Subject: FZ Bible - Level 4 Coursepack [5/7] Repost [x2] Date: 27 Nov 1999 01:15:08 -0000 From: squirrel@echelon.alias.net (The Tech Lion) Organization: FreeZone Bible Association Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST Academy Level IV Coursepack: Part 5 of 7 *************************************** Thanksgiving time is here. We at FZ Bible Association would like to give thanks to Ron for leaving us a bounty of Tech. And celebrate by disseminating it freely to all. In that spirit we bring you the Level 4 coursepack, from the late 80's. Happy Turkey Day, -Tech Lion ******************** 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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heretics. 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 Judaism 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 ************************ PART 5 17. HCOB 24 Nov. 1965 Search and Discovery 18. HCOB 28 Jan. 1966 Search and Discovery Data, How a Suppressive Becomes One 19. HCOB 5 Feb. 1966 S and D Warning 20. HCOB 10 June 1966 II S&D -- The Missed Item 21. HCOB 19 Jan. 1968 S&Ds by Button 22. HCOB 19 Nov. 1978 L&N Lists -- the Item "Me" 23. HCO PL 20 Oct. 1976RA PTS Data 24. HCOB 31 Dec. 1978RA II Outline of PTS Handling 25. HCOB 21 May 1985 Two Types of PTSes C/S Series 121 FPRD Series 11 26. HCOB 7 July 1964 Justifications 27. HCOB 8 July 1964 More Justifications ****************************************************************** 17. HCOB 24 Nov. 1965 Search and Discovery HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1965 Remimeo Required for Level IV Students and Review Auditors LEVEL IV SEARCH AND DISCOVERY Prerequisite: A knowledge of ethics definitions and purposes. The process called Search and Discovery requires as well a good knowledge of ethics. One must know what a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON is, what a POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is and the mechanism of how and why a case roller- coasters and what that is. All this data exists in ethics policy letters and should be studied well before one attempts a "Search and Discovery" or further study of this HCOB. Ethics is not merely a legal action -- it handles the whole phenomena of case worsening (roller coaster) after processing, and without this technology an auditor easily becomes baffled and tends to plunge and squirrel. The only reason a case roller-coasters after good standard auditing is the PTS phenomena -- a suppressive is present. THREE TYPES There are three types of PTS. Type One is the easy one. The SP on the case is right in present time, actively suppressing the person. Type Two is harder for the apparent suppressive person in present time is only a restimulator for the actual suppressive. Type Three is beyond the facilities of orgs not equipped with hospitals as these are entirely psychotic. HANDLING TYPE ONE PTS The Type One is normally handled by an Ethics Officer in the course of a hearing. The person is asked if anyone is invalidating him or his gains or Scientology and if the pc answers with a name and is then told to handle or disconnect from that person, the good indicators come in promptly and the person is quite satisfied. If, however, there is no success in finding the SP on the case or if the person starts naming org personnel or other unlikely persons as SP, the Ethics Officer must realize that he is handling a Type Two PTS and, because the auditing will consume time, sends the person to Tech or Qual for a Search and Discovery. It is easy to tell a Type One PTS from a Type Two. The Type One brightens up at once and ceases to roller-coaster the moment the present time SP is spotted. The pc ceases to roller-coaster. The pc does not go back on it and begin to beg off. The pc does not begin to worry about the consequences of disconnection. If the pc does any of these things, then the pc is a Type Two. It can be seen that Ethics handles the majority of PTSes in a fast manner. There is no trouble about it. All goes smoothly. It can also be seen that Ethics cannot afford the time to handle a Type Two PTS and there is no reason the Type Two should not pay well for the auditing. Therefore, when Ethics finds its Type One approach does not work quickly, Ethics must send the person to the proper division that is handling Search and Discovery. TYPE TWO The pc who isn't sure, won't disconnect or still roller-coasters or who doesn't brighten up, can't name any SP at all, is a Type Two. Only Search and Discovery will help. SEARCH AND DISCOVERY The first thing to know is that CASE WORSENING IS CAUSED ONLY BY A PTS SITUATION. There never will be any other reason. As soon as you doubt this datum and think about "other causes" or try to explain it some other way, you no longer prevent cases from worsening and no longer rescue those who have worsened. The second thing to know is that A SUPPRESSIVE IS ALWAYS A PERSON, A BEING OR A GROUP OF BEINGS. A suppressive is not a condition, a problem, a postulate. Problems and counter- postulates come into the matter but the SP as a being or group must always be located as a being or a group, not as merely an idea. As the technology is close to and similar to that of a service facsimile, a poorly trained auditor can get confused between them and produce a condition he says is the cause. Persons who cannot confront and who therefore see persons as ideas not people are the ones most likely to fail in doing Search and Discovery. The third thing to know is that there can be an actual SP and another person or being similar to the actual one who is only an apparent SP. An actual SP actually suppresses another. An apparent SP only reminds the pc of the actual one and so is restimulated into being a PTS. The actual SP can be in present time (Type One PTS) or is in the past or distant (Type Two PTS). The Type Two always has an apparent SP who is not the SP on the case, is confusing the two and is acting PTS only because of restimulation, not because of suppression. Search and Discovery as a process is done exactly by the general rules of listing. One lists for persons or groups who are or have suppressed the pc. The list is complete when only one item reads on nulling and this is the item. If the item turns out to be a group, one does a second list of who or what would represent that group, gets the list long enough to leave on nulling only one item