it must be some other date!" the guy says.

All right, now you don't ask him, "Well, what is that other
date," see? Say, "You want me to do another order of
magnitude?"

"No, no, that isn't necessary; I think the thing actually
is trillions-three. Trillion-trillion-trillion. Not
trillions-two. That must be what it is. That must be what 
it is." "All right."

"Will you check it for me?" 

See, you're on the spot now. You're on the spot. It's a 
very, very slippery little contest that you can run in this 
particular line. It's perfectly all right to tell the pc 
what a meter is reading, what his tone arm is doing, that 
sort of thing. He'd be quite relaxed about this thing. The 
moment the pc starts relying on the meter instead of looking 
at it himself, why,you're in trouble. You get him in too 
much of - that's relying! Dependency. Let him create that
dependency and you've spoiled some of his case. You've
spoiled his sense of time and that sort of thing.

So it's a very nice point. It's a very nice point. And you
have to solve that by being alert. And the basic rule is:
is use your meter to get in the whatsit line and coax the
itsa line.

And at last resorts, such as a howling ARC break, of course
the only thing you've got left is your meter. The pc isn't
talking or thinking. That's the last resort. So now you do
ARC break assessments and that sort of thing - that applies
to sessions, by the way. Doesn't apply to you giving an ARC
break assessment. Down - oh, Peter landed with all four
thuds down there in Australia and - and he got everything
wheeling and dealing in a hurry. Things were going in all
directions quickly. He had this congress laid out and
he - he's fast, you know - he picks this thing practically up
off of his bulletin line, you know, off his desk, and goes
down to the congress and puts six auditors to work doing
ARC break assessments on every congress attendee. He put
them in a booth outside. So here were six auditors, you
know, all during the congress, going bangety-bangety-bangety-
bangety-bangety, doing ARC break assessments, you know? 
And they're just cleaning up ARC breaks all over the place 
and everybody's saying hurrah, wonderful, marvelous, you 
know? He's industrious. I'll bet he didn't even get a chance 
to read the bulletin himself. He's quick.

Anyway, now, it doesn't matter whether somebody's ARC broke
or not ARC broke, see? You can give them an ARC break
assessment out of session or any place else or every Friday
in a Central Organization or something like this and keep
things wheeling and dealing. But you can cut an itsa line
to ribbons with ARC break assessments, man. You can just
cut them to ribbons. Swish-swish, slash-slash!

"Well, I don't know if I've got the right item here or not;
let's see." "Oh, well, I'll do an ARC break assessment."
Sounds incredible! "Well, I don't know. I don't know if
this is quite the right goal or not, let's see, this, well,
right goal or not. We might have bypassed something here.
It might be something." "All right, I'll do an ARC break
assessment."

Cut your throat, man! That's putting in the itsa line with
an ARC break assessment! Don't do it! An ARC break
assessment has its value after all else has failed - and
that's almost the same with the meter. The meter needle has
its greatest value when all else has failed. ARC break
assessment has its greatest value when all else has failed.
Because the most operating thing you've got anywhere around
you, actually, is the pc! You can take data from this pc.
You get surprising data from the pc. Pc will sit there and
barkety-barkety, bangety-bang. He can give you more darn data.

Just because a pc says, "Oh, I don't know, is - I - doesn't
look right to me, there's something wrong here. Something
wrong. I don't..." That's no reason for you to do a thing!
I know you have consciences - you want to get in there and
earn your fee, earn your keep, pay for your own auditing,
it's that sort of thing. I know you have an idea that if
you just get busy enough and you heave enough bricks through
enough windows, why, everybody will pat you on the back for
being so industrious. Well, you're not ever patted on the
back for being industrious. You're only patted on the back
for getting case advances, see?

Well, great day then, the pc says, "Rrrr, something wrong
here, some-uh-rmmmm-mmmmmm-mmm." I don't care how long he
goes "Mm-mm-mmmm-mm." Let him go on and "Mm-mm-mm-mm-mm."
Just as long as that TA moves - that's all I'm interested
in. And he can mutter and fumble and stumble and bumble all
he wants to - as long as the TA moves. I'm not asking
precise data from this pc. That's what's wrong with this
pc - this pc has a lot of imprecise data. Very imprecise
data. Let's take an ARC break assessment - also his
confidence in his own bank is very, very poor.

Let's take an ARC break assessment. And you're going down
the ARC break assessment. Bark, bark, bark, bark, bark - 
and the pc brightens up all of a sudden. And you - you've 
got two choices here. And one of them is wrong! The choice 
is to go on and complete the ARC break assessment. That's 
wrong! That's wrong - every time. The pc suddenly looked 
bright. See, he didn't even say he had anything to say. 
Oh, you know! You'll see it, actually, sometimes a flash 
on the meter while you're doing the assessment, if you're 
not looking at the pc. "You think of something? Anything?"

