All right, this is second lecture, June what?

Hi-ya!

Audience: 19.

All right. So, I'm going to talk to you now about the do's and don'ts of R3.

Nineteen, AD 12 and it's a — this is a Q and A. Gag Questions? Yes?

Now, Routine 3 is an ultimate in auditing and frankly should be regarded as such. No auditor who is unable to keep the rudiments in, handle middle rudiments or do Prepchecking has any business whatsoever doing an R3 process. You can try and you'll fail.

Male voice: Uh — in the lecture last week on listing, you — uh — mentioned that the second goals list would be shorter than the first one.

An auditor who doesn't know how to keep his rudiments in, keep his middle rudiments in and prepcheck just has no business whatsoever doing Routine 3 because he'll wind the pc up in a small ball and that will be that.

In the lecture last week on listing, I mentioned that the second goals list would be shorter than the first one that was done.

Some auditor — it's not terribly serious — some other auditor can come around and unwind the pc from this small ball, with just some more Routine 3 processes, but it means a very significant auditing failure. And don't mark it down as anything else — it will be an auditing failure.

Male voice: or words — words to that effect. Uh — I sort of thought that you took the original goals list and added to it for the — to get the second goals list.

Somebody trying to do Routine 3 who cannot basically audit with perfection will chalk up a failure. That is all there is to that. There is no arguing with that point. I'm not saying this point so we can have classifications or any other reason; I'm just saying this point because it's true.

That is not a settled fact we are talking about.

If you want to be convinced of this sometime and you happen to be teaching a PE course, something like that, well, just take some Book Auditor out of the — out of the lot and set him down and say, "All right, find this person's goal and list it out to Clear." And oh, a few weeks later you are going to hear some screams, telephone calls in the middle of the night from the local spinbin, or something of the sort. God knows what will happen, but it won't be clearing

Male voice: I see.

Auditing successes are attained on a gradient. An auditor has to approach auditing on a gradient of successes. That is something you should sort of burn into the woodwork in an Academy. An auditor approaches auditing on a gradient of successes. If he does not have a gradient of successes, he will not approach auditing, he will go further and further from auditing. Oh, hell keep on (quote) auditing (unquote), but the less success you have, of course, the more likely you are to get an unusual solution.

We aren't far enough advanced on second goals to make very sweeping statements concerning whether it's longer or shorter, whether there's any virtue in using the first list, or otherwise. I personally would simply take off into the blue, run the TA action out of the listing — on doing the second goals list. That way we'd be sure would be fairly right.

Now, not even all here have recognized, right now, that the schoolbook solution is the solution. It doesn't need one eyedropper full of anything to make it work; as a matter of fact, will only work if you simply relax and do it.

And if we didn't find the goal on it, then we'd take the first one and the second one, see. But the easiest way to do it would just simply be to list some more goals and take the TA action out of it. If you find after a person has had the first one done — the first goals list — and it's come down to a goal and then that goal has been adequately listed and it's now not acting and everything is fine, you've got a sporadic or free needle on the case, you'll find now that the person does have tremendous numbers of new goals. And you'd have to take advantage of those things anyway.

Now, it isn't the textbook solution because I tell you it is. I've been working on auditing as a framework, and the training of auditors as an activity — completely aside from processes and technology — working on the framework of auditing — for twelve years. And you're not going to dream that up in a session. Man, you're not going to. I've had too many guys I've taught how to audit and I've had the benefit of all of their mistakes. Their mistakes are absolutely fantastic. The things that a pc can get into are absolutely fantastic. The difficulties which you can confront by omitting what we now call textbook auditing parts are absolutely numberless. And the difficulties you can now get into with additives are absolutely numberless.

So the simple way to do it is why make the thing more complicated than it is until we find some reason why we should make it more complicated. Which is you just take the TA action out of the goals list — make them list goals so you don't get any TA action anymore. They think that goals list is complete, null it, put any additional ones that they want on it, come down, find a goal, check it out. If you find a goal and it checks out and that's fine, and if you've got it, why, fine. If you haven't, you've still got the first list. Maybe work that one over.

Once upon a time they used to string wires down along the Niagara Falls and tightrope-walk across them. I think sometime in the 90s was the great adventure by which they used to have people walking across Niagara Falls on a tightrope. They had to balance themselves very neatly.

But this is — this is to some degree a guesstimate. Okay?

The wire in this case happens to be the textbook solution. There's only one other thing that I would add to the Model Session and so forth — of course, you are getting a reworked version of Model Session just in the interest of instant reads and that sort of thing — that is possibly in the end rudiments, something on the order of: "In this session have you made any decisions?" It would go in just before the withhold question. I haven't finished experimenting with it, so — but that — only thing that I have seen any reason to do anything about. And even then it would be quite unusual.

Male voice: Yes.

But sometimes you'll spot — could spot an ARC broken case that you wouldn't otherwise spot. And somebody has hung himself up in the auditing session who might not otherwise have been hung up.

All right. Yes, Tom?

Now, the natural impulse of the auditor is, when auditing doesn't work, to add something. For some reason or other he never subtracts; he always adds something Now, if you see some auditor adding things, that auditor does not have a reality of the workability at the level of process he is doing Those are also letters of firebrands on the Academy wall.

Male voice: I'd like to know if you get tone arm action if the rudiments were out, on listing

If the auditor sees fit or finds it necessary to add something to Model Session, to do something else to get a list, to do something odd or unusual in order to get Prepcheck questions, and so forth, it hasn't worked for him, see. He hasn't had any success with what he is doing, otherwise he wouldn't be doing something else. In the absence of a reality on result, then, he adds.

If you get tone arm action if the rudiments are out, on listing I'd say that was fantas — very, very doubtful.

Now, this gets pretty wild — this gets pretty wild. Here are some of the things you have added in the last thirty-six hours on Routine 3.

Male voice: Thank you.

Now, naturally you haven't got any reality on Routine 3 processes. You never had any wins or successes with Routine 3GA, or any wins or successes with this method of finding goals or this method of listing, so naturally you are going to add things.

Okay.

Now, if you were getting good results with Prepchecking, if you got very good results with Prepchecking when you were in Prepchecking class, right this minute I'm sure you are in the frame of mind there isn't a single thing you would change about Prepchecking. That make sense to you?

Male voice: Ron, what might be the liabilities of running Havingness while shifting lists — lists of items?

And if you got good results in your rudiments and Havingness sessions — if you got good results in those — is there anything you'd change about a rudiments and Havingness session? You see? And if I were to ask any of you who got a good result on your pc — or consistently good results — in rudiments and Havingness sessions if you'd change anything about them, you'd say, "No." And we'd watch you go through a session — we could put you on the TV and watch you straight through a session on rudiments and Havingness and you'd knock it off pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, see. Fine, fine, you wouldn't change anything There would be nothing added.