reading, and that is the SP. An incident is not a person or a group. A condition is not a person or a group. And a group is not a person. What you want is one being. The E-Meter signs are unmistakable and the good indicators come in strongly when the actual SP is found. This is the entire action. It is liable to the various ills and errors of writing and nulling a list, such as overlisting, underlisting, ARC breaking the pc by bypassing the item or getting an incomplete list. These are avoided by knowing one's business as an auditor and being able to handle an E-Meter with skill and confidence. When one goofs on a Search and Discovery and finds the wrong actual SP, the signs are the same as those where a Type Two is handled as a Type One -- not sure, no good indicators, roller- coasters again, etc. The actual SP can be backtrack but it is seldom vital to go far out of PT and usual for a this-lifetime person to turn up. Done correctly the pc's good indicators come in at once, the pc cognites, the meter reacts very well with blowdowns and repeated long falls, and the pc ceases to rollercoaster. Care should be taken not to get too enthusiastic in going far backtrack on the pc as you run into whole-track implants, etc., easily handleable only at Level V. The pc can get "overwhumped" if you go too far back and you'll wish you hadn't. This normally happens, however, only when the pc has been ARC broken by the auditor, when the right item has been bypassed and the list is overlong, or when two or three items are still reading on the list (incomplete list). Locating a service facsimile is quite similar to Search and Discovery but they are different processes entirely. Only the doingness is similar. In Search and Discovery the end product is a being. In service facsimile the end product is an item or concept or idea. Don't get the two mixed. HANDLING TYPE THREE The Type Three PTS is mostly in institutions or would be. In this case the Type Two's apparent SP is spread all over the world and is often more than all the people there are -- for the person sometimes has ghosts about him or demons and they are just more apparent SPs but imaginary as beings as well. All institutional cases are PTSes. The whole of insanity is wrapped up on this one fact. The insane is not just a bad off being. The insane is a being who has been overwhelmed by an actual SP until too many persons are apparent SPs. This makes the person roller-coaster continually in life. The roller coaster is even cyclic (repetitive as a cycle). Handling an insane person as a Type Two might work but probably not case for case. One might get enough wins on a few to make one fail completely by so many loses on the many. Just as you tell a Type Two to disconnect from the actual SP (wherever found on the track), you must disconnect the person from the environment. Putting the person in a current institution puts him in a Bedlam. And when also "treated," it may finish him. For he will roller- coaster from any treatment given, until made into a Type Two and given a Search and Discovery. The task with a Type Three is not treatment as such. It is to provide a relatively safe environment and quiet and rest and no treatment of a mental nature at all. Giving him a quiet court with a motionless object in it might do the trick if he is permitted to sit there unmolested. Medical care of a very unbrutal nature is necessary, as intravenous feeding and soporifics (sleeping and quietening drugs) may be necessary. Such persons are sometimes also physically ill from an illness with a known medical cure. Treatment with drugs, shock, operation, is just more suppression. The person will not really get well, will relapse, etc. Standard auditing on such a person is subject to the roller- coaster phenomena. They get worse after getting better. "Successes" are sporadic, enough to lead one on, and usually worsen again since these people are PTS. But removed from apparent SPs, kept in a quiet surroundings, not pestered or threatened or put in fear, the person comes up to Type Two and a Search and Discovery should end the matter. But there will always be some failures as the insane sometimes withdraw into rigid unawareness as a final defense, sometimes can't be kept alive and sometimes are too hectic and distraught to ever become quiet. The extremes of too quiet and never quiet have a number of psychiatric names such as "catatonia" (withdrawn totally) and "manic" (too hectic). Classification is interesting but nonproductive since they are all PTS, all will roller-coaster and none can be trained or processed with any idea of lasting result no matter the temporary miracle. Remove a Type Three PTS from the environment, give him or her rest and quiet, do a Search and Discovery when rest and quiet have made the person Type Two. (Note: These paragraphs on the Type Three make good a promise given in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health to develop "Institutional Dianetics.") The modern mental hospital with its brutality and suppressive treatments is not the way to give a psychotic quiet and rest. Before anything effective can be done in this field, a proper institution would have to be provided, offering only rest, quiet and medical assistance for intravenous feedings and sleeping drafts where necessary but not as "treatment" and where no treatment is attempted until the person looks recovered and only then a Search and Discovery as above under Type Two. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:ep.cden.gm  ****************************************************************** 18. HCOB 28 Jan. 1966 Search and Discovery Data, How a Suppressive Becomes One HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JANUARY 1966 Remimeo Tech Hats Qual Hats All Students Level IV and above LEVEL IV SEARCH AND DISCOVERY DATA HOW A SUPPRESSIVE BECOMES ONE (Edited from a taped conference with Saint Hill Tech and Qual personnel--20 Dec. 1965) Search and Discovery is being made, and auditors are finding on one person and another, "myself." Well, just amongst us girls, of course, you are going to find it. One of the best reasons you are going to find it is that it is part of the R6 bank. The other reason you are going to find it is that after a person is totally overwhelmed by a suppressive he assumes the valence of the suppressive. And a person you would find that on has actually been pretty suppressive. What you're doing is, you are pushing S&D to a point where you are clearing suppression. It wasn't intended to go that far. If you were to ask the listing question, however, "Name 'myself'" or "Give 'myself' a name," you would then get the suppressive. But this is getting very adventurous, because it is part of the R6 bank. It is getting very adventurous to do anything about it. We seem to be happy about having "myself." I would just let them go right on being happy about it. With skill you probably could bring out the identity of this person whose valence had come over them. It would all depend on the auditor who is doing it. If I were doing it, I'd go ahead and break it down. But not a Class III Auditor who is not sure what he is going up against, who is repeating the word several times, repeating the question, trying to check it to make sure the listing question is clean. Don't you see, you are never going to get that listing question clean. That I assure you. That question can't be listed out. That is the mechanism of suppression -- overwhelming a person. Oddly enough you will only find it on persons who are suppressive and of course you've walked into the real mechanism of how does a suppressive become a suppressive? He becomes a suppressive by taking over the valence of a suppressive. Then when you list it out, you get "myself," and this is compounded by the fact that it's part of the R6 bank so you don't dare do much with it, but it will let a bunch of steam off the case. With some very, very, very, very upstage auditing, very careful indeed, give them the auditing question once, then say, "Go on and answer the question" but never repeat it, never check the thing to find out if it's a clean list-you probably would get at least one recent SP out of that combination. How we do that at that stage when I've not worked with it technically I would not be able to tell you, but I just know that it would be very risky. It makes me feel like maybe I shouldn't do anything about it at all because it's too risky, but I can see somebody getting messed up. THE MAIN TROUBLE IN S&D Your main trouble in S&D is much worse than that -- it is simply an inability to assess. And auditors since time immemorial have had trouble assessing. They have two troubles in assessing. They underlist and they overlist. It's almost an accident that an auditor ever lists the right lists the right way. I'm not saying that sarcastically but it has been my experience in teaching auditors to assess that they have two faults -- they underlist and they overlist. If they do either one of these things, they are going to ARC break the pc and then the list isn't going to be nullable because the pc is not responding to the auditor's voice as well, and it quite often was the first one on the list which is where they never looked. More fundamental than that, is simply the problem of reading an E-Meter. Those technical facts are in the road of S&D. ASSESSING AN S&D Actually, an auditor who can assess can pass off an S&D so fast it would be like dealing cards done by a Monte Carlo Vingt-et-Un player; he could just roll them off left, right and center. There's no real trouble in it. It's a very fast action. It all depends on how much you want to keep the pc under tension in the action, because an assessment isn't auditing to begin with. You would start session with "Sit down, I'm going to assess you now. Do you have some answers to this question? Brr. Brr. Brr." And the pc says, "I want to tell you about----" "All right, good, I'm glad you're going to tell me about that but right now I want some answers to this question." See? Then "brrrrr" on down and then you'll notice your needle relax. Then you say, "All right, now I'm going through this list." Ratatat, etc. "That's it, all right. Thanks very much." Pc cognites ten minutes. Pc cognites and the meter blows up and good indicators come in, and you've done an S&D. There is nothing more complicated than that. You've got auditors who were trying to do an S&D in a session. You got them that are afraid the pc has already given it on the list. You got them that haven't learned how the meter reacts when you've got a complete list. (A meter just falls flat when you've got a complete list. The needle goes clean.) And you've got them that aren't sure that they've got any SP, and they just didn't see that the meter did a surge on one of them. Then you get somebody who has overlisted and he's just ploughed the guy in, so he can't assess it back easily. Then you get the fellow who had four of them fall. Certainly if you've got four falling there's two things that can be wrong at this point which makes it very difficult to run back. In one, you have passed it. It's above the four which are falling. You've missed it, and the pc is simply discharging on it. And actually you can ask the pc which one was it and he'll say, "Well, it was Joe, of course." That's above the four. Practically every one after the right one will read, because it's actually blowing down all the time. He's no longer paying any attention to the auditor. Then the other thing is you just haven't completed the list. You have to make an opinion as to whether or not you've overlisted or underlisted. You can also pick up a dirty needle and an ARC broken pc or protesty pc if you've gone by the right one. Here are the evils of listing, and here are the evils of assessment showing up on S&D. They are simply auditor goofs -- it's just lack of experience on the part of the auditor and lack of understanding of what he's supposed to be doing. But an auditor who can really assess can knock these things off. I'd spot what auditors can assess reliably, and I'd give them specialized jobs of that character that require listing. This is a very, very highly skilled action. You save a lot of time by pulling such an auditor back into specialty. REVIEW ACTION In Review you have to do it sometimes when it's been done. So you have the additional answer of "How do you patch up an assessment that's already been goofed?" And "Where is the list that was lost?" You've got the problem of the list that was completed out of session. "And I got home and was lying in bed..." and so forth. So in Review you always assume the pc continued the list after the session. If the pc is there as a flat ball bearing, you just automatically assume the pc thought of it afterwards or something. It isn't that the Tech auditor always got it. I'll give you a tip in Qual. If you assume automatically that standard technology has not been applied, as your first gambit, in anybody that you're putting back together again, you'll about 99% be right. Somehow or other it slipped by in Tech. It slipped by. Somebody thought he did it. Somebody thought it was on the report. And therefore it looked like it didn't work or something. Something was there. And in all of my D of P-ing I have not found it possible to detect all departures from tech by auditors. I've never been able to bat 1000 on that. Naturally, it's nearly impossible. Technically, what you have to do doesn't mean that you have to invent technology because there are very standard answers to all these things. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:ml.rd.gm  ****************************************************************** 19. HCOB 5 Feb. 1966 S and D Warning HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 5 FEBRUARY 1966 Remimeo Tech Div Hats HGC Auditors Qual Div Staff Franchise Level III S AND D WARNING Search and Discovery, done incorrectly (incorrect SP found), can make a preclear ill within a week or two after. Assessment is a very proper skill. There is a great deal written on it and many tapes. The common errors of assessment (aside from the usual gross auditing errors) are 1. Too short a list 2. Too long a list 3. Clumsy or improper meter handling 4. List getting suppressed 5. Item getting invalidated 6. Pc being allowed too much itsa 7. Pc getting ARC broken by under- or overlisting 8. Auditor not letting the pc have his item 9. Whole list going live because the item was bypassed earlier on the list 10. Auditor not looking for good and bad indicators to see if he was correct in his assessment. When the right SP is found, the good indicators flood in and the pc does not cave-in in 36 to 72 hours. The bug in S&D is that one can almost get the right item. An item can be found that is nearly the right one. If the nearly right one is accepted, the pc will be doubtfully more cheerful and may insist this is it. The pc, however, is still not quite sure. Inevitably that is the sign of a nearly right item. The real reaction to the correct person is an "Of course!" no- doubt-about-it reaction. It is the action of nearly finding the right one that may make the pc ill in the next few days or a week. One has restimulated the bypassed charge of the right one without finding it. Remember that the real suppressive person (SP) was the one that wove a dangerous environment around the pc. To find that person is to open up the pc's present time perception or space. It's like pulling a wrapping of wool off the pc. The SP persuaded or caused the pc to believe the environment was dangerous and that it was always dangerous and so made the pc pull in and occupy less space and reach less. When the SP is really located and indicated, the pc feels this impulse not to reach diminish and so his space opens up. The difference between a safe environment and a dangerous environment is only that a person is willing to reach and expand in a safe environment and reaches less and contracts in a dangerous environment. An SP wants the other person to reach less. Sometimes this is done by forcing the person to reach into danger and get hurt so that the person will thereafter reach less. The SP wants smaller, less powerful beings. The SP thinks that if another became powerful that one would attack the SP The SP is totally insecure and is battling constantly in covert ways to make others less powerful and less able. Scientology flies into the teeth of an SP. One will go to the most extraordinary lengths to try to injure Scientologists or an organization or a staff member. But SPs existed long before Scientology and finding the basic SP around the pc just because of Scientology or the pc is a Scientologist is in actual fact unlikely. Childhood is the most fertile area in which to locate the SP on the case. A child is weak and at the mercy of adults. It is this fact alone that gave all the cures Freud ever stumbled onto. The analyst accidentally located an SP when his work was successful. But then he proceeded to overrun and restimulate the patient without erasing. In other words, he would not let the patient have his item. An hour with a meter in the hands of an expert auditor who can assess correctly will produce everything the analyst or Freud ever hoped to achieve and will do it invariably compared to the small results analysts did achieve. But if you get one almost right, and not get the really correct SP, then you get the same phenomena that dogged the analyst -- the pc gets better for a moment and collapses. I am not saying you can permanently injure persons. The analyst techniques operated far more restimulatively than our S&D. They made the person talk about it for years! But you can still give a pc a nasty cold if you miss on an S&D. So don't miss. Do it correctly. Find the correct SP It's all correct if you assess by the book -- complete list, not too long or too short. Correct item on the list. Good indicators then in. And no relapse for at least two weeks. That's how a real S&D is done. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:ml.rd.gm  ****************************************************************** 20. HCOB 10 June 1966 II S&D -- The Missed Item HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1966 Issue II Remimeo Tech Div Hats HGC Auditors Qual Div Staff S&D -- THE MISSED ITEM There are four points I want to get across to you. 1. ILLNESS = ONLY PTS 2. ONLY PTS = ILLNESS 3. ONLY A PTS CONDITION CAN MAKE A GRADE V (or any grade) SICK 4. A BAD S&D MAKES A PERSON SICK Get it? GOOD!! Now, if a person who has had an S&D gets sick, what do you know? You know that a. They are a PTS b. The S&D was not properly done c. An item was missed. NOTE: The missed item may be on a list that was made two or three years ago. On the HCOB 5 Feb. 66, S&D WARNING, I clearly stated that "It is the action of nearly finding the right one that may make the pc ill." One has restimulated the charge of the RIGHT item but has found and okayed the WRONG item. A bad S&D is DEADLY. A bad S&D can cause a dangerous physical condition. A bad S&D can land a pc in hospital (I know of two such cases where it did). So please! PLEASE!! get this, it is so very important. Always, repeat, ALWAYS look for the MISSED item on a priorly done list when the pc gets sick. Know your S&D bulletins, know your listing and nulling bulletin -- THOROUGHLY -- and you won't go wrong. Let's fix up roller coasters, not help keep them roller- coastering. IT'S VERY EASY. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:lb-r.cden.gm  ****************************************************************** 21. HCOB 19 Jan. 1968 S&Ds by Button HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JANUARY 1968 Remimeo S&Ds S&Ds BY BUTTON The most certain way to handle a pc with an S&D is to assess for the type to give first. With the pc on the meter, say "Unmock" (or "Make nothing of") "Stop" "Withdraw from" "Suppress" "Invalidate" (or any of the buttons used in old Problems Intensives). Then take the one that read largest and put it in the question "Who or what has attempted to ______ you?" or "Who or what are you trying to ______?" When you have listed the question and found the item and given it to the pc, you can take the above list, with the one used omitted, and take the largest read now on the remaining words and put that in the question and get another item for it. So long as you can get one of the buttons to read, you can get an item by doing an S&D with it. CAUTION: Do not continue to do S&Ds beyond a floating needle. CAUTION: Do not list an S&D button if the question for the list does not read. S&Ds BY ASSESSMENT FOR QUESTION You can also do an S&D by assessing for a button to use in an S&D question. This is done by asking the question "What are they trying to do to you?" Get the pc to list it, find the item and then use it in an S&D question. This works on any case but always works best on cases that haven't responded to S&Ds previously. Fit the resulting item in the question "Who or what is trying to ______ you?" PURPOSE S&Ds A Purpose S&D by assessment for question can be done by first listing "What are you trying to do?" or "What have you tried to do?" You test these two questions for the largest read, then you list the one that reads best. When you have the item of "What are you trying to do?" or "What have you tried to do?" you fit it into the S&D question "Who or what have you failed to ______ (item found)?" or "Who or what have you tried to ______?" the two questions tested for largest read and then listed for an item. CAUTION: The question must make sense and be answerable. Don't change the wording of the item. Change the question into a sensible one. This form of S&D can give an effect question as the only possible question. If the item found on the first list "______ trying to do" won't word causative, word it by effect -- "Who or what has tried to ______ you ______?" The whole attempt of this S&D is to find the person or thing that has blunted the purpose of the pc. ---------- All these S&Ds do not set aside the standard S&D Types W, S and U. "Type U" is the basic S&D. They are for use mainly when the pc has had a long review history, or a bad ethics history, or is insane or suppressive. BUT using them does not evaluate the pc as downtone. They give rather magical effects on anyone. The Purpose S&D is from earlier research and is very magical on artists. It has the liability of having to be done sensibly, being a sort of goals assessment plus an S&D. Sometimes the goals assessment ("What are you trying to do") is magical enough to produce a floating needle. If so, don't ever go past it to the second question that uses the goal. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:jp.cden.gm  ****************************************************************** 22. HCOB 19 Nov. 1978 L&N Lists -- the Item "Me" HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 19 NOVEMBER 1978 Auditors, Class IV and above C/Ses, Class IV and above URGENT -- IMPORTANT L&N LISTS -- THE ITEM "ME" RULE: THE ITEM "ME" MUST BE ACCEPTED ON ANY S&D LIST. RULE: THE ITEM "ME" MUST NEVER BE REPRESENTED. The item "Me" on an L&N list must be accepted as the item, as it is basically the only right item there could be for an identity or valence list. The item "Me" often appears on S&D lists or similar L&N lists which ask for an identity or valence. If it is not accepted, or if it is represented, it will really mess up the case. (This includes the pronouns "myself" and "I".) The right thing to do when the pc gives this item is to accept it as the item for the list, and do not continue that list or take any further action with that item. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:clb.gm  ****************************************************************** 23. HCO PL 20 Oct. 1976RA PTS Data HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 OCTOBER 1976RA REVISED 25 AUGUST 1987 Remimeo SSO DPE Ethics Officers PTS/SP Checksheet (Also issued as HCOB 20 Oct. 76R, same title) PTS DATA Based on a recent pilot, it has become quite obvious that a full and complete PTS handling would consist of: A. PTSness handled terminatedly by interview or auditing by a person trained on the PTS/SP Checksheet. B. Complete study and pass on the PTS/SP Checksheet. The correctly located suppressive, and a correct handling of the situation based on a thorough understanding of the mechanics of PTS/SP phenomena form the simplicity that is PTS tech. The tech of locating the suppressive source is also fully covered in the PTS/SP Checksheet and is a vital prerequisite for PTS handlers. L. RON HUBBARD Founder Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations Adopted as official Church policy by CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LRH:CSI:RTRC:nt.lf.gm  ****************************************************************** 24. HCOB 31 Dec. 1978RA II Outline of PTS Handling HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 31 DECEMBER 1978RA Issue II RE-REVISED 26 JULY 1986 Remimeo HCO Tech/Qual C/Ses Auditors Ethics Officers De-PTSers PTS/SP Checksheet OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING Refs: HCOB 31 Dec. 78R III EDUCATING THE POTENTIAL Rev. 26.7.86 TROUBLE SOURCE, THE FIRST STEP TOWARD HANDLING: PTS C/S-1 HCO PL 20 Oct. 81R PTS TYPE A HANDLING Rev. 10.9.83 HCOB 24 Apr. 72 I C/S Series 79 Expanded Dianetics Series 5 PTS INTERVIEWS HCO PL 30 Jan. 83 YOUR POST AND LIFE HCOB 20 Oct. 76 II PTS HANDLING HCO PL 20 Oct. 76RA PTS DATA Rev. 25.8.87 HCOB 17 Apr. 72R C/S Series 76R Rev. 20.12.83 C/Sing A PTS RUNDOWN