All right, this is the second lecture, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. June 12, AD 12. All right, this is going to concern nothing but middle rudiments which you haven't had very much information on. I'll give you how to do mid rudiments plus a few comments on fish and fumble. It's getting to be one of my favorite activities and you use them in conjunction with middle rudiments. You can.

What is the date?

Now first a remark on Q and A. When you ask a second question or double question the pc, you of course are omitting your TR 2 gorgeously. That's one of the weakest points in the broad body of auditors. TR 2, you wouldn't think so. Two Central Orgs have recently asked me for a new TR 4. It isn't TR 4 that is at fault. It is TR 2. An adequate acknowledgment is worth a very great deal in auditing. Now one of the ways of not acknowledging is to ask again. And that of course is the stinkingest TR 2 there is. "Do you have a present time problem?" "I had a fight with my wife last night." "What about?"

Audience: Twelfth.

Now, if you get one of those things going you're going to spend the rest of the session, as an auditor did today, cleaning up the PTP. Now, I don't claim that auditor particularly didn't throw the TR 2 in. But certainly there must have been something going on there that didn't have too much to do with the price of oysters in Australia. Something Otherwise this would have come off. Now frankly the auditor ran, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for" worded like that, not having isolated the problem the pc had. Which of course gave the rest of the session, as an auditing action.

Twelve June, AD 12. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, lecture 1.

Now, in trying to handle a Q and A, trying not to Q and A, you're liable to pull all sorts of oddball things, like not get the answer to the auditing question. You're liable to use the Q and A, you see. you mustn't Q and A so therefore you don't get the answer to the auditing question. "Do you have a present time problem?" "I feel all right."

All right. Yeah, you're very fortunate to hear this lecture tonight for several reasons. There's (1) I'm very busy writing the basic text on these things now and (2) is, why, I feel lazy. But you need the material, so nothing is too great a sacrifice. I will go on and give it to you.

Now of course it's not a double question, because the comm lag is the length of time between the auditor's asking of the question and the pc's reply to that exact question. There are fewer fundamentals missing today than you might think and that . . .

But it's very, very fortunate for you to hear this lecture because I am — got a plateau and every once in a while, why, some piece of Scientology can be wrapped up and you say that's that. You've seen several such pieces wrapped up. you have Havingness, Prepchecking — these things are all wrapped up. Model Session is in its final version. I'm writing it now. It mostly consists of corrections that have already been published, but the material is simply being released in one concise bulletin, and of course, "In this session" precedes everything, you see, rather than ends it.

"Do you have a present time problem?" "I feel fine" is just part of the comm lag The pc has now begun a comm lag. That isn't an answer to the auditing question. So therefore you have to ask the question again. So you say, "Well, I'll repe - " You can say, "Uh-huh" or something and say, "I'll repeat the auditing question: Do you have a present time problem?" Well, that's not a Q-and-A. But it requires that the auditor hear what the pc said. So frankly TR 2 should include understand and acknowledge.

I am satisfied now that Model Session used with middle rudiments, and so on, is a very close to perfect auditing form from the viewpoint of a pc. That is, nothing goes wrong that doesn't get handled, providing the auditor does it and can read a meter.

Now, more auditors go out of ARC with pcs by pretending to understand, I think, than any other single reason.

We've got the meter pretty well wrapped up. I knew there was a bug in the meter on account of people weren't being successful here and there, so there must have been a meter bug. And sure enough there was. They didn't know that an instant read came after the thing — after the line was uttered. The instant read never occurs before the last consonant — I like to get in plugs about instant reads because some people have to be told it a lot of times. It's after the last consonant in the sentence or, if a vowel comes last, after the last vowel.

You say, "Do you have a present time problem?" and the pc says, "Wah fi fooel." And you say, "Thank you." And at that moment a great black miasma settles down over all like Pittsburgh smoke. You know? There it is. You've now got a missed withhold. See? The auditor now has a withhold. He didn't understand what the pc said.

I just had a couple of old-time auditors make a mistake on this — I mean a couple of very expert auditors make a mistake on this. They were checking out a goal that didn't check out on me. I didn't think it — it didn't look right. It didn't sound right. Didn't have enough track with it. Didn't sound like my goal so I got a subjective reality on it. It was "To conquer Earth." No difficulty with conquering Earth. Had it conquered for thousands of years. But couldn't be a goal. They were reading it "To conquer." See? "To conquer," instant read. And you look that over, "To conquer Earth," see, and an auditor can say, "To conquer Earth," and watching his needle, the "Earth" and the needle can coincidentally act, you see? So because you can say "Earth" so fast, of course, it must have been an instant read for "To conquer Earth," except the needle was moving while he was saying "Earth."

Now if you're so diffident about answering up and talking to your pc you of course can do this often. But if you have — didn't understand what the pc said, then for God's sakes say so. Not, "You mumbled" see, but "I didn't get it." you always put the onus on the auditor. You'll find the pc, after he's been questioned five or six times, answering perhaps with some asperity. But oddly enough he doesn't have an ARC break. He only gets the ARC break when the missed withhold accumulates in the auditor. "Do you have a present time problem?" "Slaf wof whoove." "Oh, thank you!" For what, man? See, there's nothing there. You say, "I didn't get that."

For an instant read to have occurred and for that to have been a valid read, the instant read would have had to have begun at "h" of "Earth," not at "E" of "Earth," see. And that is how cotton-picking precise you've got to be in reading an E-Meter, see. Now that was a wrong goal. Couldn't have been wronger. And the word "conquer" had a little charge on it. But apparently what made it hang as a goal was that it was the wrong goal. That's simple. You know, pc's disagreement and all of this sort of thing and the pc invalidating and everything and it messed up into a wrong read. But that's a fascinating one, isn't it, that the needle starts moving with the "E" of the last word and we get an entirely wrong goal.

A lot of you don't make old TR 10 function because you don't know what the pc is pointing at. "Point out something, thank you. Point out something, thank you." you know. The pc says, "Wwhm, hmm." you don't know what he's pointing at. So of course you have to salt it down with two-way comm. If you're running such a general process that can't be usually understood, you have to say, "What'd you point at?" He says, "The wall." Well, just because he says it somewhat acidly is no reason he's got an ARC break. It's when he doesn't talk that he has ARC breaks. A pc who's screaming by the way is less ARC broken than a pc who won't talk.

Now, a right goal is terribly important. And if you can read a meter, it — reading a meter is a very precise action. It's not a sloppy action. And if you can read a meter and if you can prepcheck and keep rudiments in and if the pc has been properly prepchecked and brought up to a point where he can be audited, you can do a Goals Assessment, providing you do all these other things. But this is the touchiest action in Scientology, bar none.

Now, therefore all rudiments questions, not just the middle rud, have to obtain an answer, have to obtain an answer to the question asked. And if the question is answered, the auditor simply understands and acknowledges it. And that is all that happens. It is only when it becomes manifestly, gargantuanly impossible to clean it with single questions, repeated over and over, that you finally resort to a rudiments process.

And the name of this lecture tonight is "How to Do a Goals Assessment." I've talked about the final version of Model Session. Well, this is, as far as I'm concerned, a final version of how to do a Goals Assessment.

Now, if a pc gets the auditor's question and answers the auditor's question and the meter is cleaned on that exact question, you'll find out, if your TRs are any good at all, that the number of rudiments processes you need are zero. The rudiments are now that good, if you're really putting it through and checking it on the meter and cleaning it up.

I'm studying this thing for quite a long time, trying to find out what people were doing wrong. After this, if you do something wrong with it, I'm not going to learn a thing from it, so you might as well do it right. It'd just be a wasted wrongness. I won't pay any attention to it at all. I'll just tell the Instructor, "Make them do it right." You know. Baah.

All right. Now, what happens in using a rudiment? You say — I'm using by the way an old rudiment so they won't get in your road here — "Do you have a present time problem?" See? And the pc said, "I have — yes, I have a headache" or something like that. you say, "Thank you. I will check that on the meter. Do you have a present time problem? That still reads. Do you have a present time problem?" The pc isn't talking

Now, the method of doing a Goals Assessment — quite precise. You probably could do something else than how I'm telling you this and possibly get the right goal. And on some pcs could do it easier than this. you understand? But at no time would I be comfortable that you had gotten the right goal.

"Oh, yes, I have another, I've got an appointment right after the — right after the session."

And getting a wrong goal is so appalling, listing a wrong goal is such a wrongness, that you'll wish to God you'd never begun it by the time you wind up on it because you're going to throw the pc into fits.

"Thank you. I will check that on the meter. Do you have a present time problem? That is clean. Thank you very much."

Now, if a psychologist or psychiatrist, God forbid, ever started fooling around with Routine 3 in the University of Illinois where they copy Scientology and release it to United Press — alter-ised — Dr. Hungt there reads our books and releases them to United Press quite often. He's now decided — don't think he's very bright, man — he's now decided that children's intelligence could be raised. And all these years afterwards, he has now learned out of all the burden of Scientology he has read that intelligence can change. I think that's a masterpiece. What intellect! Makes him one of the brightest psychologists in the world. He was able to misduplicate and come out with some sort of a minor fact.

Now, doesn't matter how many times you go through that evolution, go through it forty times if you have to. It is more effective than a process.

But if a psychologist or psychiatrist ever started fooling around with Routine 3 at the University of Chicago, pulled another gag of trying to take Book One and read it for ten minutes and then audit some people and then find out they didn't go Clear that afternoon, you know — that's the way they tested it — now don't, don't underestimate what I'm saying: they could probably kill or make insane a patient. Let's not underestimate Routine 3. It'd take as much wrongness as those jerks would be capable of to do this. A mere Book Auditor couldn't do it, see. That's right. He couldn't make that many professional mistakes. You know, Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate, evaluate. "Oh, that isn't right. No, I don't think you could there. You sure your mother doesn't have a different goal than that? Are you sure that doesn't trace back to a childhood deformity?" You can hear them now, you know.