What would be the liabilities of running Havingness while shifting lists. If Havingness is run in a Prepcheck with the What question null, it has no liability. And in a Routine 3, Havingness run as you shift lists would only have a liability and it could have a liability, if you hadn't even vaguely exhausted the list you had just left. And if you had the pc way back down the track someplace and you all of a sudden uncork a lot of havingness, wow! See. It might be very poor indeed. Might throw him.

All right. If you had good results in prepchecking a pc and so forth — we'd put you on prepchecking a pc — you are not going to add one single cockeyed thing. You'd just walk right through it, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, see.

I'd say, that this would depend on how much TA action you were leaving. As a matter of fact, I see no real reason to run much Havingness between lists unless your pc is just — seems to be going out of havingness every time you turn around. If a pc's havingness runs down ordinarily their rudiments are a bit awry. That's another little side rule that belongs there as an addendum — pc's havingness going down.

But of course, doing Routine 3GA you are up against a brand-new unknown. And the night is dark, and the things you are adding are absolutely unbelievable. But why would you add these things? Well, you'd only add these things because you, yourself, didn't have a reality on its working. So you think that you have to do something else to make it work. In view of the fact that you are not up against what is to you a high level of reality, you fall into the area of alter-is.

Of course, you mustn't go around worrying all the time about the fact that the pc's rudiments go out. So they go out. So you can put them in. The thing you worry about is that the pc go on listing smoothly. See, you start getting worried when the pc's listing smoothly . . .

Alter-is is the bigness of the bank. So you are up against a "don't know" and what keys in is alter-isness and some marvelous things happen.

There's something I'd like to comment on. Some people are doing a fish and fumble halfway through a session of listing or a session of goals or something In other words, they take a — they see that the needle gets dirty so they start doing a fish and fumble and it's halfway through the session, something like that.

Here's — listen to a few of these. Unbelievable that an auditor who just finished up Prepchecking beautifully without any additive of any kind would all of a sudden fall into this pit, or any of these.

If you're going to do a fish and fumble to clean up a needle on a Routine 3, you do it at the beginning of the body of session. And if that needle occurs — the dirty needle — and it gets rather unreadable and that sort of thing, try to get it in with your middle rudiments. And if you can't get that needle cleaned up with the middle rudiments — right away, you know, nothing laborious, nothing superweighted — your best bet is to go on listing

Making up oddball goal categories to keep a pc listing rather than getting the middle rudiments in. Well, we have a few, they are the middle rudiments categories, but somebody's been making up oddball categories. You know? Just anything that came to mind, you see. The pressure of trying to get the goal. Middle rudiments wildly out, see. So the — and the pc, of course, not listing goals, so the auditor promptly moves in and gives a lot of oddball categories.

But if you're nulling a goals list at the time this happens and the needle gets so confoundedly dirty that you can't do anything about it and you can't read through it and so on, don't fish and fumble. Don't fish and fumble; shortsession it. put your middle ruds in. Needle's still dirty, still messed up, you still can't read it — go right on through your end ruds; end the session; give your pc a little break; start right in at the beginning of your next session; put in your beginning rudiments; and you'll find somewhere along the line that you're going to catch the reason why.

In this particular instance — the one single instance where this happened — we had a category of sacrilegious goals — I think was interesting. That arrived in another route, but it's an oddball category.

But I really wouldn't be too quick to take extraordinary action in nulling Because I have seen too often a goal persist in its read.

Asking the pc what his goal is or what he thinks the pc's goal is, you know. "What do you think your goal is?" I don't know, why — why not just dump a coal bucket over his head. That's what you are trying to find out. you mustn't ask the pc what he thinks it is because you are just going to restimulate the living daylights out of him. He's going to sit there, and he's go — all of a sudden go . . . He was perfectly calm a moment before, you see.

Let's say a goal rock slammed. Goal rock slammed. Now, do you know that your next five goals are going to read for that goal? Yeah, I mean there — you shouldn't worry about this. You'll find this in doing a Prehav Assessment. You'll be coming down the line with the Prehav Assessment and you unfortunately read "killed" or something. And my golly, the next five levels are all going to rock slam just like "kill" did. In other words the pc's stuck on a rock slam read. It was a heavily charged area. So that that dirty needle coasts right on over the next few items.

You ask him something like this, an additive and he goes "Hey, what is my goal?" see. You've asked him this similar question.

So you hit a goal, "To kiss girls," and it rock slammed like mad and now you've got a dirty needle, see? And you can't do anything — you apparently . . . You get your middle rudiments in and so forth. Now, what's wrong with this? It was actually a rock slamming goal. Well, a rock slam persists. And a rock slam will go over your next four or five, if you just kept on going. In other words, you never got off of the goal that you were on.

"All right. Do an assessment now. Thank you. Now, tell me the last one in. Thank you." Same, be identically the same result. Pc can't do it and of course he goes brrrt-boom. After that you can hear him going around muttering, "Wonder what my goal is. What is my goal? What is my goal?" Up to that time he was perfectly comfortable to list, you see. Not now, not now, now he's got to guess. So you just get a long list of wild guesses after you've done such a trick.

Now, the best thing to do is call their attention to a room object. If you want to turn it off, if it's going to turn off, this would be your first thing to do. And this is a common thing to do in nulling. This is not unusual. This — we've been doing this for a long time except nobody's just called it to mind recently. You hit "To kiss girls," rock slam, you're going to see a little tiny rock slam. Looks like a dirty needle, you know, there it is, jiggle jiggle-jiggle-jiggle-jiggle. "To catch catfish" jiggle-jiggle-jiggle-jiggle, no change of the needle. "To run horses." No change of the needle. Can't read it, see you don't know whether it's in or out or something like that.

Asking for only this lifetime goals. "Now, we only want goals that have occurred to you in this lifetime." I'll tell you something, if you don't get a goal that is before this lifetime you're not going to get any part of a GPM, because he's accumulated no GPM in this lifetime. The number of locks he has put on the GPM are quite slight. If you ask him only for this lifetime's goals, of course, and then you carefully made sure that he gave you nothing but this lifetime's goal, it would only accidentally get a harmonic of something he had had before. See, you've immediately almost obliterated your chances of finding the pc's goal by asking such a question.

Well, if you're real good, you remember where that turned on. It was, "To kiss girls." And to assist the auditor in catching up this bug, we used to put "R/S" whenever we got a goal or an item that was rock slamming, we wrote "R/S" after the thing. That was in case — well, it was to help us track goals originally. But it also served this: That was in case you got a persistent R/S. So that the one after that and the one after that and the one after that and the one af — they all R/S. Well, what's R/S? Well, you know where to start in again to pick the thing up; go to the next one after the R/S. Don't read the R/S again because that's just going to give you R/S. Take the one after the one you've marked "R/S."

