6202C22 SHSpec-119 Prepclearing and Rudiments Terminology: it's a prepcheck, and the whole activity is prepclearing. One index that a withhold chain is working well is that the PC's havingness doesn't drop as much as before. TA motion is another indicator. One could clear up "environment" as part of ruds by prepchecking "rooms". This would in effect be prepchecking havingness, to some extent. We can locate withholds About games conditions. What has the PC denied people; what has he pushed people out of? If you prepchecked this for broke, you would find that his havingness would stay in without a havingness process, provided that he was willing to talk to the auditor at all times. So use havingness while getting the PC to talk to the auditor. Then use things like the Joburg [Form 3] for new students and Form 6A for old-time auditors to clean up withholds. For problems, find what problems he has caused people in this lifetime and prepcheck them as overts. The Problems intensive gets you to the problem he is sitting in. You could go at it that way, getting prior confusion, etc., or you could shortcut it by getting what problems he has caused in this lifetime as the zero question. Prepchecking might get you a MEST clear, a clear for this lifetime. A psychoanalyst would be able to learn to do this. He would be flabbergasted by it, especially when he learned that it was only a preparatory action. This system can be adapted to whatever the PC is doing. You don't want the PC to give you a whole lot of unconnected withholds. If he does give them, take up the one that reads and clear it up. Keep to the withholds on the same chain. Mine a chain, a subject. There is an art to converting what the PC says to a "what" question. You have to listen to what the PC said. There are some rules. It must not be too general, so wide as to miss a chain; it must not be so narrow as to pin the PC in a single incident. It should be aimed at the part of the withhold that is most dangerous to the PC. You must not take motivators or criticisms, other people's withholds, or explanations. If you get one of these, you turn it around. Given a motivator, ask what overt the PC has done to that class of people. Many motivators are untruths anyway, at least in part, so it throws ruds out for you to accept one. Just convert it do an overt with no Q and A. A criticism likewise leads to an [overt]. It is a hope that they can damage, with an inability to do so. It is a bit higher toned than a straight motivator. A motivator is based on an unknowingness; a criticism isn't, necessarily. A criticism is also a confession of an overt. It converts, as a question, to "What have you done to _______ ?" It is not always true that criticism is based on unknowingness, but motivators always are. It always seems safe to the PC to get other people's overts off. This is below motivators, actually. If the auditor lets the PC get these off, you will get a session where the PC made no goals or gains. When the PC says that A said B did something, ask the PC which person he knows, then get what the PC has done to that person. On explanations, you know there is an overt, so this also converts to, "What have you done?" Actually, the explanation itself is perfectly innocent, but it leads to a target, eventually. It is an extenuating circumstance for some overt. You have to figure out what. One way to open up some areas is to ask, "What should be done about _______ ?", with the dynamics in the blank. The PC goes off on some point, and you can mine it. Whatever you get on some target, convert the question to handle it. In doing this, you are steering the PC down a chain of incidents that he considers relatively discreditable. Because he considers them discreditable, he is not in communication with the subject matter. He feels at the effect point of the subject matter. The PC is the source of the aberration with which he is boxing, as far as one lifetime or valence is concerned. The individual has chosen certain areas as his randomity. If he is giving other people's withholds, however, he is not even on the cause-effect line. Motivators -- being effect, victim. Criticism = the impulse to destroy. Explanation = lines in a dispersal. You are walking the PC back to being cause by knocking out any reason he has to attack certain points or defend himself from them, or to retreat from certain subjects on his track, so he can communicate on all subjects. Naturally, on areas where he is not being cause, he doesn't know. If you want to find a person who is in total ignorance, pull other people's withholds. Here, the PC doesn't even know he has a bank or aberration on the subject. On the motivator, he knows that he is in trouble, but he doesn't really know why. A critical PC may understand the situation, but he wants to make nothing of it. Similarly with explanation; there may not be any unknowns. [See Fig. 8. Cf. the O/W cycle, as given in HCOB 5Jan61 "0-W A Limited Theory".] What you handle is determined by what is real to the PC, as shown by what reads on the meter. If you get a read, it is the charge generated between the not-know and the know. The PC must know something about it to have a clash with the not-know on the subject. If it is totally known, there will be no charge and no read. If it is totally unknown to the PC, in the bank, and everywhere else, it doesn't register on the meter. When the PC gets audited, he will know more. Something that didn't show up before may well now read on the meter. Similarly, the more a PC knows about his own life, the more charged up the bank will appear to be. So you are always getting new withholds off the PC, as areas of occlusion are located better. It is not an endless situation, since the PC's ability to find withholds and blow them increases. At first, withholds are few and blow slowly; as the PC gets audited, he gets more withholds, and they blow faster and faster. 195a FIGURE 8 WITHHOLD MANIFESTATION "SCALE" OPENNESS Pc just gives the auditor the withhold. This is a withhold that is not dangerous. EXPLANATION Equals lines in a dispersal. The withhold is seen as somewhat dangerous. There may be no unknowns in the explanation; he might understand the situation but want to make nothing of it. Nevertheless, it is an extenuating circumstance for some overt. CRITICISM Equals the impulse to destroy. The PC hopes that he can cause damage, but is unable to do so. The withhold is seen as rather dangerous. It is not necessarily based on unknowingness. He might understand the situation but wants to make nothing of it. It is a confession of an overt. MOTIVATOR Equals being effect, victim. He has elected himself to be at the effect point. The withhold is seen as super-dangerous. Motivating is always based on unknowingness. The PC knows that he is in trouble but doesn't really know why. It is a confession of an overt. OTHER PEOPLE'S WITHHOLDS The PC is not even on the cause-effect line. Withholds are seen as so unsafe that it is only safe to get off other people's. The PC is in total ignorance. He doesn't even know he has a bank or aberration on the subject. Don't go for backtrack incidents with prepchecking. The PC will just get mired down if you don't get this lifetime straightened out by getting ruds in on it. He will get wins on it and have gains. If you were a crackerjack expert on 3DXX, you could probably produce all the gains of prepchecking in terms of clearing up this lifetime, blowing things into view, etc., but you would probably run into things like missed withholds, which would make the PC blow, and lots of out-ruds, etc. One of the things you could show the PC with prepclearing is that his ruds can be gotten in. [More details on prepclearing procedure and ruds]