What was peculiar about this auditing mistake today — just to not stress anything — was that frankly the one thing that will clean up on a repetitive request is a present time problem.

A fellow says, "Well, I wanted to play a harmonica."

"Do you have a present time problem?"

"That's an oral action. Are you sure you don't have some homosexual goals?" Then they choose one of their own choosing, don't you see. And then they would list it wrong, and then they would ARC break the whole list, you see. And if you did that to that clownish degree that only such characters would be capable of — I'm not just being sarcastic. Only they are capable of it. Ordinary citizen wouldn't be able to figure out this many twists — they could either kill or drive insane a person. So you're not fooling with something with Routine 3 — any of the Routine 3 processes.

"I have a headache."

You list a wrong goal and you've had it. That is to say, the pc isn't going to die or go insane, but — on your hands — but he's liable to get awful sick. And he's liable to get dizzy. He's liable to feel quite spinny. Listing a wrong goal is not just agin the doctrine of Scientology, but it's agin the mechanics of the pc's bank.

"Thank you. I will check it on the meter. Still reads. Do you have a present time problem?"

I'm not going to attempt in this lecture to give you a full parade of why Routine 3GA works and why you have to have a goal, beyond saying that the goal is the prime postulate. It is the prime intention. It is a basic purpose for any cycle of lives the pc has lived, see. And reference is History of Man, cycles of lives.

"Uh — see. Ooooh-oo ah umm, got an appointment right after the session."

Now, you get a cycle GPM and then a whole track GPM or a track GPM, you see. you could get a cycle GPM. Now, actually, the smallest cycle that you will see a goal and a prime postulate operating in, is you ask the pc, "What was the most severe operation you've had in your life?" and he says so-and-so. You just ask him for an engram, see. And you say, "All right. What goal did you have immediately before the engram?" And he will give you his goal just before the engram and then — if you did it very lightly — because otherwise it's liable to restimulate the bank because, of course, it's not a basic goal — you could actually disintegrate, probably, the engram itself just by getting the four-flows mechanics against that goal. See? That is your tiniest Routine 3, see?

"Thank you. I will check that on the meter. Do you have a present time problem? It still reads."

A guy has an engram. He was in an automobile accident. "What was your — what was your postulate? What were your — what was your goal, idea. . ." and so forth. Immediately at the beginning of that accident, that will be the goal for that period of time. And any way the goal is not executed will be an alter-isness which creates a solidity, and that is the mechanics of an engram. That is how an engram suspends in space. It is the alter-ised prime postulate. And any alter-isness of that goal, you could call it, brings about a suspension of mass. The only way you get mass is by alter-isness.

"Well I — uh — I'm sunburned. Uh — it's a little uncomfortable sitting in the chair."

Now, there it applies to an engram. I don't — I don't invite you to take engrams apart that way, because you're going to miss here and there. You'd have to do a little Goals Assessment at the beginning of the engram, don't you see, and work it out. Possibly you'd get away with it, but it might be so far — he might have been so far out of valence at the time the thing occurred, and it might have been such an automaticity of circuitry, that you might have a goal which, if it were the wrong goal... See, you might not be able to reach his actual postulate, and if you listed for that little engram — the wrong goal — if you listed the wrong one, you would get a further solidification of the engram.

"All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I will check it on the meter." See. "Do you have a present time problem? That still reads."

Now, you can do this with a life. All right. Just before you picked up that body, you had a goal. Just before, see? Bang. You had a goal. Now, that goal may have been carried out to some degree through the life or it may not have been. But to every single point that the goal was not executed, the person was doing something else during that lifetime. And in doing something else during that lifetime, mass was created in the mind, in the bank. So the lifetime finally winds up to be the accumulation of that mass which takes on a spherical shape with a hole in the middle of it, and that is your basic item on the track. That is a basic item on the track.

"Aaaa-hm."

In other words, it begins with a goal for that lifetime. Now, I don't say that you again could do this for one lifetime — easily. You'd have to make a little goals list for the goals just before assumption in this lifetime. And you'd have to make a little list and do an assessment and that sort of thing And you might come up with something. You might run out this lifetime; you might not. But this lifetime may be in opposition — the whole lifetime and that goal — might be in opposition to the basic cycle goal the fellow was running on, at which moment you would just get a beefing up, a growing of the mass. All auditing then adds to the mass of the bank. The net result of auditing is to make the bank beefier. Now, this is the basis of the Step 6 phenomena.

"Well, do you have a present time problem?"

The Step 6 phenomena never occurred because of creativeness. It only apparently occurred because of creatingness. When what you are asking the pc to do was at great variance with the basic goal of the pc, you've got an increase of mass in the bank by reason of mocking things up. That's why it didn't happen with everybody.

"Well, yes, I do. Actually I don't feel good being audited — uh — uh — uh — uh, here — it's so nice outside. Now the present time problem is being — ins — yeah, it's being inside when I should be outside."

Well, let's give you a gross and improbable example: Supposing the basic purpose of the individual was "not to be audited," and you were auditing the person, you would then get an increase of the bank. you get the idea? All of this is that — is that idiotically simple. The mass which is contained in the bank depends upon the amount of alter-isness of the basic purpose of the person.

"All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. I will check that on the meter. Do you have a present time problem? Thank you. That is clean."

Now, there is a basic purpose, as I've shown you, for each engram. It's always before. Just like the instant read is always all the way afterwards, so the basic purpose is always all the way before — all the way before. It doesn't occur five minutes after the accident begins. It occurs before the accident occurs. It'll be there. The guy decides to have an accident or something like that. Usual. It's hard to find. So it occurs before the engram. It occurs before the lifetime. And it occurs — a basic purpose occurs before a cycle of lifetimes. A cycle is a similar or related series of doingnesses.

There is an old process: Tell me a problem you have had or tell me a problem you have. you know. Pc's always different, always different, always different. It's practically running the same process. See?

You know. It all happened in Arcturus. A guy is sixty thousand years in the vicinity of Arcturus, see. Well, that's a cycle. Then he decides to hell with Arcturus. Can't stand it anymore. He's got so many overts on it, he exteriorizes and lives for the next hundred thousand years in the area of Venus. Well, that's a new cycle, see.

So, each one of these things actually converts into a direct process. It's just like you're running a direct process so the rudiment in that wise is used as the process. So why do you need a process? See, that's the question. Why do you need a process? You've got one.

So you get a cycle of lives. They don't necessarily depend on . . . The definition of cycle is imprecise. It is simply similar areas and doingnesses. Even though in Babylon he might have been a priest, he might have been a temple dancer, he may have been mayor of the town, he may have been captain of the guard, he may have been the sewer emptier, see? Because it's surrounded... And he might even have been out on the frontier or something in one lifetime, see. All kinds of different lifetimes, but somewhat united loosely by area or purpose. Loosely united. And you call that loosely a cycle.

"Since the last session have you done anything you are withholding" Clank. "That reads. What was that? What was that you were thinking of? Yeah, that right there."

But it is a sufficient change and departure from the last cycle to make its basic purpose stand independent. And this is very important to you in doing Routine 3. Because you want the basic purpose which stood before the earliest cycle you can get hold of that will register on the E-Meter. That is what you are looking for. Now, we call them goals, and they're much better expressed technically as a basic purpose.

"Oh, well I — I — I kissed one of the fellow students last night. I — hmmm."

We are looking, actually, for the beginning-of-cycle basic purposes. Now, we don't have to guide the pc in his understanding of this because you will get one basic purpose ticking — is all you're going to get anyway. Why only one? Because there is only one idea that is in disagreement with all other ideas in that mass. And that is the pc's basic purpose. And by definition it's in disagreement with all other activities, masses, items and ideas in that whole-cycle GPM. It is the odd man out, man. And it can't help but register.

"All right, thank you. Good. Thank you very much. Since the last session have you done anything that you are withholding?" See? It's an auditing question, isn't it? So you're just checking the answer every time to find out if you should go on running the process, that's all you're doing. And if you look at an anti-Q-and-A activity of getting a rudiment in in this fashion it all of a sudden will make marvelous sense to you. you will be able to make it work. You won't be sitting there in a tremendous impatience to have this run out. All you want to do is have the pc answer it and have the meter not read then. See? That's the only thing. And every — actually every one of them is an auditing question. So you run the process till the meter doesn't read. On the needle of course. See there?

Now, if you audit it, it is responsible for all the subsequent alter-isness which caused all the other masses. And you're all right because every time you list another item, you have less mass in the bank. Not because the item does anything — but because by directing the pc's attention — and the basic purpose then falls out as the thrust behind the item. You're auditing the basic purpose out and the alter-isnesses are what hold it in. You're not auditing out items.

So there goes your — the — your session gets very smooth. You can understand that an old repetitive process would go something on the basis of, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? Thank you. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? Thank you. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? Thank you." See. Or whatever it is. And you know that sooner or later the guy is going to run out of steam. He's going to run out of answers. When he runs out of answers, you don't get no further reaction, that's the time you leave it.

Now, where does all this go in Routine 3? What happens to all these GPMs and counterbalances and items and masses and ridges and God-help-us's? What happens to them all?

So it's sort of-auditing something against the needle, not against the tone arm. If you look at it in that wise, why you will become very, very clever at getting your rudiments in.

If audited properly, they go whooooo, and they are no more with Routine 3GA. They don't go back on the track. They don't go two miles out to the left — as they did with Routine 3. They go whoooooo because there's nothing can support them. And you can take off maybe the last three cycle GPMs off the whole GPM, the track GPM, see. The track GPM is composed of all these cycle GPMs and sometimes they have stood separate for a very long time, and then the fellow led a very forceful cycle of lives and got them all condensed in on each other. Now, he's got the GPM, cycle after cycle after cycle after cycle. Oddly enough a basic purpose can stand independent at the beginning of a cycle sufficient to be listed because it disenturbulates all the things which came after. But it has to be the only one, the only idea. It has to be the right idea.