An auditor refusing to list "To get rid of" goals or negative goals or difficulty goals. Just saying, "Well, I'm not going to list that." This is from an old Routine 3A activity of some kind or another, just followed through in the wrong time and place. There is no such provision on 3GA of any kind whatsoever — no slightest provision. The pc gives it to you, you list it. "To get rid of this headache I got at the beginning of session." Put it down, man, put it down.

But what do you do? What is — what was the old solution for this? And that was to say something like this: "Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor." Use a null word. Preferably a room object. "Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor." The rock slam turns off and you go to the next one after the one you marked "R/S." It was quite a little drill and I see now that you're having to fish and fumble in the middle of a session. I'm sure all you are running into the persistency of a tiny rock slam. And it's not really a dirty needle. It's the fact that you've got a goal that read with a rock slam — tiny rock slam. And of course it's persisting right on through.

You know why you put it down? He's giving it to you because it's charged up. It's part of the goals channel and if you don't write it down you won't bleed that much charge off of the bank. You're not listing goals to bleed charge, but you can't find the goal unless you have bled the charge.

If you went on ten or twenty levels, it would also turn off. It would also turn off .It's a symptom, by the way, of an insufficient number of goals. If you're getting this thing stuck up like this and you're getting this rock slam that goes like this and it turns on and won't turn off, you haven't got enough goals on the list. It would be the first thing you would think of.

Putting in oddball reality factors. One of the things in the TRs — this TR admittedly hasn't been issued at this time — but an evaluative R-factor put into the session is verboten. This would be a broad example: "You are such a difficult case," see, "that . . ." And actually, an auditor did do just that here just in the last day and a half. "You are a patch-up case." That's not an R-factor — that's a mud ball.

But when you see one of these little tiny dirty needle rock slams, you know, this is g-b-z-z-z, something like that and it turned on with something and you saw it turn on, write "R/S" after the thing And if the next one that you read, see, it was, "To kiss girls" b-z-z-z-z, see, mark it "R/S." And then, "To catch catfish," and man, that R/S is still on, don't be so imperceptive as to realize that this isn't just a persistency of read on something you have just read.

Now, here's another one. Scratching goals off the list when the pc wants them off after he has put them on the list. Oh, we haven't done that for ages. You never take anything off a list. I found out that the pc would take off of lists the thing it was. But you got it onto the list by a fluke and it would be the first one the pc would take off. Well, it's the most hidden thing, it's the most withheld thing, so of course he'll look at that and he'll, "Oh, well, that really isn't a goal of mine, you see, to kiss women. That, oh, that really isn't a goal of mine." See? He'd like to hide that and he will by taking it off the list. So if you are lucky enough to get anything on a list, you for God's sakes never take it off.

Now start saying, you know — it's just, "To kiss girls" b-z-z-z-z. You write "R/S." "To catch catfish," and it's still going all the way through and at the end — b-z-z-z-z. See, it's just consistent and continual. It'll just go right on going b-z-z-z-z. You say to yourself, "To hell with it" and you say, "Floor. Floor.

All right. Now, varying the tone of voice on embarrassing-type goals. Now this has been with us from the earliest goals assessments. You must not vary your voice tone or degree of loudness for any reason whatsoever.

Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor." And all of a sudden the pc says, "Floor? What floor?" You know, "Floor? Oh, floor! Heh-heh! Yeah, well, thank you." you know. "Floor, yes." And your rock slam will turn off.

I'll give you an idea. "To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch squirrels. To catch squirrels. To run downhill. To run down . . ." And you know why you mustn't do that? Because an auditor will unconsciously evaluate as to what the pc's goal is. That's the main crime.

Now, don't read that R/S goal again, go, "To catch catfish" and you'll get your proper read on, "To catch catfish" which is one of the easiest ways to put this little phenomenon back on the rails that you know of. That's the proper way to handle that sort of thing

This actually was used to keep the pc from being embarrassed auditing in a room with other pcs. He found some embarrassing goals so he said them softly. But look-a-here, the real reason that you would never vary your voice doesn't lie in that nonsensical reason, see. The real reason lies elsewhere — is it weights the goal. And you must not weight a goal. If you permit change of loudness and change of emphasis as you are nulling a goals list, then you can throw the pc's attention or belief. You can actually do an "evaluate" with it, you understand?

What was your question originally, Jim?

And it would be like this: You may have decided unconsciously, more or less, that this pc's goal was "To fly kites," you see. He always talks about kites, and so on. You've got it all figured out, there's a lot of goals like it. Auditor is perfectly all right to figure out what your pc's goal is, as long as you follow this other rule: Read them all in the same loudness and tone of voice and the same emphasis. Don't ever emphasize one goal more than another, because you'll come down the list and you'll say, "To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish," see. And then you'll get this one that you thought was real good, see, and you'll say, "To fly a kite? To fly a kite? To fly a kite? Oh, that's out." That's just doing an otherness, you see, but it'll weight the goals list for the pc. He sees you are disappointed, he sees all this sort of thing Devil with it, just do a mechanical rundown — same loudness, same pitch, same intonation.

Male voice: The liabilities of running Havingness when shifting lists.

Now, not getting middle rudiments in well. And by the way, by the way, we find out now, that because you've got good reality on them, of course, you are getting in the beginning and end rudiments very well, but you're not getting in your middle rudiments, which I think is marvelous. How possibly can you do this, you know? What are they? They're just some more rudiments, you know. They're gotten in the same way, they're the same thing. Check a session afterwards and you find the middle rudiments have been out during the session. Well, how could they be, if you've got them in, and so on. Well, true enough, the middle rudiments go out more often than the beginning and end rudiments on a Routine 3 type process. But — admittedly they do, but they couldn't be that much out, you see. If you've gotten them in four or five times in the session, something like that, how could they be out very much. And yet they have been found out.

Yes. Well, your liabilities of running Havingness on shifting lists comes under the heading of having the pc back on the track, well in-session and calling his attention out into the room environment and getting him kind of madly out of it all and so forth.

And the next one is suggesting goals in that if the pc has done something in this life he must have had a goal to do it. you know, getting a goal surreptitiously, like, "What have you done in this lifetime?"

However, if your needle is persistently dirty and that sort of thing, you've probably got down havingness going and so forth and it wouldn't be any liability to it anyway because the pc probably isn't in-session anyway.

"Well, I was a streetcar conductor."

Now, that's a form of Havingness. This is how I got off onto it. "Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor. Floor." Thought I'd call it to your attention, because on marking folders this has been called to mind in the last day or so.

"Well, fine. Huh. Did you have a goal to be a streetcar conductor?"

