6201C10 SHSpec-98 Sec Checks -- Withholds The process, 20-10, is used to handle psychosomatic difficulties, using Class II skills and sec checking. [20-10 is a process where ten minutes of havingness is run for every twenty minutes of sec checking. This is run for 75 to 200 hours before attacking Routine 3DXX. See HCOB 11Jan62 "Security Checking. Twenty-ten Theory".] There is danger in sec checking by ritual. You should do it by fundamentals. Here's what happens: because you don't quite grasp the fundamental, someone stiffens up the ritual. Then it stiffens again, and you become a ritualist and can depart from effective auditing. The thing to do is to get the job done. Auditing is what you can get away with with the PC. Because you can't get away with everything, a ritual gets set down, circumscribing what you should try to get away with. Model session is a good thing to use, except with a few pcs, who would never get past the third question [See HCOB 21Dec61 "Model Session Script, Revised"7]. You can imagine a case that is so critically poised that you have to find out what the mind is doing in order to parallel it. If you tried to do a Model Session to find out, you would be in a cul-de-sac, because the case doesn't have that much attention concentrated. For instance, take a madman, who could still be handled with basic sec checking. He is insane because he keyed in an insane valence by withholding. It's not this lifetime that aberrated anyone. People say that you can't understand the mind because this lifetime doesn't explain why people are aberrated. Someone who is insane got that way by keying in implants that he gave, to drive enemy troops insane, to prevent them from coming back, plus some similar overts which developed an insane valence. Insane people can go in and out of valences very easily. It is the not-know they have run on other people that results in the withhold on themselves. So what basic question could you ask this fellow, which he could answer to start keying out the insanity? You could ask, "What don't people know about you?" He would answer it. It is so fundamental that he couldn't help answering it. A case could be so attentive to its difficulties that it is already in session. To try to fly ruds would be to distract the PC's attention from his case. With a deranged person, the "don't know" question works well. It cross-cuts the O/W questions. When a case does not consider something an overt, he will still answer up to not-know and will come up to recognizing his withholds. You can use such questions as, What don't I know about you? What don't you know about your condition? What don't others know about you / your condition / what you are doing?" Auditing by fundamental would be to restore the PC's communication with society or the group with which he is connected. You would expect a person who is having a hard time with the social structure he is in to have withholds from that social structure. You see this in vignette all the time. You missed a withhold and the PC got upset with you. It's a reversed comm line. He has PTP's because he has withholds from people. A withhold is a withhold whether the PC considers them withholds or not. For instance, if the PC withholds losing his temper with people, it's laudable, but it is still a withhold. If, in finding withholds, you don't look for such withholds, or for simple withheld communications, you will have a devil of a time keeping ruds in. The PC is a busy little beaver, sitting there thinking and withholding critical thoughts, etc. Withholds are not confined to crimes. The magnitude of the crime does not establish the magnitude of the withhold. It is the force with which he is withholding. So anything the PC is withholding is a withhold. Anything he is not communicating is a withhold. When you realize this, you will get ruds in with a clank and be able to assess just fine, and sec checking will go fine. Sec checking will fail if you expect the magnitude of the withhold to give you the magnitude of the recovery. It is the magnitude of the restraint, of the withholding, that does it. The way to find what the case is withholding is to get what any part of the eight dynamics doesn't know about him. The way you have gravity is by withholding self from space. Most of your sec checking will be on the third dynamic, since it is the most complicated, and there have been so many groups on the track. But you might do well to look at the others, too. The second dynamic is, of course, loaded with mores to violate. A withhold is restraining self from communicating. The corresponding overt is restraining another from communicating. When someone is withholding some action, he gets into the valence of someone who would do the action. Moral Codes are patterns of behavior on all eight dynamics. That means you are triggering those moments when the PC was not communicating, perforce. He should have been talking and he wasn't. That's what it amounts to. The ability of a thetan, in this universe, is expressed along the lines of reach and withdraw, in various directions. When a person should be reaching and is withdrawing, that is a withhold. Then there are overts of omission. He should be reaching and he is not. For instance there may be times when a soldier should have attacked and he ran. These are overts of omission if they are the reverse of a "now-I'm-supposed-to". It all amounts to failure to communicate with the environment, or restrained communication with the environment, which ends up as not being here in the environment, which ends up with the environment pulled in on oneself. You could ask, "What should you have communicated?" and get some marvellous results. "Where should you have been?" gets off effort withholds. Withholding is worse than just not reaching. A very withholdy PC will stack up withholds on a subject. The tiniest impulses to withhold will remain as withholds if the PC has a set of withholds on a subject. This PC will have loads of critical thoughts. If you are not sec checking, it's valid to ask a PC, "What are you withholding?" and if you don't get a fall, don't press it. But don't think he is not withholding, because he is. You don't have a missed withhold to contend with, but the PC has at least some laudable withholds. That's OK; he can be in session. But he still has a withhold. You only have to do something about it if he gets upset and goes out of session. Then you will have to find it. "Ruds in" merely means "in condition to be audited." You can always find the ruds out if it is your purpose to audit the case by rudiments. When you sec check, you try to restimulate the withholds so you can clean them up. This has an opposite purpose from ruds. The auditor's mission in sec checking is to stir up things the PC doesn't feel OK about communicating, so that the withholds can be gotten off, because that is what aberration is made of. So be suggestive, knowing fundamentals. Use, e.g., "What doesn't _______ know about you? What have you done that _______ wouldn't like?" And don't miss withholds. The fourth dynamic is a whole species, not just "mankind".