Now, don't go asking a rudiment after a rudiment is clean. "Do you have a present time problem?"

Now, supposing you list some other goal. Remember, every lifetime had a goal. I've just shown you every engram has a goal at the beginning of it. How many goals do you think this pc might possibly have in just one cycle GPM twenty thousand years long? Ghastly to think of. They aren't principal ones, but if you listed them all, they'd probably amount to thousands. Actually, he covers the bulk of them in under a thousand. You'll get — all you're trying to do is get your crack at the basic purpose just before the cycle — this whole cycle of lives.

Pc says, "No." You say, "I'll check it on the meter, here." Now look, when you said do you have a present time problem, you got no read at all. What are you doing hanging around waiting for the pc to answer it? You answer for the pc. This doesn't leave an unanswered auditing question. I mean, that's another little trick you can do. you know you can sit back and repeat a phrase out of the pc's bank, you know. you can take a phrase and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and it will eventually go null in the pc's mind. Did you know that?

Now, if we list one of these other goals that occurs, it is in opposition to the basic goal of that cycle. And every item we list will increase the mass of that GPM. You maybe can get away with it for a hundred items on each of the four lists. Your next hundred items, your pc will start going a little bit dizzy occasionally, and if you persisted in your error, the pc would all of a sudden be sick in his stomach and the dizziness would be very acute and the pc couldn't walk in a straight line and the pains in the pc's stomach would be agonizing

You know the auditor can do that on his own responsibility. He can also answer for the pc to this degree. He finally says, "Do you have a present time problem? Oh, that's null. Thank you. That's clean. Ha, ha, good. All right." Pc hasn't said a word.

And if we went another hundred, persisting along this line, and so forth, why, the pc would probably be so wogged up, that it'd take him weeks to disenturbulate. You could certainly audit him into oddball psychosomatics he'd never heard of before. You see how it'd be done? You haven't got the thing that's being alter-ised. You've got something else that's increasing the alter-isness.

And he says, "Well, I don't have to worry about that."

The basic purpose . . . I'll give you an idea. The person had a goal to eat ice cream cones. Let's be ridiculous. Had a goal to eat ice cream cones and everybody came along and said you have to eat beef. And every time he said, "I want to eat an ice cream cone," somebody else said you had to eat beef — he'd develop a little more mass and ridges in his mind because he's doing something else. He can't as-is what's happening, you see, because he's supposed to be eating ice cream cones and he's now having to fight these people that want him to eat beef.

It's not a trick, it's just a fact. why hang around waiting for the pc to dig one up? Let's take it while it's clean, man.

All right. So eventually he surrenders and becomes a beefeater. So he goes along eating beef and about this time he'll have trouble with his stomach. This we're for sure. So he decides at that time to be a doctor. Now, he finds out that he can't be a doctor because he has to have a license. See? As lifetimes roll along, there it goes. But his basic purpose was to eat ice cream cones. So now you've got the continuous alter-isness of eating ice cream cones by eating beef. And then you've got the continuous alter-isness of being a doctor which increases the mass. The more he's a doctor, the more he increases the mass of eating beef, the more he increases the mass generating around eating ice cream cones. You see? See how serious this gets.

Now, this is — this is pure cruelty. "Do you have a present time problem?" No reaction at all on the meter, you see.

All right, let's remove it a thousand activities up the track. At the thousandth activity, activity one thousand will, in devious zigzags, increase the mass of every other activity back down to the basic purpose or multiplies it by a thousand times. This becomes utterly intolerable, so one day he's flying a spaceship along, and he says, "There's a nice juicy sun." He gets up out of his — out of his pilot's chair and accidentally stumbles over the automatic control, jamming it irrevocably. Well, that's one way of getting rid of a GPM that is not very satisfactory. Now, but he thinks he's all over this now, and he's left it all back there on Sun 12 and so forth, and he's exteriorized and he's now being a nymph in the court at Venus. And that is entirely different. And his basic purpose is to raise hell with this place, and he can go off on another thousand lives before it catches up with him. you see that?

Pc says, "God, he's looking at me. It must be that I have a present time problem." So help me Pete he gets the problem of having to find a problem. Now, you ask it again and he's got a problem. So a double question goes about the meter as well as the pc. If you've asked the question and got it clear, get out of there, man. Don't ask it twice. The only time you ask it twice is when you get an equivocal read. Well, we don't have to use this high school word "equivocal" but I normally do. I couldn't tell. you know. Well, there's several ways that you can't tell, as a pc is coming on and being audited at sensitivity 16, you sometimes start your question with the needle on the dial and by the time you have gotten the question out of your mouth the needle is off the dial. And you sometimes have to run against the dodge of really throwing the needle with the tone arm down against the pin starting a long rudiments question and end it as the pc bounces back on the meter and shows that you have no read. Did you know you could do that? You have to be pretty sharp with a meter not to be wiggling it at the time the actual end of the question occurs. That requires very smart thumb action. But you sometimes have to do it, you get your needle so floppy. That's all in the tools of the trade, however. And there's nothing unusual about that.

However, his cycles tend to get shorter, as you can see why. It gets too grim to live. The mass is too great to stand. Because it's painful. Living is painful. That's all there is to it. This is the source of pain. These accumulative masses. There are only these masses and free track in the reactive mind, that is all. And the free track, so called, is only in its mass state because it's impinged on the masses that are already there. So that is the composition of the reactive mind. There isn't anything else in the reactive mind except an alter-isness of basic purpose.

But your needle's null, it's null. Don't leave anybody in suspense about it. You've watched me audit there. You ever see any pcs I've been auditing in these demonstrations complain about any of this? No. You've seen me do this in demonstrations.

But you understand that you've got a basic purpose at the beginning of each cycle. This is theory. The rest is absolute fact, but this is theory. At the beginning of each cycle there is a basic purpose and the fellow takes off along that line. And, that we look back, we get several cycles. Twenty, thirty different cycles, and if we could get the one right at the beginning, it would disenturbulate the whole track from there to there. Actually, you'd only have to . . . If you could get the basic one and it would register on the meter, which is to say be entirely real in its location and area to the pc, you would have to list four items, and there'd be a bright flash where the pc was sitting and there wouldn't be anything left of him but a smile.

"Do you have a present time problem?" "That's null. Thank you." We're out of there and away and gone into the next one, see. Now if it's equivocal, "Do you have a present time problem?" And at that moment it's off the pin and you say, "I didn't get that read. I'm going to have to ask it again" see. Jack it around. "Do you have a present time problem? All right. That's null." Merely looks to the pc as though you were being careful, which you are. But don't leave him in suspense. Sometimes on a goal or something like this you can get an equivocal read. you don't know whether it read after the "h" at the end of the sentence, see, " . . . to conquer Earth." Or whether it read at the "E" or something. You just weren't sharp enough at that moment to tell exactly where that thing read. See, the pc's got some bugs. Pc's doing a thinkthink about something else and there's an occasional tick-tick here and there occurring on the meter. Well, the tick might have occurred at that point and if it's important at all, you say, "Well it's an equivocal read." you know. And ask it again. Because that's the onus on you. you couldn't read the meter. You didn't read the meter, that's why you're asking again. And that's the only time when you check a clean read.

Now, this is the touching faith of everybody in Scientology. They know there is a single button. Well, that's the single button. Difficulty with the single button is it isn't real to the pc. Won't even register. So what you're looking for is the first goal that you can reach which will stay active, that can be listed. And by listing it, you, of course, are going to run out the subsequent track to that goal. Subsequent track. You aren't going to get any track earlier than that. So when you got that goal flat, you're going to get the next goal that you can reach. And that will stay in. And then you can list that one and so forth. And eventually you'll get back to goal one that'll disenturbulate all the rest of it anyhow.

Don't — it — say, "Do you have a present time problem? That's clean. All right. Now I'm going to make sure. Do you have a present time problem? That's clean." Hell, you've weighted the rudiments now to a point where the pc will stagger under their burden. And the pc's case will stagger. Also, it seems kind of stupid. Can you read a meter or can't you? Is the meter reading or isn't it? See? You're questioning the meter, now. And that's a double question. This is as destructive to the use of rudiments as anything else.

Well, the weird part of it is, is that one of those cycle goals, one that precedes the cycle, will list. That's what's peculiar. You're just lucky, but they will. Before I released 3GA with any velocity and so forth and wrote it up in proper bulletins and put it in the book and all this sort of thing, I wanted to be absolutely sure that I had my fingers exactly on it, and I didn't know why it worked. I didn't know exactly why it worked. So I went ahead and had to work out the rest of it. I had a lazy weekend. All I did was write a few bulletins and work that out.

So a rudiment is basically a process. Being a process it of course is run until it doesn't react on the needle. In view of the fact that we're not trying to run it flat on the case, we can only run it flat on the needle. The second it is flat we don't give the pc any chance to cognite or stretch or tell you that it's flat, we tell him it's flat and we get out of there.

Well, anyhow, the basis of a Goals Assessment then, is the discovery of — and you never mention to the pc that you want an earlier goal because these goals are all persistent and he takes them as this life or something like that — we never have to urge him, but we want the earliest goal that we can get that will register. It's got to be a prime postulate.

That is not evaluative because the pc knew before you did.

Now, oddly enough, the test for prime postulate is simply under the rules of assessment. You do proper assessment and a proper checkout, and if the goal stays in, then it's a prime postulate. It's the basic purpose at the beginning of some cycle. So it's safe to list. That is all you have to know. It'll drop with a single tick. If it drops with a double tick, it's just a missed withhold. It isn't a goal.