Male voice: Thank you.

You know why you don't evaluate for — on any goals list, and why you must shun it like mad on a Routine 3 activity? Just shun it, man, run like mad from evaluation, because the suggestion of the auditor is an alter-isness of the goal and what is wrong with the goals channel is it is alter-ised. So you alter-is the alter-is, and when you've got that, the thing will now react till your evaluation has been picked up; and you will have the wrong goal.

Okay, you bet.

You can always get a (quote) "get a goal" on the pc and look good simply by — in the middle of the session, sometime toward the end of the middle — middle of a — of a late session, and so forth — just say, "I've noticed recently that you chew gum. Isn't it true that you have a goal to chew gum?"

Okay, what other question is there that I can diverge on like that? Yes, Quentin?

And the pc says, "Well not — not really."

Male voice: You mentioned in the previous lecture, a possible new rudiment, "In this session have you made any decisions?" How would uh — that cover any decisions made prior to the session?

"You really do have a goal to chew gum, don't you?"

Well, "Since the last time I audited you" is a characteristic, of course, of the beginning rudiments.

"Well."

Male voice: Uh-huh.

"Look, you chew gum, don't you."

And, if decision went into the end rudiments, it'd probably go into your Prepcheck of the mid rudiments list.

"Well, yes."

Male voice: I get it.

"Well, then you must have had a goal to chew gum at some time."

And, you'd catch that every few days anyway. And I wouldn't try to strain at it too hard. But there still, as you say, there might be some virtue. But you couldn't use it in the end rudiments. You want to know if he made any decision in the session. They do. They make decisions. Not to go into that goal channel again. Not to hold the cans this way. All little oddball things.

"Well, I guess I must have."

Actually, they all constitute a type of withhold. But if it went into the end ruds, it'd probably go into the Prepcheck list, so that every fifth session you'd be picking up those interims anyhow. Okay?

"Good."

Male voice: Uh-huh.

So we put that on the list and it'll read now with a single tick and with every other indication that it is a goal. It'll read beautifully. It will check out as long as nobody prepchecks the middle ruds. And if you neglected to prepcheck the middle ruds on that goal, it will stay in much better than any other goal. As a matter of fact, it's the only goal that will stay in. Because, of course, as long as it's in, the rudiments are out.

Right. Any other question? Oh, I don't think you're that well informed. Yes, Jack?

Change one word in the wording of a goal and that goal will read at that point of word change. If you change the next to the last word in a goal and you're reading an E-Meter badly, so that the meter is actually reading across the last word in the goal, and you've changed the next to the last word in the goal, that goal will go on reading like that — right on, on, on, on, on. Every time you say it, it'll go, until of course you prepcheck the middle ruds in.

Male voice: Uh — this fifth session, is that based on the fact of a two hour . . .

That one is particularly dangerous because I've seen it persist until the actual word that was alter-ised was picked up. you see how dangerous it is to suggest something to somebody, in any way.

This, this . . . ?

You can say, "Have you had any suppressed goals?" Or "Are there any goals you have suppressed? Are there any goals you have invalidated? Have you had any goals that you have invalidated?" is a better question. "Have you had any goals you have failed to reveal?" and "Have you had any goals you've been careful of?" Of course, there's your middle rudiments. Naturally it would be coincidental: the same goals that would be out, would exactly parallel the middle rudiments. And you don't want any goals that have been suggested, so you wouldn't add that in, in any way.

Male voice: This uh — Prepchecking every fifth session. Is that based on the fast of a two-hour session?

Now, I'm not roasting you. I'm trying to get you to learn a lesson off of all this. And the lesson I want you to learn is actually in relationship to teaching other auditors, many of whom will do just that.

That is based on a two-hour session. Prepchecking every fifth session is based on a two-hour session — based on what you were doing Then this would be considerably different in an HGC.

An auditor, actually, will do perfectly the textbook solution only so long as, having done the textbook solution, he has achieved a gain thereby. And if he has consistently been able to apply the textbook solution and achieve a gain, you wouldn't be able to blast him off the textbook solution with dynamite, TNT and atomic fission, see. He'd stick to it.

Male voice: Yeah.

But where an auditor has not done a process to success, you can expect either he has not done the process, you understand, or he has — that is, he's never — he's never done a full cycle on the textbook solution even though he's trying to use it, or he has altered it in some way so that it didn't work, and so on. you will find that an alter-isness will very easily be introduced by the student. The student will introduce alter-isnesses all along the line, because it's not a set reality. It's something that looks very insecure to him and something that is subject to many changes, and so on. So you actually have to ride herd on those ponies. You have to ride herd on them hard.

But it still — it would mean a Prepcheck about every second day. Yes. Okay?

And frankly, it takes that much supervision. And that's basically probably why nobody could pick up a bulletin out in the field and do R3 and come up with the goal and list it out without any further coaxing of any kind whatsoever, unless he had himself been utterly sold on the idea that the earlier thing he'd been doing, Prepchecking by textbook solution, was perfect and was gaining perfect results for him, then he might tend to follow through. But I even then don't think he would. I think it takes a lot of horse wrangling

Male voice: Thank you.

I'm not trying to tell you that the textbook solution is the perfect solution. I'm only trying to tell you it's more perfect than one which will be evolved in one session by one auditor.

Right. Yes, Tom?

That's twelve years I've sweat over, not hot brains, but sweat over wet palms which - were leaning over hot brains. The students who have been auditing pcs over a long, long period of time, and the duplication is so slight that you easily go into despair. But the duplication will be as slight as it isn't working They are directly proportional. The less it works, the less duplication you are going to get.

Male voice: Uh — as far as uh — completing the goals list, can we expect any uh — help as far as the tone arm's concerned ?

Now, in that we have had things that even if duplicated would have gotten a tedious result, or a long result, or occasionally would have walked you into a box that you couldn't easily have gotten out of, don't you see, old auditors knowing this already have developed an interpolative attitude toward technology which debars their use of exact technology at the time you get up to an exact technology, you see. So that itself tends to cut it out.

In completing the goals list can we expect any help as far as the tone arm is concerned. Anything more?

The textbook solution that you're using now, I don't think you have any reality, actually, on what Prepchecking will do — maybe one or two of you have — but what Prepchecking — no, I don't even — even one or two of you — what Prepchecking will actually do on raw meat addressed straight in the direction of a neurosis.

Male voice: Well, I was looking at also, the other thing that stuck me — would there be any good between that and the rudiments being out? Because any time, as I mention, the rudiments go out, how would one determine which was which, if we did get help from the tone arm motion of slowing down like flattening out?