"Yeah! Yeah, it's actually the unknownness of the whole
thing. I didn't know anything about it. I didn't know the
guy's name, you see. Everybody's trying to tell me his name
was Joe, but in actual fact I didn't know his name. And
that - that was what that ARC break is - was all about. Heh!
That's it!" And you didn't get a chance to earn your keep,
man! You know what you're supposed to do - you're supposed 
to go down the whole list. Now, if you say to the pc, at this
point, "Well, all right! Well, now how do you feel about
that ARC break?" The meter goes tick. You say, "Is there
something else about that, that you haven't told me yet?"

"Oh, well, yeah, maybe you didn't get that... See, the
guy - the guy - I didn't know his name, but they said his
name was Joe. And I had never found out what his name
really was. They just said it was Joe, you understand? They
just said it was Joe. And I don't know that his name was
Joe, see. And I never did find out the guy's name. I don't
know what his name is. And that's - that's what the ARC break
assessment is, all the time. They were trying to put this - 
this was - I guess it's a false datum."

And you say, "All right, good. How do you feel about that
ARC break assessment?" Clear as a bell. See, he thought
he'd interrupted you and he didn't quite get it across to
you and he had various explanations, don't you see, why
maybe he didn't have his itsa line in on you because he had
distracted you and kept you, you see, maybe from assessing
and earning your keep, you know?

Pcs have lots of weird reasons like this. But you shouldn't
automatically assume. I know, because I myself have had
this happen in a session while I was auditing. And it's
very embarrassing! You say, "Does that clear it all up?"
Clang! See? You say, "All right, is it all right if I go on
with the remainder of the assessment?" The pc - glummer,
glummer, needle getting dirtier, dirtier, dirtier.

Look, it would be better to leave the charge on it than it
would be to ARC break the pc about it! Do you follow that?

That applies also to GPMs. You can sometimes ARC break
the pc like mad on some wildcat GPM just because you were
trying to be precise all the time and the pc is arguing
with you. I myself ran into an ARC break as a pc
one time on the subject of - I had "to listen." I saw "to
listen" come out of the floorboards of one of these GPM
rooms. I saw it come out! I couldn't understand why I'd
seen these words come out! Because I ordinarily don't do
that in a session, see? So I said, "I just saw 'to listen'
come out of the middle of the floorboard. We must have some
kind of a goal in here like that." And the - and the auditor
looked at the meter and said, "It didn't RR." That,
frankly, was the end of that facsimile. It was being held
there by two frayed hairs, anyway! Very highly charged
area, preceded by lord knows how many GPMs. The reason I
got to the place, nobody will ever find out. But that's all
it took, see? And the GPM folded up. Denial of the pc's
perception of the GPM. Actually it took it a little bit
longer than that to fold up. It took another slight blunder
immediately afterwards, but that was the reason it folded
up, see.

It was just - pc all of a sudden originated and said ... The
auditor knows he's trying to run the goal, let us say, "to
catch" or something, you see. And the pc says, "Hey! You
know, coming right out of the floorboards here is these
words 'to listen.' And - never saw anything like this
before." 

"Oh, no, that doesn't rocket read."

Well, the pc didn't give a damn whether it rocket read or
not! You get that? He didn't care - he didn't care for a
minute whether this rocket read or not! Very often in
putting together a GPM a pc will be going and giving you
the items, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang - giving you
the items, repeating them a few times - and all of a sudden
will get to the next pair! Get to the next pair. And the
next pair dinning his ears in, and the auditor says go back
and clean up the old pair.

What do you do in a case like this? It's very interesting.
Because if you leave partially charged items on the thing,
the pc is going to ARC break and if you don't take the pc's
next items, he's going to ARC break. What do you do? Well,
you're an auditor. That's one of the perils of existence!

There is a solution. You can hastily write them down so he
won't forget them. You can say, "I've got a note of those,"
and go on and get your items clean. That's just one
solution. Did you ever think of the solution of going
through a GPM and then through it again? That's totally
possible too - but also dangerous because all sorts of weird
things are liable to happen, don't you see?

So the contest of how you get a GPM discharged without
cutting the itsa line is one of the more interesting things
that an auditor can do. And it takes very, very skilled
auditing in order to accomplish this fact. And the
variations of it are so many that you couldn't possibly
cover all possible cases. Your job is to get the GPM
discharged and keep the pc in an enthusiastic state of mind
so he will discharge the GPM. Because the pc in a lowered
state of mind can't discharge the GPM.

Now, your whatsit - your whatsit line uniformly, completely,
totally, thoroughly means just that - what's it. It's called
"whatsit" because those exact words raise the tone arm. And
the itsa line is called "itsa" because those exact words
lower the TA. Or in a low-TA case, I think, reverse
it - although I myself haven't seen this as an auditor yet.
Too new.