He gets a feeling that it's all right.

But if you follow the mechanics of assessment, you will wind up with this rather easily. Now, the mechanics of assessment follow. The Routine 3 auditor — not the Prepcheck auditor — the one who is going to do the goals listing and so on, no matter if the pc . . . Pcs very often list goals on their own and bring them into session, so we're perfectly all right.

Now, if you go reverse end to and call one clean that isn't clean, through some misguided expediency on your part, of course you've set up the session for an ARC break from Hell to Halifax.

But the first time the auditor has his paws on this pc as a Routine 3 activity, whether the pc has already listed some goals or not, we care not, we want to make sure that that auditor does a Prepcheck based on the middle rudiments. That is the first action undertaken in a Goals Assessment. And every fifth session thereafter, a Prepcheck of the middle rudiments will occur.

You always call a meter right. Don't ever call a meter with expediency. If you have a meter that you can't call and you don't know, say so. And if you're going to leave something live without cleaning it, say so. Be informative, auditor, be informative. Otherwise your R-factor flies out the window. You have to be informative consistently and continuously. You have to tell the pc this is what is going on. Let's not have the pc sit there in the dark worrying, worrying, worrying, worrying, worrying, see. you have to tell the pc what you're going to do and why you're doing it.

You understand, you use your middle rudiments continuously just as middle rudiments, but now we're talking about a Prepcheck of them. And that is just a highly stylized activity. You start your session in Model Session and you use as Zero Questions the following: "On goals have you ever suggested anything?"

All right. The pc is going along the line and he's been — he says, "To catch catfish, to chase waterbucks, to kill tigers, uh — uh — to uh — to catch big catfish, ummmm — to catch big catfish — yah." What are you going to do? You going to sit there, wait for a holiday? This is something like painting a wall and leaving half of it unpainted, you know. It is the same thing. You're not going to sit there and let the pc go on and on and on, on auto in the first place. The way for calling for a goal or a list item is you call a stylized question. All right.

Ditto, had anything suggested. Ditto, suppress. Ditto, had suppressed. Ditto, invalidated. Ditto, had anything invalidated. Ditto, failed to reveal anything. Ditto, been careful of anything Ditto, told any half-truth. Ditto, told any untruth. Ditto, influenced an E-Meter. Ditto, tried not to influence an E-Meter.

"What other goal have you had?" Something like that, see. "Tell me another goal you've had." And he gives you one and, "All right. You got another goal?" (it's rather informal type of question) and he says, "Yes!" He says, "To catch catfish, to drown waterbuck, to shoot tigers, uh — to paint battleships, to go down chutes, to murder little children, ummm — uh . . ."

I don't know why you're writing them in your notebook. It's just the — with one single addition — it's the middle ruds and the beginning of the end ruds. And that single addition is suggested because we have had auditors around who suggested things to the pc. you can get a goal stuck in by suggesting the goal to the pc and it will then consistently register thereafter. Or the auditor has suggested the goal be worded a little differently and that will stick the goal too. And you will get a read on it and it won't be the read of the goal. Do you understand that?

What are you going to do at that time? Are you going to sit there and wait? He's already given you about six answers beyond the answer you asked for — which is perfectly all right. Don't say to the pc, "No, now you've given me one. You've given me one. Now, just wait for a moment till I ask the auditing question again, you see." Hell, you'll throw him out, if his interest is put on the auditor and that sort of thing. So he gave you six. All right. And you have a hell of a time writing them down. Well, calmly catch up with writing them and the time you are halfway through the last one that you're writing, why give him the question again. See?

So you prepcheck those Zero Questions which are just your middle rudiments and the first two, three questions of the end rudiments, see? Use each one as a Zero and you just check them out and if the thing is getting a bang-bang-bang reaction, you just prepcheck it back. you form a What and get it back to the original and run it up, just like you do Prepchecking.

Now, he says, "Ahhuh."

You must also prepcheck the same endings with, "On listing — ," and you must do the same Prepcheck with the listing "On items — ," ditto, see. It gives you quite a long list. You'd be amazed. And then on the word "goal." you might as also take the word "listing," and you just prepcheck it as a single word. Your Zero in that case is "goal" or "goals" or "lists" or "listing" And if you get a knock on the E-Meter, you track it down. you want these words to be clean.

You say, "Yes, yes. Any other goal you've had."

You see, that's very simple, and it's on goals, on listing, your middle ruds, beginning of your end ruds. Each one of these things makes a very embracive Zero Question. That's the formula of how you work that out. It took me fifty-one minutes. I checked this out to see how well and facilely it worked the other evening just before I released the information, and it took me fifty-one minutes to get rid of the lot — on the first time it was done on this pc. And it was clean as a wolf's tooth.

"Aaahh-nm."

So it doesn't necessarily take a session. So you've got the other part of the session. Let's say you've done — this is your fifth session on goals on the pc, so therefore you're going to have to do a Prepcheck. Maybe the first hour would be occupied with the Prepcheck and then you'd close it out and start up your session again and your second hour would be occupied with a Goals Assessment. You understand?

You say, "All right. Now we're going to do a few middle rudiments if that's all right with you." He looks at you kind of dumbly and says, "Why?"

It isn't necessarily true that you would have to occupy the whole of a two-hour session or a five-and-a-half-hour session or something like that. It's just in the fifth session, each fifth session you're going to do this Prepcheck. And that keeps you from working the middle rudiments to death all the time. See, that lets you pick up chain reaction on these things, because your middle ruds are always being asked, "In this session — ," you see. And it can get a little bit frantic after a few hours, so it's a good thing to go back and do . . . Well, let's pick up the whole chain and it probably goes back to childhood with some interference with lists, you know. I mean, that's right. That's right.

"Well we just don't seem to be listing as easily as we can, maybe something has gone out here." Tell him anything you want to, see? "And we're just going to do them just to be sure. Just to be sure." And you rattle off your middle rudiments question.

We found a teacher that was — knew how to teach. She told each one of her pupils to go over to the library and list all the trees there were, all the animals there were, all the birds there were. The little kids didn't have any time to play. They were just over there opening up books. They didn't know anything about the trees or the flowers, the plants or anything They were just writing down arborvorous, arborvirons. You know, trying to spell it — hour after hour after hour.

"In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of" is the question, but of course it runs like this in actual use:

This was listing, so of course this pc was having a little bit of trouble listing And then I. . . You always find grocery lists and things like that all stacked up on the track too. Or the people wouldn't give you a list. They sent you to the store, said get some strawberries, cheese, kerosene, half a dozen limes, six eggs and some ham. That is the missingness of a list. you go down the street saying, "Half a dozen kerosenes . . ."

"In this session is there anything you have suppressed? Yes. What was that?"

That's the kind of thing you want off here. you want it — and you won't get them off, of course, just asking middle ruds, because your middle ruds have no track. They have just the session. They don't even have the track of the auditing sessions you've been running. They only have the track of this session. So that's your middle rud. Now, the reason you get that out is that you won't have any — anything much getting in your road and your needle going wild on that sort of thing.

"Oh . . ."

Now, of course, in checking out one, you do this Prepcheck before you check out the goal. I don't care if you just did it last session. You found the goal now and you got it there. Well, let's do a Prepcheck and then let's check out the goal.

"Yeah, suppressed. That. That there."

Now, one of the reasons you keep doing this and you keep prepchecking these middle rud Zeros is because the pc keeps changing under a Goals Assessment. Not as much as under listing, but they change. New incidents come up, new ideas, that sort of thing.

"Oh, well that. I've just been trying not to tell you that uh — I find it very, very, very hard to — to confide in you these — these — these various goals about murdering children. I — I — actually had — had — had a couple more of them and I didn't tell you."

All right. Your first action then of a Goals Assessment is to prepcheck the middle ruds as Zeros. Your next action is to start listing, in Model Session, keeping your rudiments in with your sensitivity set for a one-dial drop, with some kind of an eye on the tone arm so that you can whiz along and you all of a sudden see that the needle's motionless, the tone arm's motionless, and there's nothing much happening, and well, your rudiments are out.

You say, "Thank you. All right, I will check that. In this session is there anything you have suppressed? That's clean."

Now, I don't particularly tell you that you should read anything extraordinary, marvelous or wonderful from your meter while you are listing. Tone arm action is relatively unimportant and so forth. But you need that meter there tuned up and in function because you will get accustomed to taking some information from the meter even as you list.

Now we go: "In this session is there anything you have invalidated? Failed to reveal? Yes. What's that? Failed to reveal. What is it?"

Now, the second that you get the pc slowed down, doped off or a bit out of session, having a hard time listing goals, having a hard time thinking of more goals, you get in the middle rudiments. And of course your middle rudiments contain just suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal and been careful of.

"Oh! It's just, these two goals about the — killing children. Ha-ha, yeah."

There is an additional middle rudiment that might apply to specialized pcs and you might like to use it. And the pc is actually suppressing suggestions and sometimes the pc doesn't rate it under the head of suppression. And it comes under "failed to suggest." "Did you fail to suggest something" The pc's sitting there madly out of session because they wanted to suggest that you do something, but they know that they're not supposed to and that you won't take it up anyhow, and all kinds of complications and so on. If you run into that kind of a situation, why, you can run "failed to suggest" into your middle rudiments. I'm not necessarily leaving it in there because I found out that it quite often comes up under the heading of suppressions. And you'll get a reaction on the thing if it's seriously out.

Say, "Good. Thank you very much. I'll check that. In this session is there anything that you have failed to reveal? That's clean. All right. In this session is there anything you have been careful of? Thank you. That is clean. All right. Tell me another goal you've had."