Somebody is strictly fruit cake, you know? They go out every day in their pajamas and shoot pigeons, you know? And you prepcheck them, following the various lines and rules of Prepchecking, and use as your Have question exactly what they are doing in just this variation: They are going out every day and shooting pigeons. So, you assume! that there are overts against pigeons, that there are overts against somebody who went out every day and shot pigeons, you see? You just assume the mechanics of it that they are — they have overts on whatever they have neuroses on, and you just do a landoffice business. You haven't any idea how fast this would be. Do you know how fast this would be, if you just ran it like that? Oh, something like twelve and a half hours to a complete release of a major neurosis if you went straight at it hammer and tongs.

Go over that last again, now. If we did get . . . ?

This person can't live because they have an absolute terror, absolute terror of traffic — complete, complete terror. They can't go uptown and they can't go shopping, and so forth. Well we boil it down, we find out — they tell us — they have a terror against traffic.

Male voice: The first thing I was interested in, what help could we get from tone arm motion as to telling us when the list was complete? Would it help us any?

Well, it's what have they done to traffic and what have they done to somebody who had an absolute terror about traffic, you see. It's what have they done to somebody who had their exact neurosis and what have they done to the various things which compose the neurosis. And by the time you separate out all the items which might compose that particular battiness, you'll find out you've only consumed a few hours of Prepchecking Now, they're quite interested too, by the way — I might comment on that — they're quite interested, because you're right on a center line of fixation. How could they be otherwise than interested?

What help could you get from tone arm motion telling you the list is complete? Well, in the first place by the time you get up to R3, you should have a good security as to whether your rudiments are in or out.

No Freudian analyst could do this in a thousand hours of analysis, for what you could do now in just a few hours of Prepchecking. I mean, you could do the job, they couldn't do the job, see.

Male voice: Yes.

And you haven't — certainly haven't got a full reality on how far even Prepchecking goes. But I think you do know that Prepchecking on a fellow student does work and it's swept along and it was fine, and the closer it was to a textbook solution the easier it was to do. Did you notice that fact? That the difficulties that you were having you were interjecting Well, all difficulties are additive; one has added the difficulties.

You should be able to know that rather easily.

So anyway, that you should be very aware of, both as an auditor learning a new procedure of some kind and as an Instructor working with students, and you're getting on the telephone.. . Somebody calls you from Lumbago, West Queensland, see, and they call you up and say, "I've got this pc in session and he just keeps screaming. What do I do?" you see? And you're fool enough to give him some directions. Well go ahead, by all means give him the directions. But he got the pc screaming by doing something unusual. He isn't going to tell you what that is because he doesn't spot it as unusual, see. And now you are going to give him some instructions and he is going to alter-is those. Well, give him the straight dope and hope, but don't be shocked if nothing ever came of it, because you are already dealing with somebody who's going to alter-is, because he got there by alter-ising. Oh yes, by all means give straight dope out over the telephone to West Lumbago, by all means, but don't be so damn hopeful about it.

Male voice: Yes.

And don't be so curious why it is — you will — you will start to get an incredulity in your area... You'll say, "Well, you want to know how — you want to know how — how to find a What question. Well, here's a bulletin, read it, you know. Here — here — here, read the bulletin. That's right. That answers your question all right. It's all taken care of." you come back in a half an hour and this guy has got a pc in session, and he's sitting there saying, "What?" then, "What?" The pc says something, he says, "Thank you. What?"

If your rudiments are in and you're getting tone arm motion, then of course the list of goals is not complete.

Pc says something, he says, "Thank you." He isn't stupid, it's just never worked for him so he does something else, see.

Male voice: Yeah.

Now, there is the primary barrier which you have to cross in instruction and the primary barrier of — to getting things across. That is to say you, of course, in teaching things to somebody on a set procedure, of course, are teaching something on which they have no reality because they haven't done it. So you have to make up for that lack of reality with horse wrangling.

If the rudiments are out and you're getting no tone arm motion, of course you would just expect to get the rudiments in. But in any event, a checkout of a goal is a little bit late to find out whether or not you've got the goals list complete, so you probably should be very careful in prepchecking at the end of your goals listing And that'll make sure that your stuff was in and all was well and so on.

Just assume it's going to happen. Don't go into a decline and despair and keep your derringer oiled up to blow your brains out with. There's no point in all that. It's — just be fully prepared to be far, far more suspicious than you would ordinarily credit it ever being necessary to do.

Ask if there are any more goals and the fellow ponders for a while and gets a quarter of a TA division change. You know your rudiments are in. So you know there's more goals. You ask him for more goals and the needle flies around — that's the best way to read it. And you say, "Well, is this list complete?" and the needle flies around. You say, "Is this list..." and the needle flies around. You say, "goals" and the needle flies around. You say most anything because, frankly, it's not very critical — it's an open and shut proposition if you're going to get any help from a TA action.

And one of the basic things — all of a sudden this auditor suddenly starts doing a terrific job: the pcs start getting along fine, everything is along fine, and he's getting no trouble, and fine, everybody thinks, you know, you and any other Instructor around here, think he's doing fine. What magic happened? Well, he just got a reality on the process. It wasn't that his learning process got any better, see. He suddenly got a reality that what he was doing was what he should be doing and that by doing that he achieved a reality of result. So now he gets a reality on the procedure he is doing, so it's an acceptable procedure and it's something — after that, why, he'd say, "Well, why get off the M1?" See? But up to that he was on — he was on B23, 42, 7, see. It wasn't M1. And he looks up all of a sudden — it's just straightaway, a hundred and twenty miles an hour, see. Now the phenomenon that takes place is that.

An incomplete goals list is terribly incomplete. And with just one more goal on it, it's complete. See, it's not necessarily quantity of goals that makes it incomplete, but it's whether the goal is on it and therefore that channel is sufficiently discharged.

Now, in spreading Routine 3 you are going to run into many difficulties in teaching somebody else to do Routine 3, and they are basically composited just on what I've been giving you.

All of the rules of Routine 3GA are based, now, on making it very easy to find a goal. And all activities of earlier Routine 3s, unless restated for 3GA, should just be forgotten. Just forget those earlier activities — just skip them because 3GA goals listing is not in an effort to get the goal on the list, but to permit the auditor to find it, you see. And there are other little changes of this particular type.

Yes, it's an involved process. Well, you say, "Why on earth — why on earth then do we do Prepchecking and these lower processes if Routine 3GA is such a splendid process?" Well, in the first — fact that the case has to be prepared, but you've got to have some security that the fellow has got a security on auditing, see.

You'll get TA action if the goal isn't on the list and your rudiments are in. You'll get TA action. And with one more goal on the list you will cease to get TA action. It's not a quantitative additive, see. Yes?

Teach him something that will work and then make him do it till it works and then he gets this win and then after that he is willing to do the procedure which he is going to use in Routine 3GA, you see? He's at least going to do that Model Session and the middle ruds. He knows those work. Well, that's three quarters of your battle, is bringing about a reality.