Now, if that is the case, then we would say that the
solution of mystery was the resolution of a case and the
restoration of TA action. And as I told you a little
earlier, your cessation of TA action is your heaviest
auditing problem. TA isn't moving. That's the case that
drives you around the bend. A case will also drive you
around the bend in numerous other ways. But when the
TA stops moving, you've got a headach. That's a worry.
Right now, right now, that's a worry.

So I'd like to give you a clue as to why this is. Whatever
else you say about GPMs or a time or anything else, this
is certainly true: That the pc is stuck on a whatsit for
which he has no itsa. Eolementary, my dear Watson.
Doctor Watson, now, by the way - that was his gag - I took
it from him.

Now, did you ever think of the possibility that the pc might
have asked his own whatsit? Now, I'll give you an exact 
example. They do this all the time. It's not once in a while.

Now, this pc - pc sitting there, gives you the itsa, itsa,
itsa. In the process of giving you the itsa, itsa, itsa, gets
in two whatsits, on himself. All right. Now, they got clear as
a bell, everything was fine and you went just a little bit
further and all of a sudden the pc felt foggy. The pc felt
foggy because of the two whatsits. These are two new auditing
questions, if you please, but you didn't ask them! But the
pc asked them and now you've got some charge in restimulation
that's not been itsa'd! And so the pc feels foggy.

You'll sometimes get this toward the end of session. You were
doing fine and you asked one question too many and then you
can't get the TA down and you don't know what happens. Well,
ordinarily it stems immediately back to a question the pc
asked themselves. Now the most common cause of a TA going
up in a break is the pc asked themselves a whatsit.

Audience: Mmmm.

That break gives them a short period of time without the
auditing question in which they can demand of themselves a 
whatsit.

Now you, of course, because they've forgotten the whatsit,
they never give the itsa - and you've got a high TA and you
sometimes will struggle around endlessly and fruitlessly and 
forever trying to get this TA to do anything - put in your since 
mid ruds and every other confounded thing to get it to come down. 
The one thing that you seldom ask for is what whatsit did they 
ask of themselves. Could be put in other numerous ways: "Did 
you speculate about anything in the break?"

Now the funny part of it is, is as-ising whatsits does not give 
you auditing. I've tested this out. That's interesting isn't it? 
You don't as-is whatsits. Whatsit - you cannot runa case on solid
mystery, in other words. It sounds impossible, but if you just, 
"Get the idea of questioning things. Thank you. Get the idea of
questioning things. Thank you," you would just drive the tone 
arm up, and it wouldn't come down.

Why? Because the bank is composed of a cure to the problem. Or as 
Reg was saying a few minutes ago, the puzzle, see? And the reason 
the puzzle is hung up is because there's something in it which was 
a cure. Cures brought about problems. And to as-is problems you 
have to pick up the itsas. That itsa was always a cure to some 
problem which is now holding it in place. So it takes both the 
whatsit and the itsa to get the stable datum and the confusion off. 
The whatsit is the confusion; the itsa is the stable datum. So you 
announce the confusion and the pc gives you the stable datum and 
of course you get restoration of balance. You get the thing blowing 
off.

Actually, in tiny vignette, this is the mechanism of a GPM. And 
it's just the common questions that you use, you see? You would 
have to ask somebody, "What have you been puzzled about? What was 
the answer to it?" Thats a little bit blunt. "What answers might 
there have been to it? Two-way comm is something that drives some 
auditors around the bend. They don't realize that two-way comm 
maybe won't run an engram, but it will blow off all the locks. 
So you could say, "When did you first become aware of this problem?" 
That "first" is a bad thing to use, but it nevertheless keeps 
somebody diving at it. "Give me a time you became aware of this 
problem." That starts a two-way comm cycle, don't you see?

Pc says, "I have a big present time problem about something
or another, see. Big present time problem.

"All right, well, what solutions have you thought of? Have
you ever had similar problems in the past? How do people
ordinarily solve such a problem? When did you first become
aware of a need to resolve this problem?" Now you're
drifting off back into the whatsit, don't you see? But you
can get the itsas of almost anything. I think it's
interesting, isn't it? Therefore auditing questions, to be
valid, must balance between announcing the puzzle and
getting the cure. But if you have him inventing cures, then
the puzzle will get more puzzling. So you - the only way you
really produce a gain - a gain in auditing - the only way you
ever really produce a gain in auditing - is having him
become aware of the problems and the solutions which he has
had for those problems. And then you get tone arm action.

That's a theoretical dissertation, but it's also quite
empirical. Takes the whatsit and it takes the itsa. And if
you never let the pc reach any of his own itsas, of course,
you don't get TA action. There are many ramifications to
this; there are different types of processes produce
different potentials of TA action. There's a lot you can go
into about this. It will continue to be a worry, but I'm
giving you the exact fundamentals of what causes it to
cease when a tone arm stops. Okay? 

Audience: Mm. 

We're way over time - thank you very much!

[end of lecture]


_