The middle ruds are never intended to be clean from a standpoint of the whole track. Rudiments are never intended to be clean from the standpoint of the whole track. Nothing is lasting about rudiments, you understand? Even when you prepcheck rudiments, don't expect it to be lasting. So just because you've gotten the rudiments in on listing five minutes before is no reason they're not now out.

See? That's the way you handle them. You'll find out you'll win every time if you handle them that particular way. In other words you cut in at it as though you're going to take care of it in the shortest possible fashion. And if you've got one clean you sure don't repeat it. See? You leave that one alone.

Now, one of the things that you're sloppiest about is getting in — getting the rudiments in without knocking the pc out of session. You've got to get in, get your rudiments out — get in, get your rudiments in and then get back into session rapidly so that you don't make this thing a lifetime profession with tremendous weight on it so they're way out of session worrying about their rudiments. They're way, way out of session worrying about their rudiments when they should be thinking about their goals. You understand?

Now you go on and list goals again and oddly enough you will find that your person is perfectly willing now to list goals. Perfectly willing to list goals. Every time the listing slows down, bloombo!

Giving middle rudiments the wrong weight, getting things very, very upset is one of the worst crimes that you can do under listing. Your rudiments can be used to throw the pc out of session as easily as to throw them in. But expert use of the rudiments and a refusal to Q-and-A with the pc, getting in, getting them in, getting them out again, leaving them clean every time, and so forth, is marvelous assistance on listing.

Well, about every fifth session they've gotten enough residual out-of-session nonsense kicked around that had been — invalidating enough and monkeying around enough that it's worth a Prepcheck. But supposing the pc came into session — we're going to do it every fifth session anyhow — and supposing the pc came into session and you got the beginning rudiments in all right and then you said, "All right, now on this goal list...."

Now, your main idea in listing is to get something on the order of 850 goals listed before you do another thing Eight hundred and fifty listed before you do another thing. Why? Very well the goal may be in the first 150 and most often is, but insufficient charge is off of the bank for you to isolate that goal easily. Insufficient charge.

"Well, I don't know that I want to list any more today. Can't we do something else because I just assssar-bisar-hmm-berar-rrarrwow-rrorrowow."

The goals are so heavily charged up that you are not going to be able to separate one goal from another. You're going to come off with the goals remaining in very hard, going over it with many nullings, worrying, worrying, worrying, worrying, worrying, and it worries an auditor silly. You're not going to do 850 because the goal is not on the list until you've written the 850th goal, see. You're going to do it to discharge the goals list of charge, so that you can then find the goal.

Well, you got your beginning rudiments in so it can't be them. See? It must be the middle rudiments. So just go ahead and prepcheck your Zeros. Because now you're going to catch it. All the invalidations of listing as a subject, invalidation of goals as a subject, you see. That would call for a Prepcheck rather than do something else weird. You'll pick it up. They've been invalidating listing That's the commonest source of stopping listing is they invalidate listing.

You will very often find that it — the goal did appear in the first 150 goals listed. But don't worry the pc about this because the pc doesn't know it anyhow. The one thing the pc doesn't know is his own goal.

"I don't see how this is getting me any place." You know. Now the reasons they suppress and fail to reveal and all that sort of thing may be something odd but you will catch it in these four questions.

The pc who comes up and tells you that this is his goal and that is that and who tries to do a big sales talk even, you know, one pc out of five will monkey the meter. Did you know that? Oh, it's that prevalent. You know, shift the eyeball with the havingness down, you know. Start to sell the auditor the goal. Sometimes they sell it to the degree of lifting a little finger off of the can. Fact. They want to have that goal. They know what goal they should have. They know better than the auditor or the E-Meter, and they get a wrong goal every time they do it.

Now, you use this "suggest" and "failed to suggest" or anything of that character on a pc who is sort of on the verge of telling you what to do all the time. It's a critical pc that this is the most useful on because the pc is suppressing suggestions about your auditing continuously. So you can just run that into the lineup and certainly run it into the Prepcheck. I don't care whether you ask it as a middle rudiment or not. I wouldn't, but I would certainly fix it up as a Prepcheck. When Prepcheck time came around I would ask them if there was anything they had failed to suggest and we would get the all - all of the latent withholds on the subject of our auditing off and all kinds of things. You see. But the time to take that up is on a Prepcheck.

Well, the goal is what the goal is. Not what the pc wants it to be and not what the auditor hopes it will be. The auditor can interject his hope on the thing to such a degree that he'll weight the session. And by suggestion, get the goal to continue to tick. And then if his middle ruds are badly cleaned up — see, the middle ruds'll get the tick off if it's ticking because of any other reason than it's the goal; don't worry about that. This goal can actually sit there and tick and respond every single time because the auditor suggested it to the pc.

So in your middle ruds you're only interested in the immediate session. You're interested in the immediate session that you're running That is because we're going to prepcheck them and that's going to take in all the — all the middle areas on the whole subject. The accumulations. And the reason you're going to run the middle ruds is to keep their needle relatively clean, so it is readable — that's your best reason — keep them in-session and part of keeping the needle readable is of course making sure the needle is reading on the goal, not an invalidation of the goal or something of that sort.

So you come along and you find some pc who has — some auditor, and he had the goal "To shoot pigeons." And you'll find out that he tends to find on the pc the goal "To shoot woodcocks." That is very fascinating. How does he make it? He weights it. He actually can suggest to the pc one way or the other. It has to be quite overt. It's not esoteric at all. "Well, heh! Let's — let's — let's go in for this goal now. This — this — this one. Ha! This goal here. Ha! Ya! Ha! Yeah, we haven't been getting much excitement here. I'm glad we're to this goal now because I want to really check this one out: 'To — ' now, are you listening, huh?"

So that's middle rudiments in their use on goals.

We've been running along at this rate, see, "To catch catfish, to run over poodles," so forth, you see. We get all of a sudden this burst of enthusiasm, you see. And then we get: "All right. To shoot woodcocks." For some reason or other the goal will continue to read. Why? Well, it's just weighted to such a degree that it's gone over the borderline to a suggestion.

Now, they're used exactly the same way in — when you are listing a goal, the four lists of 3GA used in a goals list. Used exactly the same way except there's now a better pattern. Every time you stop listing on a line you get the middle rudiments in. And then go to your next line. So the middle rudiments all live between lines and they're just used as a bridge. You do line one, middle rudiments, line two, middle rudiments, line three, middle rudiments, line four, middle rudiments. See? Line one. Round and round and round but always the middle rudiments. Because he may have just run out of steam and that line might have been exhausted or he might have stopped listing on that thing because the middle rudiments were out.

The auditor then, by being sure of what the pc's goal is, can actually weight the goal for the pc. And have done it. I've seen some of them checked out. Five goals found by one auditor. They were all alike on five different pcs. Quite similar. It isn't anybody present.

So we don't question this or fool with it. It's too easy to get them back in again. So we just take it more or less that we better smooth it up and go on to the next line. And he'll accept this generally; after you've done it a few times he just accepts it as a matter of course and that's very easy and he never pays more — any more attention to it. It's not heavily weighted, in other words.

I got a hurry-up despatch not so long ago that — auditor told me they finally found this pc's goal. They knew that everybody else had it wrong. Isn't it interesting there was only one word difference between the pc's goal and that auditor's goal. Well, I assure you of something — they're never that close together. Man in his infinite variety doesn't have standard goals because in the first place you're picking up beginning of cycle goals, and God knows what they'll be. What infinite variety occur in these things. And they're with their own wording and they're on their own subjects and so forth.

All right. Now in Prepchecking, in Prepchecking — now there's of course — prepchecking the middle rudiments is this — this thing I've been giving you here about goals and so on and mentioned in the first lecture this evening — but in Prepchecking you use middle rudiments. You use it after every What question is null. Whatever the What question is you use it after it is null. You've run the chain and come back and checked the What question and now you found it null. So, you do the middle ruds. "In this session have you . . . ?" or "Is there anything you have . . . ?" And get your middle rudiments in and then check the What question again. Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh.

There is on the eighth dynamic a little more coincidence of goals than on any other dynamic. You'll find that God will come in more often. You know, if you've got — in any hundred cases you'll probably find all of them are different except maybe five, six, eight, something like this, will all have a goal that has something to do with gods or God, or something It's the most incidence, and that's because there's the least subject matter in this civilization at this time on the subject of the eighth dynamic. We're still using Akhenaton's invisible big-thetan theory. And there's one God, don't you see? And you can't see him and it's only peculiar to this time and place, see. If you were doing this in pagan Rome, you wouldn't get that much coincidence. It's just for the lack of objects on the eighth dynamic. There is — somebody's stuck on the eighth dynamic, you see, they tend to get the same object person after person.

Now, you'll notice that this is being put in as a broader look at failed — on a — on a missed withhold. You see, before you were supposed to ask consistently for missed withholds. Well, this is just a fancier, broader way of asking for a missed withhold. So you don't also ask for missed withholds. You just do your middle ruds. And then you go back and check the What question again. If your pc is sort of running down on havingness, is consistently down, there'd be two ways you could go about it. you could get your middle ruds in, check the What question again, find it null, then do some Havingness and go on to your next question, or if this needle was so agitated that you couldn't read well and were suspicious of your reads on the What question you would do your middle ruds and run the Havingness and then check that What question. See?

All right. Your first action is the Prepcheck. Your next action is the listing When the slowdown occurs on the listing, you get your middle rudiments in without making the case go z-z-z-z-z. You get them in smoothly, quickly and get out of there with no Q and A. No heavy weight. Get back on to your listing and go 850 before you null anything. I don't care if you go 1,000, but just don't stop south of 850. Much easier on the pc in the long run.

I don't care which way it is because Havingness can be put in any place. It's not necessarily a tailor-made adjunct to the middle ruds but it is something that can be run with the middle rudiments if a pc's havingness tends to go out easily.

