6111C23 SHSpec-84  Auxiliary Prehav 3D Scale

     [This scale is contained in HCOB 23Nov61 "Aux.  Prehav 3D Scale".  First
part of tape contains details on running Routine 3D.  GPM mentioned for the
first time, here, at least in non-confidential tapes.  It's also mentioned in
HCOB 20Nov61 "Routine 3D commands".  So that it appears that the GPM comes
into existence with Routine 3D.]

     Run inexpertly, Routine 3D slams the gates shut for the next hundred
trillion years for a thetan.  What it takes is expertness in metering.  If
that's what it takes, you'll do it.  Back a few years ago, LRH decided, "Well,
if that's what it takes to break this barrier and push this thing through for
a big win for all of us, well, that what it takes." [Quote:] "It isn't a
question of me being bright, or me being extraordinary.  I do know where I
came from, you see.  I used to tell my grandfather... to explain my red hair
to him.  I fell off Mars and got into a bucket of red paint.  was two when I
was telling him that, and he thought I was joking!  It wasn't a question of
what I could do or what my ability was.  It was a question of what would it
take to get it done.  All I'm asking you to do is -- do the impossibility of
do it.  I couldn't possibly have done it; you can't possibly audit it.  I did
it.  You do it.  Is that a good bargain?" That's what it takes.

     If you don't know how to read a meter, of course you don't have much
confidence in your ability to run one, and after someone has thrown the meter
at you or you've thrown the meter, and someone has missed your withholds a few
times, of course, your ability to read a meter deteriorates like mad.  What
you are really beaten by is not the meter, but the operator of the meter.

     Einstein had the concept of the observer.  He even wrote a paper on the
subject, entitled "The Viewpoint of the Observer" An observer is somebody who,
without the introduction of an opinion, can look exactly and directly at a
needle or registering item and say exactly what it did without further
introduction of an opinion.  Psychologists and psychiatrists do not observe.
They are so interested in doing something that they never notice what they are
doing it to.  Thus, these disciplines, not knowing what an observer is, have
denied us data because they introduced opinion and evaluation.  The ability to
observe as a single action is what is required to run an E-meter.  If you take
that as a separate action of the auditor, you will get the whole problem
compartmented properly.  And only when you do that action do you do anything
else.  We don't sit there and worry about what we will do if the needle does
something.

     Why should the observation of the needle assault reality?  It's just an
observation.  Keep the observer independent of the doer and you are all set.
The needle acted in a certain way.  What it means and what you will do about
it are utterly separate from the observation that it acted in a certain way.
Try just observing a tree sometime, with no opinion or think.  You'll find it
very interesting.  Now look at the tree when the wind is blowing.  If you can
hold this as an observation, independent of an emotional reaction, opinion,
doingness, summation, or prediction, fine.  It is characteristic of the human
race that they predict without bothering to see.

     As far as the E-meter is concerned, an auditor must be purely an observer
who can look and see exactly what the needle is doing.  It may take only one
tenth of his attention, but it must be pure attention.  The analysis of what
the PC's mind is doing is another activity, a perfectly valid one, but one
which follows the observation.  One must not be so fond of one's theories that
one slants the observation to prove the theory right.

     The fact that LRH is willing to observe and very seldom goes to sleep and
keeps his mind on what he's doing, as an auditor, is what gets him good
auditing results.  To observe for one second is a skill of sorts.  That's what
metering takes.  What happens is what happens, with no alter-is connected with
the observation.  Where you have a bad assessment, it's because hopefulness or
pessimism has entered in.  You need the willingness to put something to the
pure, reliable test.  An observer needn't know anything about scientology or
the mind.  All he needs to know is whether something happened or not, and
what.  Pure observation is a nice trick.

     If you get a PC who talks during an assessment, just get him to shut up
so you can assess.  He won't ARC break as long as he sees he's getting your
attention.  You don't care what he does, as long as he holds the cans and lets
you assess.

     The mechanics of it is thus: It doesn't matter whether he is thinking
about it or not.  You're assessing his bank, and no power on earth could
prevent his bank from reading on the right level for that terminal.  Many
systems may be followed, but they would all share the principle of getting the
maximum number of levels in a minimum time with a minimum restimulation of the PC.

     If you jar someone's attention onto his terminal, it'll stay there awhile
-- for several levels.  You can take advantage of that by assessing several
levels without repeating the terminal.