Male voice: If you have run one goal, once all lines have gone null on — on the thing, the goal is gone, the lines are gone, the needle's sitting on Clear read and free, uh, you — would you expect it to stay free for any length of time . . . Uh-uh.

Now, instruction up to this time on this planet, of course, has consisted of simply — if they didn't learn it you shot them, see. In other words, you — if a person was unwilling to learn something or they couldn't learn something, why, you just stack up the penalties about not learning it, see. you just stack them up and stack them up and stack them up. Well, their mother and father are going to throw them out in the street. They are going to be disinherited by their grandfather, you see. The school board is going to fix it up; they give them lectures about the fact they'll be digging ditches the rest of their life, you know. They'll never have an old school tie to stir their soup with, you see. And give them all kinds of terrible things and horrible fates and threats, you see, and that sort of thing

Male voice:. . . or does pieces of the GPM fly back in or . . . ?

Well, on a subject which isn't an actual subject, such as they teach on this planet, of course, that's nonsense. That is simply beating somebody's head in, and you just beat their head in and beat their head in and eventually they give up and say, "Yes, Hadrian discovered America in 1167 B.C., yes." They'll just say anything, you know.

Well, I wouldn't expect it to stay free at all.

Well, you've gotten training at the expense of judgment. You wonder why leadership amongst man gets worse and worse and why we have Nikita Kennedy and Jack Khrushchev. You wonder why these boys can't seem to make any decision that has anything to do with. . . I think a guy, the secretary of defense of the United States, yesterday or today, made a statement that everybody must now sign something or other to bomb only nonmilitary targets with atomic fission, see, and they were not to bomb cities. This is secretary of defense of the US trying to make a pact with Britain and trying to push it down the throats of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other people, you see, and trying to get them to sign that they will only bomb military objectives with atomic fission.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

Well, this is very, very interesting And the British group up here told him, "Well, Britain was so small that it would be impossible to separate a military from a nonmilitary objective anyhow, so they didn't think that they had better sign the pact."

You're saying now, if you've listed a goal and TA's come down to the clear read and the needle has gone free, would you expect it to remain free? No. The answer, definitely not by the mere fact of breaking the Auditor's Code and overlisting You may — got a free needle, so you list the next list, see. you read the question of the next list, "Who or what would want to catch catfish?" and you don't get any interruption of free needle and if you ask for one more item on it, it's a — it's a break of the Auditor's Code.

Of course, these things are bombing now at the rate of a sixty-mile radius. They are getting there up to a superbomb. Now, how do you select out of a circle a hundred and twenty miles in diameter, or something like this, the military target that's not military.

Now, by asking for one more item on it — this is what I'm getting around to here — for asking for one more item on it or two more or a half an hour's worth, you all of a sudden are going to get yourself a pretty wild needle. It is going to get wilder than scat. It's probably going to have more read on it than you've seen for many a day.

You see you have — they've invented some new protons and they're called begatrons, and a begatron, you see, avoids all nonmilitary targets and this is very simple. They finally got it all worked out, you see. you see, any other types, you see, they're attracted by military-type targets. So it's perfectly safe, you just throw a bomb with these mixed particles in it, you see, and it just sorts itself out and attacks the proper target, you see. And this is very simple because it's been stated by the secretary of defense, you see. That's why it's true.

What exactly is happening The pc is being obliging and is hauling chunks of the GPM on. And you could overlist a free needle and overlist it and overlist it, until you had the whole thing stuck up like a circus poster after a wind storm, see. It'd just be a mess because you pulled in the GPM.

How do you get stupidity like that? You get an educational line on subjects which were nonextant, see. you get nonextant subjects, you know, just dream-ups.

So because you can pull in the GPM early on, so easily, you shouldn't have any difficulty whatsoever in cancelling out that free read with a new goals list. Now, that means of course that the pc, just living in their environment, going to be able to key that in like crazy, because they got a bunch of new goals. But actually they aren't new goals, they're earlier goals.

It's very funny, the — only the universities keep reiterating that we dream up Scientology, you see. That is their primary accusation and if you prepchecked them, they knew damn well that their subjects were all dreamed up, see.

Now if you see the GPM as a series of cycles — you ever read History of Man? All right. Now, History of Man talks about cycles on the whole track. This would be a pc in a new environment dedicated to a new activity, going through a whole bunch of new nonsense and experience and so forth, would be a complete cycle. Then he changes. He changes his activity. And he goes over here and he becomes something else in another area and dedicated to other things. Well, that stays relatively keyed out. But that first area could have grouped and become — that first cycle could have grouped and become a piece — a piece of the track GPM. It's actually a cycle GPM, see.

And the medical profession, you see, says we don't know our business. It's marvelous, you know. why don't they wear a badge on their chest, man? And the psychiatrists say we're a bunch of quacks. Down in South Africa, the psychologists say that we are agin the Afrikaner. How they do confess, man.

All right and then he's got this next GPM up here. Now, what you've actually found when you found the first goal, is something that is relatively new. you have found the basic postulate on usually some track — piece of a cycle. Just a cycle, see. you found the earliest basic purpose of the cycle. Now you, of course, have got all the cycles earlier than that yet to clean up. So if you overlist, just in an effort to be cooperative and so on, the pc will start coasting backtrack. You see, he starts to make something out of it. And the second he does that he starts pulling in earlier track, see? All right.

But the university is always yapping about the fact that we're not a science. Now, they've never even defined a science. They are just loaded with imaginative subjects. One of the most imaginative subjects you ever wanted to have anything to do with is any humanity in a university, anyone of these humanitarian subjects, or even as far as economics. If you want a walking nightmare to nowhere, why, open up an economic textbook and it says, "If the demand exceeds the greater, then the supply isn't," and all kinds of things. Other rules and laws they have worked out. Marvelous.

Male voice: I didn't communicate one thing, Ron. I wasn't talking about overlisting, I was talking of blowing the one package. The first package is gone.

And if somebody doesn't pass these things, he doesn't get his old school tie to stir soup with, you know. It's pretty serious — family, disgrace, never get a job in the government, nobody'd ever pay attention, nobody'd speak to him, never be able to belong to the country club, never own more than two cars. You know, life of sheer necessity and desperation stares him in the teeth, you see, unless he says, "The economics of huba-hubung are all square rooted on the bugga-bugga," you know? He does, he just sits there and he says this. Some guy got A on the subject, economics, A. And you ask his advice on an investment, boy, have you had it.

Well, I'm talking to you about how you can get the second package in.

They say you never take legal advice from a modern lawyer. More business men have told me that, successful business men, legal advice, you don't take — ever take legal advice from a lawyer, and never take financial advice from an accountant or economist.