Now, it's true that very often you would be able to get away with it at 500. See? But you'd be getting away with something at 500 and you might wind up in a ball. The pc hasn't listed enough goals to get enough charge off the goals that you get easy nulling so you waste all of the time on nulling that you thought you saved on goals listing. And you even waste more time. In addition to that, if the goal isn't yet distinct, if charge enough isn't off of the case, then you're going to get this oddity. You're going to list the 500 and not have a goal for the pc. So you're going to list another hundred and not have a goal for the pc. And then you're going to list another hundred and not have a goal for the pc. Three loses in a row. Now, how do you think you're going to keep the middle rudiments in easily, huh? All right. Let's give him 4, 5, 6, you see, because now his rudiments are so far out that you can now start missing it. In other words, you're making it difficult. This is a difficult Goals Assessment to go by fits and starts. Some of you've got reality on that.

So there is always a middle rud between What questions. Always. And then you're not going to miss any withholds on this pc and you're not going to miss straightening out chains and so forth.

So just start right on out and list 850 and when you've got 850 or thereabouts, why, then bleed your meter down. "Are there any more goals?" "What about goals?" something like this. And "Are there any goals that should be on this list?" You get a reaction. Well, get some more.

Now, what if you did the middle ruds, found them wildly out, straightened that up and went back and checked the What question and found it now as live as a pistol? You'd go on prepchecking it. And when you've reached a new fundamental on it and checked the What question as null you would again do the middle ruds and go through the same action again. You'd always complete the cycle in that same way.

Now, do a Prepcheck. Remember that you can get a reaction because the pc is ARC broke. You kept asking him for more goals and he didn't have more goals. And you didn't have your — you know and the pc couldn't tell you this. So the fact that there aren't no more come — becomes a missed withhold with the pc and you get fantastic needle reaction on goals, on asking for more goals, when in actual fact the pc is simply ARC broken. The thing you want to do is ask the pc if he has an ARC break and if you get a reaction, clean it up and then ask if he has any more goals, and you'll find out he doesn't have.

Now supposing you were running down a pat list, a Form Three, 1, 2, 3, 4 and you were asking, "Have you ever stolen anything Have you ever raped anybody?" You're going on down the line, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark and you had about five or six of them and with one answer they have been cleaned up. I would also do the middle ruds. So that you would say any consecutive number of five or six What questions — I — five or six Zero Questions gone over and cleaned up with just one or less answers, do your middle ruds. Get them in. Because he may be suppressing something. And you, all of a sudden, find that the third one was not flat, it was simply gorgeously suppressed and you have to go back and clean that one up again and of course you'd follow through and ask the next one and do your middle ruds again. Same way.

All that comes under the heading of simply keeping your rudiments in.

If your middle ruds are found to be out you go back and do the thing you were doing except in listing of course and in that case you just go on to the next list. That's doing what you were doing anyhow.

All right. In other words, you bleed down the situation. You bleed down the meter on the list. you try to get all the goals that the meter is calling for. Now, you start in at the top and you null and this is the way in which you null. you null, of course, with your rudiments in and you should be getting needle reaction on goals as you null. If you're getting no needle reaction of any kind, your pc is out of session. Your rudiments are out.

All right. The use of middle rudiments can be extended. You can extend the use of middle rudiments to a specific subject, object or activity. This pc — we're checking out a goal, so we say, "Has the goal to catch catfish been suppressed? Invalidated? Is there anything about the goal to catch catfish that you have failed to reveal? Or been careful of? Thank you."

But if you're getting the occasional tick and tock as you go along, your rudiments aren't out. So it's at... If you suddenly notice that you're not getting any ticks or tocks or anything of the sort as you go along, well, your rudiments are out and you better get your rudiments in in a hurry. You see what makes it . . . Actually you can tell if the rudiments are out by whether or not the goals you read one after the other are each one reading because they'll all read to some degree. They got some action on the needle. You can tell a live needle and a dead one.

Now, there you can check — you can check, just bang, on the subject of a single goal, do you see and you can make sure that that's the goal that's reading, not an invalidation or something like that.

All right. Now, this is the way you call a goal out. you read the goal three times. You "okay" the pc after every time you read it. "To catch catfish. Thank you. To catch catfish. Thank you. To catch catfish. Thank you. That's out."

Now, there's another way to use a middle rudiment and that's just whatever you're doing Put it in there at — as the headline of the middle rudiment. But if you get this thing too broad you're going to go into a prepcheck activity before you get out of it. So there is a limited area between how far you could extend the middle rudiment and before it has to be prepchecked and that's not very far. you can ask almost anything "Auditor" is out. This would be a very unusual use of the middle rudiment. "Auditor" is out in some fashion, so we adapt the word "auditor" to the middle rudiments, see.

There is your most favorable patter. The pc hasn't said a word now, you know. The pc is just sitting there in a glorious state of irresponsibility about this.

"In this session have I...." You see? "Is there — is there — in this session is there anything about me you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of?" See? That is an odd use.

Now, if the goal is null on the last two reads, you take it out. And if either one of the last two reads are live, you leave it in. The symbol to take it out is an X. The symbol to leave it in is a slant. You put an additional slant or an X every time you read a goal. In other words, it's cumulative. If you've read this goal five times, you will have five slants after it. If you read it five times, and then on the sixth read it went out, it'll be five slants and one X.

Now I'm not telling you to do this. I'm not advising you and I don't expect you ever will, but I'm just showing you as how far this could actually go. you could probably put in every other rudiment with the middle ruds. I'm just trying to give you a flexibility of thinkingness about the thing. Person says he has a present time problem, you ask him the second time he has a present time problem, he tells you the same present time problem. It's still reacting, so you say, "Well, is there anything about this problem, blah, blah, blah" — you announce the problem you see — "Is there anything about this problem blah, blah, blah, that you have suppressed?"

All right. Now, "To catch catfish. Thank you. To catch catfish. Thank you. To catch catfish. Thank you. That is out."

"Yes, what's that?" You know. And invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of, you know. Get those things cleaned up, each one in its time. Come back and you could ask about the problem, you'd probably find it null. I do not advise that use of the middle rud. That would be very freaky and that'd be very tricky auditing But, I'm just showing you that anything can be put in relating to this with the middle rud following it.

Now, that first nulling, the whole nulling of the whole list is done at a one-dial drop on the cans, please. One-dial drop.

But sometimes your wording has to be shifted around, because of the peculiar phraseology of "failed to reveal" and "been careful of." You have to break it down into two questions because you can't have them both asked in the same line because you've put some oddball thing and you every once in a while will find yourself tripping into the fact — oh-oh. You can't ask "failed to reveal now," so you're sort of in mid-flight with your voice at the proper intone in the sentence and ask it some other way so that you can get "failed to reveal" and "been careful of" on there, see, because your grammar would be all upset. You'll get used to doing that.

When you put your rudiments in, you have to get over there and shift your sensitivity up to 16, of course. Rudiments are always put in at 16. And then they're cut back to the one-dial drop setting before you go on nulling And don't make a mistake on that because you make a fool out of yourself. All of a sudden, everything is in. Everything is in, you see. And you don't want that.

Now, this is a marvelous thing, the middle rudiments because if you feel called upon to suggest a goal to the pc — God forbid — it'll be only because you're so anxious to have the pc find a goal. See? You're urging the pc, you see. You're trying to — you're pressing. You're pushing. That's because the pc isn't moving in some fashion, you see. You're anxious; you're impatient about the thing and so on. It'll only be because the pc doesn't appear to be getting anyplace. And he isn't getting anyplace because the middle rudiments are out. See? So if you've got this answer and you finally realize that the middle ruds will start the pc up again, you get very happy about middle ruds and you get very expert in their use because you say, "Looky-here, every time the pc slows down or stops, we get the middle ruds in and hell start going again."

All right. If the last two reads of that three, either one of the last two read, you leave it in. But if the last two are null, you take it out. That is at a one-dial drop. And that is how you call them in or out. Relatively simple.

So ideas of evaluation, ideas of chopping up the pc, getting the pc — withholding from the pc that we'd like to knock his block off if he sits there just ten more minutes without saying anything, you see, well, that disappears, because you'll find out consistently that the reason he has stopped giving you answers lies in those four categories, not because there are no more answers.

All right. Now, you go over this list. If you've listed 850, by the way, you may only find one goal per column staying in. Very slight. But you'll be getting — that first one will tick. You'll see some reaction on the first one and then no action on the next two on almost every goal. There are very few of those goals will be completely flat on the first mention.

You see that's the easiest one for you to say. There are no more answers. "Ho-ho, no more answers obviously. Obviously there are no more items on the list, he's already given me twelve hundred." Well, that he's given you twelve hundred does not mean there are no more answers. If he can't give you any more it's because his middle rudiments are out. And if you get a good reality on that you'll say, "Wow!" You talk about — you talk about the proper — the proper coin to drop into the electric piano, it's the middle rudiments. Slugs don't work. Middle rudiments: Cling! Da-da da-di-da da-di-da right away. It's marvelous.

All right. Now, having read this list through to a point where you have 30 or 40 in, I don't know how many times you'll have to go over it to only have 30 or 40 in, maybe over the whole list twice, something like that. But you've got 30 or 40 left in. you reduce the list to that many left in.

I held off for a long time putting middle rudiments in because they were insufficiently formed. I wasn't sure that we had all these. But now I've been using these things, been working out fine. Now you wonder why we add on to the end of middle rudiments half-truths, untruths and meter and maybe command or question. Well actually, in middle rudiments you ordinarily wouldn't have to. you ordinarily wouldn't have to. And I would say offhand if your pc has gone so far adrift that he's telling you half-truths and is hanging up the meter madly and has gone on in some different direction and offbeat and oddball, I'd say the pc was in the kind of condition where he should be short-sessioned anyhow, so go on and get your middle ruds in and then end your session with the end rudiments. Start your session, give the pc a break, you'll have already gotten this thing straightened out, get a new crack at the beginning rudiments and carry on. See?