HCOB 23 Dec. 71RA C/S Series 73RA Re-rev. 1.7.85 THE NO-INTERFERENCE AREA CLARIFIED AND RE-ENFORCED HCOB 27 July 76 PTS RUNDOWN AND VITAL INFO RUNDOWN POSITION CORRECTED Book: The Problems of Work Chapter 6, "Affinity, Reality and Communication" HCOB 10 Aug. 73 PTS HANDLING HCOB 8 Mar. 83 HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS HCOB 16 Apr. 82 MORE ON PTS HANDLING HCOB 10 Sept.83 PTSness AND DISCONNECTION HCOB 24 Nov. 65 SEARCH AND DISCOVERY HCOB 9 Dec. 71RC PTS RUNDOWN, AUDITED Rev. 8.12.78 HCOB 20 Jan. 72R PTS RUNDOWN ADDITION Rev. 8.12.78 HCOB 3 June 72RA PTS RUNDOWN, FINAL STEP Rev. 8.12.78 HCOB 29 Dec. 78R THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN Rev. 20.12.83 A MAGICAL NEW RUNDOWN HCOB 30 Dec. 78R SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN Rev. 6.1.79 PROBLEMS PROCESSES HCOB 21 May 85 C/S Series 121 FPRD Series 11 TWO TYPES OF PTSes PTS situations can arise at any time during a person's Scientology auditing or training and must be handled speedily and well to get the person back on his course of auditing or training. Many preclears new to Scientology require PTS handling as one of their first actions. Auditing or training must not be continued over an unhandled PTS situation, as processing or study under the duress of suppression may not produce results. You do not go on hoping or ignore it or call it something else or do any other action except handle. Handling PTSness is too easy to allow for any justification or excuse for not doing so, and the steps given below lay out the many handlings which can be used to bring about a full resolution of all PTSness in all pcs. EDUCATION A person who is PTS is often the last person to suspect it. He may have become temporarily or momentarily so. And he may have become so very slightly. Or he may be very PTS and have been so for a long time. But he is nevertheless PTS and we must educate him on the subject. The PTS C/S-1, given in HCOB 31 Dec. 78R III, Rev. 26.7.86, EDUCATING THE POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE, THE FIRST STEP TOWARD HANDLING: PTS C/S-1, must be done before any other PTS handling is begun. This action sets a person up to understand his PTS sit and the mechanics of it. A thorough PTS C/S-1 is the basis of all successful PTS handling. PTS INTERVIEW A metered PTS interview per HCOB 24 Apr. 72 I, C/S Series 79, PTS INTERVIEWS, or a "10 August handling" per HCOB 10 Aug. 73, PTS HANDLING, done by an auditor in session or an MAA, De-PTSer, D of P or SSO will, in most cases, assist the person to spot the antagonistic or SP element. Once spotted, the potential trouble source must be assisted in working out a handling for that terminal. (Or more rarely, the PTS may need to disconnect from that person.) (If any difficulty is encountered on this step or if the SP cannot easily be found, the preclear or student is probably not PTS Type I and should be turned over to an auditor qualified to handle Type II PTS situations with more advanced PTS tech.) HANDLING Once the antagonistic terminal has been located, a handling is done to move the PTS person from effect to slight gentle cause over his situation. This handling is done per a program which will include whatever is needed to accomplish the result, and will, of course, vary depending on the person and his circumstances. When the antagonistic person exists in present time, in the physical universe (as opposed to a past-life SP item), a good- roads, good-weather approach to the antagonistic terminal is usually what is needed. The handling must be agreed upon by the potential trouble source and the person assisting him and must be tailored to put the person at cause over his particular situation. Handling may include coaching him along to see how he himself actually precipitated the PTS condition in the first place by not applying or by misapplying Scientology basics to his life and relationship with the now antagonistic terminal. (Additional references: HCOB 10 Aug. 73 PTS HANDLING HCOB 24 Apr. 72 I C/S Series 79 PTS INTERVIEWS HCOB 24 Nov. 65 SEARCH AND DISCOVERY Book: The Problems of Work Chapter 6, "Affinity, Reality and Communication" HCOB 8 Mar. 83 HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS HCOB 10 Sept.83 PTSness AND DISCONNECTION HCO PL 20 Oct. 81R PTS TYPE A HANDLING Rev. 10.9.83 WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY? It quite often happens that the persons antagonistic to the preclear have no real concept of what Scientology is. This can also be true of a very new Scientologist who then misinforms others. The book What Is Scientology? is a very useful tool. The preclear can send a copy of it to persons antagonistic to him and it will give them hope that the person will respond better to life or if they are antagonistic to Scientology can show them what they're being antagonistic to. Recommendations that the PTS person obtain and use this book (or anyone else who wants to inform his friends or get them on the right road, as the book was not written for the purpose of de- PTSing people) should be made by the interviewing officer. The book was specially priced so it would be more generally available despite the high cost of publishing. It is a large and imposing book and contains the true answers to all the questions people might ask and so saves the PTS person or any other person a great deal of explanation time. It is quite a formidable weapon when used in that fashion besides being a good book that Scientologists should own in its own right. BOOKS, TAPES AND FILMS Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, and other basic books, tapes and films (particularly the film Introduction to Scientology) are very useful tools. The preclear can send a copy of a book or tape to the antagonistic person. Or he can bring the person in to the local org to listen to a tape play or see a film. HOW TO HANDLE FALSE DATA AND LIES In some cases antagonism stems from false data or outright lies that the antagonistic person has heard or read. The handling for this is based on the datum that truth must exist before lies, and truth blows the lie away as it is later on the chain. The handling for a person who has false data on Scientology is to fill in any vacuum of missing data with factual data about Scientology and to prove any lies, rumors and false data encountered to be false. Any lies are disproven by documenting the