6203C29 SHSpec-126 CCH's The CCH's were developed when the HGC in London was finding out that there were pcs that weren't gaining and were getting no results. The CCH's don't run things out; the CCH's familiarize the PC with control, communication, and havingness. The PC does an upgrade on CCH's in the teeth of the adage that the PC must be at cause. Actually, there is a gradient of causativeness, from very slight, at CCH-1, to considerable at CCH-4. The CCH's are a way to get the PC to sit there and look at something, so he finds out he can confront it. The PC becomes aware, through familiarization. that control, communication, and havingness are not necessarily horrible. As the case goes downscale, it gets to a level where it is predominantly motivator and won't respond to anything else. The person does not have an adequate enough idea of cause to be causative. Above that point, a person's cause can be increased easily; below that point, it can only be increased to the point of getting him to confront something going on someplace else. That is where CCH's take over. Instead of letting the PC run up further overts by being accusative and critical, we get him to confront communication, control and duplication. Just communication and duplication in itself gives case gain. Havingness is the concept of not being prevented from reaching, or the concept of being able to reach. A havingness process is a continuous duplication of being Able to reach. Havingness wasn't a quirk. CCH-1: Getting the PC to reach you enables him to communicate with the auditor; it establishes the auditor as a terminal. This should get the PC being at cause; he cogs that he can reach and will therefore communicate to you. CCH-2: The PC has had his body running on a machine for ages; it operates all by itself. CCH-2 lets the PC take over the automaticity of body motion that he has relinquished; he does this knowingly, CCH-3: This was developed to get the PC in the same communication time (and space) span as the auditor. Some people can't put a dispatch on a comm line because they can't tolerate distance on the line. They always bring a body. CCH-3 gets the PC over the necessity to be touching something in order to feel in comm with it. This is an effort at a gradient: How far can the PC be from the auditor and still be in comm? For instance, some people have to be there in person to deliver a message. CCH-3 lets the PC enter space into a communication. His cause-distance-effect has been one of minimal distance, just cause-effect with no distance, so if the PC were in the auditor's head, he could be audited. The PC gets the idea of communication by duplication; CCH-3 enters space into the communication and some duplication. The PC cogs that he can talk to the auditor and understand what the auditor is telling him to do. Keep it very simple. The word, "contributed" introduces the idea of cause. You are gradually bringing him around to this idea. That is why you ask if he contributed to the motion. You don't care what he answers; you are just planting the idea. CCH-4: You are actively asking if the PC is satisfied that he duplicated the motion. It's the PC who should be satisfied, not the auditor, necessarily. If the PC is satisfied when he hasn't really duplicated the motion, the auditor's only mistake is to contradict or criticize him or invalidate him. If the PC is wildly off but says he is doing it, find a simple motion the PC will duplicate, so he doesn't keep making himself into a lier every time. Or get off the misduplicated motion for two or three turns and then come back to it. He will eventually improve it; he will get better. The above is the only reason why CCH's actually work. It is a peculiar fact about CCH's that they don't even require the PC's agreement or approval to get gains from them. They worked in 1956, then got altered to a point where they didn't work because they had stopped being run as a combination, which is as important as how each is done individually. If a PC gets run on CCH's when they are not producing change, he gets the idea that he is being punished. So you run it to three times through with no change, then go on to the next CCH. It is as important for the PC to not mind doing it as it is for him to do it perfectly. The PC will start nut doing them on the auditor's determinism. Running just CCH-1 for hours with no change doesn't offer enough randomity to cause a change. That is the trouble you get into, tackling each one just by itself. The PC will run for two hundred hours on CCH-1 with no results. An exception is that you can only run CCH-1 on an unconscious person. Similarly with touch assist, engram running, "You make that body lie on that bed," and others. With an unconscious person, you should also cycle through three or four processes. Do the rotation and the case will unsettle. Go through CCH's to get them to bite; there should be enough randomity in it so it will bite. Otherwise, it might just go on and on. The CCH's unflatten each other. They are run tone 40. Upper indocs are vital training, e.g. "Put a thought in that ashtray," helps the auditor get a thought into a PC's head. That is the way they should be run. They are a tone 40 process (i.e. CCH's 1 and 2). You lay the commands into the PC's head, not necessarily even verbally; just command the PC without reservation. The CCH's are non-verbal processes. They could be run on a deaf person. They are action processes with a common denominator of solids, not thoughts. So do them when you are not getting TA on thinkingness processes for several sessions. If a discussion of auditing produces TA motion consistently, put the PC on CCH's. The PC in such a case is not familiar enough with control, communication and havingness to be willing or able to go into session fairly easily. The other PC who should get CCH's is one who gets TA on tactile havingness. CCH's are not only for psychotics, though they are the only process you can run on a psychotic. CCH's reach far higher than was previously realized. The need to keep doing CCH's as long as they produce change and stop doing one when it produces no change goes in the teeth of time and the physical universe's Q and A. You would think you should change one when there is change and not change when there is no change, but this isn't so.