Male voice: oh, I got it, I see. I get it. Oh, I'm sorry.

Well, what are these guys supposed to do? Well, you just — I don't know what they are supposed to do, but men who have succeeded never take advice from either one.

See? Now, you can get your second package in, in livingness, by overlisting and so you sure get it back in that. And there's probably nothing more delicate or easier to cancel out than the first package's free needle. That's the only point I'm trying to make with you. And I was just trying to show you how it is cancelled out. you can cancel it out numerous ways. Fellow has a perfectly free needle, he's had a free needle for days, he feels wonderful, he's up on Cloud Nine, he sails around without even a rudder, he gets up in the — he gets up one morning, he gets up one morning and sees a glass of water alongside of the bed. you put him on the meter and he reads six. What was it? Well, God knows. It just happened to be an earlier piece of track. It might have been the time she poisoned all the boys or something like this. But it's — it'll just go out, just like that.

Pretended subjects. Well, you see you have to keep after somebody with a club and an axe on a pretended subject because he never will get a reality on its working, because it doesn't work and it doesn't go anyplace. So if he never gets a reality on it, he, of course, will never do it and you just get further variations of it, but you have to use the most fantastic duress to even keep him in a classroom going through this subject, you see?

That's what happened on your first Clears. See? And some of them stayed quite remarkably stable. Went along for quite a while. And some of them folded up by the next day, see. And that was just all because there was earlier track. You'll eventually get back to some rock goal, some goal around the rock someplace, the first time he decided to be or something like that and it'll be something way early, native state transition sort of goal. And after that you could hit him over the head with a club, shoot him with a shotgun — free needle. Free needle. You couldn't get anything but a free needle. And it's just going to take them ages to get into a state where they could gum it up now.

Look at the amount of hidden and covert duress, social punishment and other things connected with education. Well, it has nothing to do with judgment, it's — you memorize the text, why, you are all set.

You see, the reason you get a — you know, you all get a very weird view of what livingness can do to a human being in Prepchecking Well, you find out this little girl, this little girl actually made an improper remark at a dinner party. And it's ruined her whole life! And life begins to look to you from a Prepcheck viewpoint, you know, like man, you've just got to walk through with your breath held, you know? And that's life, you know? And if you just hold your breath just right, then you're not going to get aberrated much, you see. And it looks from a Prepcheck viewpoint as though aberration is much easier to acquire than dandruff, you know?

All right, now, we are in conflict with this because many people in Scientology have been educated this way and know the falsity of it. Now, we all of a sudden ride up alongside and we say, "You do exactly this, this, and this with no variation, goddamn it," and it looks like the same thing But look — look there is a difference — there is a difference, because all of a sudden the duress is removed. It's actually removed at that time when — it's the same thing — Instructors and I are always having the same type of conversation. "Well, can he do it?" you know. "She can do it. He can't do it yet," see. This is about the gist of these conversations. "Well, what part of it can't he do," is a secondary consideration, but we all want to know, "Can he, or she, do this final operation?" see.

So you — and then when you start blowing off pieces of the GPM, you recognize that all of this stuff — which you were getting in Prepchecking — depended, of course, for all of its force and power on the GPM. And with the GPM gone, of course it doesn't have any force and power. And a person's viewpoint becomes just as exaggerated in the opposite direction. And you could measure how long somebody's free needle would stay free by their somewhat exaggerated ideas of what wasn't aberrative. See, you could make a little test. This is all on the same line.

Well of course, we know he or she can do the final operation because he or she has got a consistent, comfortable result and because they are not inventing all of a sudden. See, there's not a bunch of newnesses and alterisnesses coming up. It must be working for them, you see? And then they get very comfortable about it, and they look more and more comfortable about it. You've been over the jumps — some of you — on this already and you notice there is suddenly no pressure on you.

You could say to a person that you're prepchecking, "What would aberrate somebody?"

Well, it isn't that you have been grooved into something by hypnotism or something, but your reality was substituted for the duress. Well, isn't it funny that your reality could have more power to hold you on a groove than the duress. Well, of course it could, because you're getting a result and if you're getting a result, then you are able to accomplish what an auditor is doing, and that's the way to get a result. You've already had the reality of not getting a result some other way. And so you say, "Well, that's it and that's fine," and you plow through.

"Well, making an improper remark to a hostess at a dinner party. You could become very, very aberrated through having been acquainted with an aunt who took sleeping tablets. Having a mother who loved you too much, yeah, these'd all be sources of aberration. You see, this'd drive a person crazy."

This has a great deal to do with Routine 3GA, or a Routine 3 process, because I'll call something to your attention; when a person's goal has not worked, the individual has done something else. And listen, that's all the trouble there is with him. He didn't follow — he didn't do what he said he was going to do, you know? He had a goal and he — he had a goal to play a piano so he started throwing eggs. He had a goal to farm, and so forth, so he went into the city and got a job in the telephone office. That's all that happens to him and now he looks sadder and sadder, and more and more apathetic. He isn't winning in life, you see, and so forth.

And if their free needle's going to stay stable, their answers are much more likely to be in this classification: "All right, what makes a person aberrated?"

It's actually very easy to make somebody's life a complete misery and disappointment. Just carefully find out what he's supposed to be doing in life, what he thinks he's supposed to be doing, carefully, and then use all of the bulldozers you possibly can to force him to do something else. And he is going to be an aberrated mutt, man.

"Well, that’s hard to say. It's his own Goddamn foolishness, that's — that's — that's — that's one of them."

You never quite saw as much aberration scattered around the wits of some poor kid whose parents have had great expectations. You know they do it — they do it with a smile and a kiss, you know, as they push the poniard in the back.

"Well, all right, thank you. Thank you. What would make them aberrated?" You say to him — foolishness?

The child, unfortunately one day, this thetan one day picked up this body whose aunt was a successful actress. And because the aunt has the fortune of the family and everybody else, why, this kid finds that she is about to become an actress. Now, this is wild, you know. And the further they go in life — the further this person goes in life — the unhappier they get. And they might even make a third-rate actress, see, but it would be a very nutty actress.

"Oh, I don't know. Let's see, you could find somebody who was trying to get out of this universe and then you could torture them for a long time while saying to yourself all the time that you were not responsible for doing so — no, that wouldn't make somebody aberrated."

That's all you'd have to do, you see, to produce all manner of collision and upset. That is below the level of impact, below the level of knocking people out and hypodermicizing them and electric shocking them and giving them impacts and working the love-hate cycle and betrayal and dialectic materialism and psychologosis and all other aberrated practices besides making them run through rat mazes and pick up cheeses and other human activities. Yeah, yeah, you can produce a small amount of aberration that way. But the basic method, I'll tell you right straight off the cuff, of producing a nice, big, juicy aberration, see, is this character has got a basic goal, and it goes this-a-way. And then you stand over him with a cotton-picking club for years and get all of life standing around with loaded guns making the person go that-a-way.