Copy those goals onto a separate sheet of paper. Mark it a copied list. Be very careful that your middle rudiments are very beautifully in and crank your sensitivity up to 16 and don't leave one of those goals with any charge on it at all. There must be no charge on any part of that final list at sensitivity 16, when you finally announce "I have the goal."

That's smarter than to use these things. But of course you have to — you have to use some of those end rudiments — and you can use as many as you please when doing a Prepcheck — you can. . . It all depends on your pc. You could weight this thing too heavily by asking everybody, "In listing have you damaged anyone?" — if you ask everybody, see, this. But you would know this pc — this is where you have to be a little clever, you know, you're in your Prepcheck, you know this pc and he's been saying, "Joe: Groowrr." You know? "Auditors: Rowrrrrr! Instructors: Hrroarrrr." I think the next time you prepchecked him it might be a very good idea, if you didn't catch it on the end ruds, it might be a very good idea to ask him, "In listing have you tried to damage anyone?" you see and it falls off the pin. That's why he stopped listing. Listing was getting to be an overt act. See? He was considering listing critical or something.

In other words, the fifth one down from the top on that final list: that's got charge on it and the eighth one's got a little tick on it and the tenth one's got a tick on it and the twelfth one is reading like mad and you say, "All right. That twelfth one is it." No, that twelfth one isn't it because you have not checked it out. you couldn't have checked it out because there are two or three other goals on that list that had ticks left in them.

But that would very definitely depend on your preclear and be a rather freak method of using it.

So after you have gotten it all ground down to a fine powder and there's only one goal on that final list ticking, you say, "All right. This looks like it. We're going to check it out."

I don't want to introduce the idea now that there are a great many middle rudiments that you would or would not use or don't know anything about or something of this sort. I don't want to introduce that idea at all. Actually middle rudiments are simply, just and only, "suppressed, invalidate, failed to reveal and been careful of." That's middle rudiments. Now if you want to ask a pc something else, why, that's fine. And you'll find in the ordinary run-of-the-mill auditing the less something elses you ask the pc, the happier you're going to be. But I can't say that a pc — well, a pc had a — had a cough and didn't consider it suppression and the auditor had to include in the middle rudiments, "In this session, have you tried not to cough?" to get the meter reading again. See, I mean — so all right. So all right. You notice something like that's going on, if you think you need it go ahead and do it. But the less dress-parade patness you do, the better off you are in these middle ruds, because those four will take care of almost anything

And now you do a nice, complete Prepcheck. Polish it all up beautifully, do a nice, complete Prepcheck. Get the pc's havingness in good shape. Shouldn't take you long to do either one of those things. Roll up your sleeves and read that goal against every other goal on the 30 to 40 list. Something like playing a game with a knife whereby you — you've always got to touch this X and touch a number of other X's at the same time and your knife touches the random mark and then it always touches the single X. Your goal is the single X, so you say — let's say the goal was: "To catch catfish." It's "To catch catfish. To shoot opera singers. To catch catfish. To drown pleasantly. To catch catfish. To join the navy. To catch catfish. To commit suicide," see?

So he was trying to damage somebody in listing, the probability is that you're going to get it as you do the end rudiments, you see.

And every one of those random ones must be flat and that last centerpin goal must be ticking every time for you to say, "I have a goal on the pc." Then you say, "I have a goal on the pc."

So there are a lot of — a lot of angles to this.

Now, cleaning up this goal with the middle ruds — it is understood that after you've prepchecked all the stuff in general, you're going to have middle ruds running Well, your middle rudiments will run against this goal. I must mark this. Middle ruds could be run against lists, goals, a goal. "Has the goal 'to catch catfish' been invalidated?" See? Any one of your middle ruds. you ask them all. "Is there anything about the goal 'to catch catfish' that you have failed to reveal?" "What's that? That. That. That. That. That. That. That. That. That. That. That."

Those are your middle rudiments.

The very funny part of it is that your goal can stay in because the middle ruds are out and can be out because the middle ruds are out. you pays your money and you takes your chance. But if the middle ruds are completely flat on that goal and it reads, that is the goal.

The — the best method of using them is simply a very straightforward method of using them and they make an excellent bridge from one type of activity to another similar activity or to a different activity. There are many ways to use them.

Now, it should read every time tick, tick, tick, "To catch catfish. Tick. To catch catfish. Tick. To catch catfish. Tick. To catch cat ." See? But you may have a pc who breathes or something and you'll get a sudden upsweep of the needle, which is too fast or too violent for the impulse to check. And your eye does not detect the infinitesimal slowdown of the upward throw. So as the needle is flying around, you say, "To catch catfish. To catch catfish." Those are in, see. "To catch catfish." And that one, there was a . . . You said that on a violent upward swing of the needle. The pc would say hrrrrrr or something, you know. And a needle has weight and its inertial swing, as it's coming up with great rapidity or going down with great rapidity, can sometimes overcome the motion of a goal. So that would be the exception — the exception. Your needle would have to be moving quite speedily before you would get that exception, and actually if your eye was very sharp, you'd even tick — you'd even detect the tick in the middle of it even that time.

Now, a pc who has a rather dirty needle and who has to have medium — middle rudiments done three-minutes' worth for every minute of auditing:

Now, that is a goal. That is a goal listed, found and checked out. There is actually no more to a Goals Assessment than that. And there isn't actually anything else to a Goals Assessment than that. Nothing mysterious about it, because that makes a very easy assessment. That's carefully plotted to get you around an innumerable complexity of troubles that have existed in the past.

There's something wrong with the middle ruds Prepcheck. See? Prepchecking the middle ruds is what's indicated there, you'll save time by doing so. And supposing prepchecking the middle ruds didn't do it, well then I'd say just general Prepcheck and the CCHs should have been done much more thoroughly. You understand you can often find a goal on a pc and so forth, in spite of the hedgehog character of the needle, but it's sometimes almost impossible and it can get so weird and so impossible and so forth that you have no other choice than do something else.

That it appears to be very simple is quite deceptive. Don't think of it as being terribly simple, so therefore it doesn't much matter what we do with it. We can make it a little more complicated, can't we?

Actually getting a goal on a pc with a rather clean needle is a joy.

For instance, let's ask for the goal in peculiar ways. How do you ask for a goal? Well, you just simply say, "Well, what goal have you had? Have you ever had a goal?" I don't care what. The only categories that you ask for particularly — you could ask for middle rud categories of goals. Goals that you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of. Now, there's — you could use your middle ruds to get you more goals. Under failed to reveal, of course, you could get such a subdivisional heading as secret goals, antisocial goals, goals you withheld from other people. So you could make various classifications, but don't go beyond that in terms of classifying goals.

So, I have been specializing lately in fish and fumble. And I could be expected, if I was starting to have trouble that had developed since the beginning of the session — that is to say, you know or was evident in the beginning of the session, with a dirtied-up needle and I didn't hit it on the beginning rudiments and the needle was still dirtied up, I would very — be very likely to start my session with a fish and fumble. No matter what else I was doing. Because I found out it only takes me from three to nine minutes to clean up a needle. I'm not saying I'm so good and you're so bad. you 11 learn how. you should expect to clean up a dirty needle in three to nine minutes. Most of the time.

You got your middle ruds and you could discuss those angles, but just ask for goals. Don't ask for a list of goals you shouldn't have had, see. Don't ask for a lot of offbeat type of things because you'll wind up with some other part of the track, see. You'll wind up with oppgoals. And God's sakes, don't get an oppgoal on the list.

Now we're talking about the needle that goes bzzzzt, tick, tick, bzzzzt, tick. "Have you eaten any . . ." Bzzzt. "... cucum . . ." Bzzzzt, tick, tick, ". . . lately?" Clang. You're saying, "What am I going to do? Sit here the rest of this session, watch this thing go bzzzzt?" and so forth. Let's find out what the hell it is. So before I do anything else, why, I'd do a little fish and fumble and do it rather rapidly and get out of there. I 11 put the beginning rudiments in and then say, "All right. Now I want you to carefully consider your auditing." Nothing happened, see. "And now carefully consider your life." Heh-heh. "What's that? Yeah, that." Needle's going bzzzzt, bzzzt, bzzzt, bzzt. you say, "What's that? What did you think of just then? What are you thinking of now?"

Now, put anything on the list the pc wants on the list. put it on the list as many times as the pc says it, in as many different ways as the pc says it. We don't care if he puts the goal down fifty times, "To catch catfish," and it turns out to be the wrong goal after all. We don't do any guidance on what he can have on the list or not on the list and we never advise him to reword something. We never try to build a goal out of the numerous parts of goals we have seen come in. Nothing tricky. We just write it down and that's the way it is from there on out.

"Oh, well, I was thinking of that disk on the top of the E-Meter. It's red."

Now, if the pc wants to add goals, we will add goals to the list at any time. We'll always add goals to the list. But if a pc wants to change the goal, we leave the goal in and we put the new wording down. We never eradicate a goal just because the pc wants to change his wording we just put the new wording down. Get the idea?

"All right. Good enough. All right. What have you done to HCO?"

When you get the second goal, you follow almost exactly the same procedure except the numerousness of the original list is not required. You don't have to list that many. You've already got 850 you're going to have to null all over again.

Bzzzt, bzzzt, chp-chp, dzzzt.

Okay. That is how you do a Goals Assessment. Fairly simple, huh? There will be bulletins and other materials out on it, but I have given you this lecture so that you would actually have it well in advance of its publication because you're using this material all the time and therefore need it. Okay?