truth. For example, if the lie is that "Scientology is not a religion," this can be proven to be false with court decisions or documents clearly stating that Scientology is a religion. (The tech of handling such is covered in HCO PL 11 May 71 III, PR Series 7, BLACK PR, and HCO PL 21 Nov. 72 I, PR Series 18, HOW TO HANDLE BLACK PROPAGANDA.) Packs of such current materials can be obtained through one's local Ethics Officer or the Director of Special Affairs in your org. The truth blows the lie away. And the source of the lie is rendered unbelievable and any other utterances by that source will then be discarded. CAN WE EVER BE FRIENDS? Extraordinary successes in handling PTS situations with "Can We Ever Be Friends?" cassette and booklet occur when these are used. Many parents, friends, relatives of Scientologists, who, due to misunderstoods or misinformation, thought they were opposed to Scientology and its aims have discovered, after listening to this cassette, that they are in full agreement with it and now give Scientology their support. The results available with this cassette cannot be underestimated. It can be used by itself when communication has really broken down between the two terminals or in conjunction with other PTS handling. DISCONNECTION In the rare cases where disconnection is validly indicated in order to handle the person's PTSness, it should be done exactly per HCOB 10 Sept. 83, PTSness AND DISCONNECTION. PROGRAM As a result of interview and the various actions connected with it as given above and in the referenced issues, the interviewer must give the person a program to be done by the person. If the person does not do the program or report his actions on it or the program results in no real change in the situation, the interviewing officer must require the person to have auditing on the subject. Ruds can be flown and/or a PTS RD must be given by a qualified auditor in the HGC. Clears and OTs can have ruds flown and can do all the PTS RD except engram handling. This is usually followed by a Suppressed Person RD. RUDIMENTS Flying ruds and overts triple or quad flow on the antagonistic terminal is often done to "get ruds in" and enable the PTS Type A person to better confront the PTS situation he is faced with. With a better confront of the situation, he is, obviously, better prepared to carry out the handling steps of his program successfully. This would, of course, be done only in session by a qualified auditor when so ordered by the Case Supervisor. The above describes the use of rudiments in handling PTS Type A situations. Note that in cases where a PTS Rundown is needed rudiments alone are never used as a substitute for the full rundown. PTS/SP COURSE A full and complete PTS handling would consist of getting the person through his PTSness and then getting him through the PTS/SP Course. This must be included as part of the handling, as otherwise the person will never learn the full mechanics that had been wrecking his life. With the knowledge of PTS/SP technical data under his belt, a person can be at cause over suppressives and is far less likely to become PTS to anyone in the future. THE PTS RUNDOWN The PTS Rundown is done when preclears who have had standard, successful PTS handlings roller-coaster at a later date, become ill, slump after making gains or continue to find additional terminals they are PTS to. Or it is done when the person doesn't brighten up with standard PTS A handling or when he isn't sure of the SP or can't name any SP at all. The exceptions are: 1. that the R3RA steps of the PTS RD would not be run on Clears and OTs (though they may be given the remaining steps of the PTS RD), and 2. audited actions to handle PTSness would not be done on those in the No-Interference Area. Note: Although the PTS RD contains R3RA steps and New Era Dianetics has been repositioned above Grades 0-IV on the new Grade Chart, this does NOT limit the PTS RD to those at the level of NED in their processing. When a person has a PTS condition to be handled, it is not a matter of whether the person is up to the level of NED on the Grade Chart but a matter of handling the condition terminatedly, as the person may not be otherwise audited or trained over PTSness. This does not preclude the fact that proper setup for the action must be done, per the four points of breakdown of the PTS Rundown. The PTS Rundown is run to the end phenomena of a pc who is getting and keeping case gains and never again roller-coasters. SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN If after the PTS Rundown, the person feels fine but the persons suppressing him are still making trouble, then the PTS person must have a Suppressed Person Rundown. The Suppressed Person Rundown can produce the wondrous result of changing the disposition of an antagonistic terminal at a distance, by auditing the PTS preclear. Where this terminal was antagonistic, invalidative, hostile or downright suppressive, he can suddenly have a change of heart and seek to make peace with the PTS pc. The end phenomena of this handling is a miraculous restoration of communication between the estranged terminals originated by the formerly antagonistic person. The Suppressed Person Rundown is done after a PTS C/S-1 has been done, the antagonistic terminal has been located and handlings have been done on that terminal, and after the PTS Rundown has been done. It is not done in the No-Interference Area. Note that this rundown is for USE, even after the pc himself has been handled as a case, as this rundown handles the other person, the SP or antagonistic person, and the pc's relationship to him in the real physical universe. Where the SP or antagonistic person exists in present time, this rundown is done on a one-for- one basis. In such cases, you use it no matter how successful the PTS handling was. SUMMARY Thus, any full and complete PTS handling consists of. 1. Education (PTS C/S-1) 2. PTS Interview (discovering to what or whom he is PTS) 3. Handling (or in rare cases disconnection, if warranted) 4. PTS/SP Course (can be started earlier) 5. PTS Rundown (if needed) 6. Suppressed Person Rundown (if needed). These are powerful and precision tools. With them we can handle our PTS students, preclears and staffs and get resounding one- for-one successes. I am counting on you to do this. L. RON HUBBARD Founder Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations LRH:RTRC:pm.fa.sep.ja  ****************************************************************** 25. HCOB 21 May 1985 Two Types of PTSes C/S Series 121 FPRD Series 11 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY 1985 Remimeo C/Ses Execs MAAs/EOs Tech/Qual (Also issued as an HCO PL, same date and title) C/S Series 121 False Purpose Rundown Series 11 TWO TYPES OF PTSes Refs: HCOB 28 Feb. 84 C/S Series 118 PRETENDED PTS HCOB 17 June 84 C/S Series 118-1 EVIL PURPOSES AND FALSE PR HCOB 5 June 84 FPRD Series 1 FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN HCOB 29 Dec. 78R THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN Rev. 20.12.83 A MAGICAL NEW RUNDOWN HCOB 9 Dec. 71RC PTS RUNDOWN, AUDITED HCOB 10 Aug. 73 PTS HANDLING Modifies: HCOB 24 Apr. 72 I C/S Series 79 PTS INTERVIEWS HCOB 17 Apr. 72R C/S Series 76R Rev. 20.12.83 C/Sing A PTS RUNDOWN HCOB 31 Dec. 78 II OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING There are two types of PTSes: 1. Pretended PTS so as to cover up black PR and evil purposes or justify them, and 2. Actual PTSness. Although PTSness can cease simply on spotting the person accurately that one is PTS to, there are two full rundowns to handle this condition: The PTS Rundown and the Suppressed Person Rundown. On pretended PTSness as mentioned in (1) above, your very reliable clue is that the person says he is PTS to a well- intentioned person, such as a staff member or a Scientology VIP. This is almost totally conclusive evidence that you are dealing with a person with an evil purpose. Thus, he would be programmed for auditing geared to locating and handling evil purposes. He won't get any relief from being found "PTS" to a well-intentioned person. From time to time one sees "PTS finding" of that nature cropping up. This probably is the first analysis given as to why and what it is all about. The person who does that has been black PRing, has O/Ws and probably, under those, evil purposes. The usual action, when someone is observably roller-coastering and manifesting a PTS condition, is to interview the person and find out who he is PTS to. (Ref: HCOB 24 Apr. 72 I, C/S Series 79, PTS INTERVIEWS) If a standard interview is done and the pc names well-intentioned persons as the people he is PTS to, the C/S, seeing this, would not order a PTS Rundown. The C/S would program the case for those auditing rundowns designed to uncover and blow O/Ws and evil purposes. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:rw.pl.gm  ****************************************************************** 26. HCOB 7 July 1964 Justifications HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students SCIENTOLOGY III & IV JUSTIFICATIONS The reasons overts are not overts to people are JUSTIFICATIONS. If you ask a pc what overt he has committed, and then ask him why it wasn't an overt, you will find that it wasn't an overt and therefore didn't relieve as an answer because it was all justified. One of the powerful new overt processes (as given by me on recent tapes) is: 1. In this lifetime, what overt have you committed? 2. How have you justified it? (2) is run flat until the overt given in (1) is knocked out. Then a new overt is found and (2) is done thoroughly and repetitively on it. This is not a new form of process but these are very new commands. Note it is not an alternate command. Note that a cycle of action is completed with question (2) on (1) before you leave off processing this particular overt. Only when you have all the justifications and cognitions possible on (1) do you ask for a new overt from the pc. This cracks the general irresponsibility the auditor is met with in trying to get O/W to benefit the irresponsible case. "In this lifetime" is added because the pc who can't face his overts not only justifies them but goes way back into his past lives to find overts instead of getting off the simple this- lifetime ones. This is not the same process as plain "What have you done?" in which any action done by the pc is accepted as the answer. However, in simple general O/W you will find the pc is not answering the auditing question but is answering "What have I done that caused my trouble?" The pc is running "What action that I have done explains what has happened to me?" Therefore, running justifications off is a further south process than any earlier version of O/W and is very effective in raising the cause level of the pc. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nb.rd.gm  ****************************************************************** 27. HCOB 8 July 1964 More Justifications HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JULY 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students SCIENTOLOGY III & IV MORE JUSTIFICATIONS The following list of Scientology justifications was compiled by Phyll Stevens and several other course students and is issued to show how one can get around getting off an overt and stay sick from it. L. RON HUBBARD Founder SOME FAMOUS JUSTIFICATIONS It wasn't really an overt because... It wasn't me, it was just my bank. You can't hurt a thetan. He was asking for a motivator. He's got overts on me. I've got a service fac on that. His overts are bigger than mine. My intentions were good. He's a victim anyway. I had bypassed charge. I was just being self-determined. I've come up to being overt. It's better than suppressing. I'll straighten it out next lifetime. He must have done something to deserve it. He was dragging it in. I was in an ARC break. He needed a lesson. He'll have another lifetime anyway. It's only a consideration anyhow. It's not against my moral code. Codes are only considerations. They couldn't have it. They weren't willing to experience it. I don't see why I have to be the only one to take responsibility. It's about time I was overt. They are only wogs anyhow. They are so way out they wouldn't realize it. He's such a victim already, one more motivator won't make any difference. They just can't have 8-C. I can't help it if he reacts. He's too critical. He must have missed W/Hs. He's a no-effect case anyhow. I'm above moral codes. Why should I limit my causativeness just because others can't take it. It was my duty to tell the truth. You wouldn't want me to withhold. He must have postulated it first. He never would have cognited if I hadn't told him. I'll run it out later. He'll be getting more auditing. LRH:nb.rd.gm