What do you know! "All right. When's the first time you did that?" See? I got a What question: What have you done to HCO? I hit it lucky. Funny part of it is, I've been hitting these things 100 percent lucky. One pc said, "I can't stand the electricity in the cans." And I said, I said something about, "Have you ever shocked anybody?" As a Zero. Sounded more like that, you know. And bzzzt! bzzzt! bzzzzt. And it ran right back and we found a bunch of double-entendres on the subject of shock. Shock means several things apparently. We got this all out and the needle suddenly went limp. I've been — I've been sorry ever since because the needle travels around so easily it's almost impossible to check anything at sensitivity 16. I shouldn't have done that one.

Thank you.

But been having very good luck doing things like this. Do a little tiny fish and fumble. Not making any profession out of it. you just get the person to think or consider or look things over. Say, "Well, I'm going to sit here and watch — watch this needle and see what you are doing." That's good enough, you know. There's no stylized question then bz bzzzt! Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. What the hell! You know. What's that? And by the way, if you're doing fish and fumble, just as a little side comment, trace only one pattern down at a time. Don't try to trace four. Trace the bzzzt! You know, and then it goes tick, tick, tick, tick. Don't pay any attention to those tick, tick, ticks. Then it goes bzzzt! "What did you think of just then?"

Then it's going clang, tick, clang, tick. Don't pay any attention to that. Bzzzt! "What did you just think of just then?"

"Oh! I've been thinking about my baby."

"Oh? Good. Done anything to your baby lately? Something happen to your baby lately? What about your baby?" Bzzzt! "All right. What are you thinking of?"

"I was thinking about she doesn't have any shoes."

"What about your baby's shoes?" Bzzzt! bzzzt, bzzzt, bzzzt, bzzt, bzz-bzz. Now fish and fumble takes a brighter auditor. I will tell you that. you have to say, "What have you denied your baby lately?" Bzzzt! bzzzt, bzzzt, bzzzt, bzzzt. Ah-ha. That's it, right there. "What have you denied your baby lately?" That's the test What question.

"Well, I did. I took her milk away from her last night."

"Good. Anything earlier than that?" Heh-heh-heh-heh. "Took all her clothes out and burned them up because they smell bad." You know, I mean horrible things been going on here. We get the chain pulled up. Bzzzt. All of a sudden you just got these ticks left. So you say, "All right, now. Just think things over now." Person's very relieved. They think life's wonderful. Tick, tick — those ticks. That one peculiar tick. you say, "What're you thinking over there? Then. Then. Then."

"Oh, I just think all the time — I just keep wondering why you're so inquisitive."

"Oh? There. Yeah, that. Is that what you keep thinking about?" So on.

"Well, is there some question I sh — I should have asked you? Something like that?"

"Well . . ." Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.

"What's that? What's that?"

". . . well, have I been critical of you outside of session. Heh-heh hehheh." "Well, good. Good. All right. Well, (Let me see — see if this works here.) What have you said about me outside of session?" Tick, tick, tick, tick. "That's very good. That's fine. That's it. All right."

And you say, "Now what — what about criticizing an auditor? Have you done something like that, have you lied about me or done something I don't know about? What about criticizing me?" Tick, tick, tick, tick. "Oh, that's right." We'll just knock off the session here, "What about criticizing me? Excellent." Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. "Now can you think of an actual incident?" Because if you can't get an actual incident, you haven't got a What question, you've just got a test What, see.

"Oh, well, yes, I said something at dinner the other night, critical of you." "Yeah? All right. That's good." A specific incident. Let's work it. Let's get it back. Let's pull up the chain. Three, four minutes later this needle is clean as a whistle. It's just going....

You say — you say, "All right. We're going to do some listing now" whatever it is, "going to do some Prepchecking" I don't care what it is. But you can frankly clean up a needle just as it is. And you know it doesn't get dirty again easily. You really have to goof to get a needle dirty after you've cleaned it up like that. In fact I haven't seen these needles I've cleaned up go dirty again. I think there must have to be something going on with a bunch of missed withholds and all kinds of wild things being stirred up and so forth for the needle to be made dirty again. I don't quite understand how the needle is made dirty by poor auditing but it's basically on the mechanic that the auditor's TR 2 is so bad that when the pc says something it's automatically a missed withhold. Do you see how that could be? You don't see how that is?

Pc said, "I shot a dog" and the auditor said, "Mowwwm." And you get to the end of the session, "In this session have I missed a withhold on you?" Clank! "What's that?" "Oh, about shooting dogs."

You're bewildered. You say, "But I acknowledged it, you know." you say. He didn't hear you. So it's a missed withhold. It's an inadvertent withhold. See? He said it but nobody heard it. And I think then double questioning and oh, running pcs on the wrong things. You'd have to be busy to dirty up a needle but I've been having very good luck cleaning them up and I should mention at this time that little technique of fish and fumble.

Now, one of the virtues of fish and fumble, it could be overused, of course, I suppose, but I haven't seen much reason to use it on a pc more than a couple of times, two or three times on the same pc and it hasn't taken very long on that pc either. It's just a fast method of cleaning up the needle. The needle must be banging against something and every different pattern that the needle is reacting with is a different subject so you only follow one pattern at a time. Don't get clumsy and follow a — a double tick and a single tick and a stick and make the mistake of, "What was that? What was that? What was that?" Calling off the double tick, the single tick and a stick. No, man, because he's thought of three different things in a row. No, you've got to just abandon all the ticks and sticks. Take the most vital of them first, which is the double tick. If you can get that you're best off because it's always the missed withhold. There's something wrong with it. The double tick you would choose up. you can actually clean that thing off the needle without too much worry or upset or take much time about it. That's why I'm quite surprised that a pc's needle stayed dirty during Prepchecking It must be that they're going on a stylized basis of approach and it isn't the pc in front of them. See?

And you certainly are taking up the pc in front of you if you're picking up just that tick. The tick that goes, "loollk, loollk." You say, "That's the one. That's the one. I'm going to find out what he thinks about." You'll find out it's something very innocent in present time like this: "Well, the windows of this room are always big. you know, every time I think of the windows or look at the windows or something like that I get this."

Well, did it clean up? That's the test.

And it didn't clean up, all right, so you've got to do something more about the thing And then you find out that it's a — he was a professional window breaker when he was a little boy, he used to haul off and break windows in all directions and you just pick this up and get the disentanglement off the thing and you won't get that tick any more.

Cleaning up a needle appears to me, at least in my recent activities in auditing, as a relatively easy action if approached with a fish and fumble, without any more intention than just to clean up the needle. And you will make one slick and floppy in practically no time. I'm beginning to believe that there's no excuse for a dirty needle now. It's getting that bad. Because they're very hard to read, dirty needles are. And you certainly can't do Goals Assessment with a needle that's dirty. Drive you mad. you don't know whether it's reading on the goal you are reading or what the pc is at that moment noticing or — or — if the rudiments have gone out or — or — or . . . Well, you see it's a dead giveaway. You've missed this one. If you haven't cleaned up a needle and you're doing a Goals Assessment, why, you haven't any clue as to whether the middle ruds are out, because you only started going tick and flop and so forth and bap-bap, when the middle ruds are out.

So you know, you just stop right then, put them in. Well, if your needle was just sporadically always operating in this particular fashion, why, how would you know?

So I recommend fish and fumble to you. I recommend you setting up a little project for yourself just simply cleaning up somebody's needle. Not to do anything for the case but just to clean the needle and clean one pattern off at a time and see how good you are. It requires a faster auditor. He's got to be faster on his feet than routine Prepchecking because he has to do a lot of guessing. Because he's got to guess the overt ordinarily. It goes tick. And finally the pc says, "Well, I'm thinking of hollyhocks." Where does that leave you, man? It leaves you up the garden walk someplace.

You can always say, "Well, what about hollyhocks?" or something, you know. And he'll say, "Well, hollyhocks, they're beautiful." Man, you're still up the garden walk and it's still ticking. Hollyhocks are . . . Actually it's foxglove that he's thinking of and it contains digitalis and he poisoned his grandmother but otherwise.... You've got to short-circuit that line of thought. Well, the pc will help you out if you'll help him out. But it's something like, "Well, the current going through these cans worries me." See? "Did you ever shock anybody?"

Well, that's a one-two. Of course the pc must have an overt with electricity if the pc minds electricity now. That's the kind of think pattern that you have to develop. See? And you do that think pattern and you usually come out with, what the hell has he ever done with hollyhocks? You know? Must be an overt that connects with hollyhocks. It's either to or with. See?

Then you can stir it around a little bit and all of a sudden it will fall out.

But that's fish and fumble and it's a mile — it's a marvelous way of cleaning up needles and I don't know any faster way than to shape it all up, polish it all off, dust it all off beautifully and carry on with what you're doing. I don't think you'd have to do it very often. And if you're doing Prepchecking on a pc you of course have the horizon wide open. This is the time to clean up the pc's needle.

But it's a rather easy thing to do and I should think you'd learn how to do it. And I don't know how well it will work in your hands or not work in your hands. It's not as well worked out of course as Prepchecking, to which it is a crude barbaric cousin. It is done exactly the same way as Prepchecking plus infinite intuition on the part of the auditor. You furnish the intuition. I've already furnished the stylized line of Prepchecking, it will do a lot of things all by itself. It takes — it's not that this supplants Prepchecking, this is to clean up a needle so you can Prepcheck.

See? It's pretty good. So try it. Try it. Next time you see this haunting tick that always goes off, get curious about it. What is that tick? It is something It's related to present time. It will run back on a direct chain. It will clean up in from three to nine minutes if you're smart and fast on your feet. So I recommend it to your doing it.

All right. Well, that's middle ruds and the way they're used and that's actually how you can clean up a needle thrown into the bargain, so if you master that, why you're all set.

Thank you very much.