You get the idea? Well, similarly, the key-in is as delicate as this. See? The glass of water keys them in on that first goal, you know. Oh, that brings in the whole GPM, everything is gone to hell. And later on they're in an automobile accident and they were standing in the middle of the street — if this would happen, which it probably wouldn't, you see. But they're standing in the middle of the street and got hit by an automobile or something like that and you put them on the meter and they've still got a free needle.

Not — not bunk — you know, not just say to the persons, "Your goal is wrong," and resist his goal or oppose his goal. That's not what I am talking about. No, just make him do something else. It has to be complete departure from the goal. Now, his whole life is an alter-isness. His whole life is based on a falsity. And some of you sometime or another will find out that . . . Well, we have already had a student who had a goal — I think something on the order — of "Never to be a doctor," and so forth. Here and there you will have some student with a goal which is diametrically opposed to being an auditor.

Relative stability would be length of duration by which they could retain a free needle. You want to know relative state of Clear would be relative time that the needle stayed free. That's just answering and over-answering your question, but there it is. Okay? All right.

Well, it's perfectly all right in Scientology to use a club on him, man, to push him into line because if you are doing anything like a good job, the next thing you know, why, you are doing Routine 3GA or some even more advanced routine. Naturally you've picked that up, so there is no liability to it whatsoever. You get the idea?

Any other questions? Yes?

We are talking about the business of livingness. Let's carefully badger little Rollo until little Rollo has decided unequivocally that he is going to be a streetcar conductor. And now fix it up so he becomes a naval officer. And then wonder why it is that he drinks or wanders in and out of jail or gets this or gets that or gets the other thing and that he just keeps being on the skids all the time.

Female voice: Yes. I have something about this — the length of these cycles. Could one — like a sort of a Prepcheck to find out how long ago it goes back?

There's one for the commies. I suppose one of these days they — I doubt that they will ever use that though. They couldn't duplicate that well. They probably would duplicate it like this, that you let everybody do exactly what they want to do and that will spin them in. And if we — I guess if we convinced them of this, why, everybody would win, you see.

All right. You want to know about the lengths of cycles . . .

We probably ought to tell a psychologist, "The trouble and the real cause of aberration, you see, the real cause of aberration is letting people do exactly as they please. And if you let them do exactly as they please, you see, spin them in, ruin them, absolutely ruin them." Textbooks out, "How to do as you please," you know.

Female voice: Yes.

The results of duress, force, energy, smoke and all the rest of it, of existence, are expressed from — departure from a basic goal.

. . . and how about a Prepcheck to find out how long ago one goes back?

Now, nobody would do any auditing if he didn't have a desire to help his fellow beings. That's a rather basic and fundamental goal, not necessarily the goal, but it is certainly part of a goal. Furthermore there is sometimes in the background — there is a feeling that one doesn't deserve to be helped and one — unless one can help a bit. There are other feelings of this character. These are quite fundamental fundamentals, and factually they override — auditing overrides these rules just as it overrides human aberration.

Female voice: Yeah. If that overlaps with other track.

I can think of times when I might have had a goal, "Never to be an auditor." You walk out of session, you know, and you've had — you've had everything crossed up one way or the other. Never again. Next guy that walks in the front door of the base, the easiest and best thing to do is simply put a trap gun there. And yet when the doorbell would ring, why, you say, "Hello, come in, sit down."

Well, you can read all this off on a meter. You could actually ask people how long they've been here and how long ago it goes and you can use old electropsychometric auditing techniques that are given in that first earliest, earliest, earliest book on the E-Meter and check out pieces of track and find out how many years it responds to, although what's known as "year" we haven't a clue. But the reactive mind seems to know all about it.

But therefore, you show somebody a positive channel which does help another and does bring about a realization of those more fundamental, humane goals and they will follow that channel. They will do what will help. But they actually don't want to do it as long as they feel it won't.

And the — you could check all this up and get your responses off the meter. You could do this. And you could plot out the length of each cycle. And the funny part of it is, is you will get most of them. you would probably get it very well plotted.

Now, they feel it's going up against their various goals, like it's deriding and overthrowing their individuality and it's doing this and it's doing that.

What you want to do is take History of Man and about five yards of adding machine paper and write figures on it one way or the other. You'll finally come up with a track map. you get a track plot and then you would — you would have it fairly straight.

But that, in essence, is what we are trying to do in Routine 3GA. You could therefore expect an enormous amount of alter-isness on any process, and particularly on something which is straight against alter-isness, such as 3GA. So you have to be very careful in doing it, to do it very precisely and very simply without additives.

The oddity is, is you could do this without the GPM being gone. That's what is odd. I mean, you could do this over the head of the GPM, which is quite remarkable. Don't expect your pc to have much reality on it and don't expect a lot of other things, but you actually could do that and find out how long the cycles were and everything else.

And in teaching it, you have to make awfully, awfully sure that it doesn't get altered every time you turn around, and additives are entered into it. They will be entered into it even before they are needed.

Now on the other hand, there's another way to go about it, is you clear them with 3GA, you see. And you get them so Clear that you tick them on the shoulder and they ring for hours, see, and then you just ask them. See? The information is very available.

And therefore this is climbing Mont Blanc on a Sunday afternoon, you see, on the wrong side. It — people in doing it, of course, maybe going up against innumerable factors, all of which tend to compel them to alter the way they are doing it, and so forth. And all you have to do is just hold your course steadily, then you see that it did work out.

Female voice: That would collide with the free needle then? On that particular goal ?

You actually finally are sitting there one day and you — every time you say a goal it goes tick. you didn't believe it could ever happen, you know. you really didn't know up to that point that you didn't believe it. And you say, "To catch catfish," tick. "To catch catfish," tick, what? "To catch catfish," tick. "To catch catfish," tick. Check it all out, get all the evaluations and invalidations and everything else off the thing "To catch catfish," tick, "To catch catfish," tick. Hey look at this, you know. you feel like getting your fellow auditors over to take a look at this thing, you know, looks pretty remarkable. And yet all the time you intellectually knew that that would happen, but you hadn't seen it.

Yeah. Well, if that — if that section of track has no further bunchings, groupings or masses which have been accumulated by alter-is, it'll read free needle.

Well, if you get at it in some circuitous route that you yourself didn't quite understand, the next time you do it you will try to duplicate your own route. And you can accidentally find one of these things about twenty out of a hundred without following the rules. Trouble is, the rules are securing to you the other eighty that you wouldn't find with an oddball procedure, you see. It isn't that you will never find one with an offball procedure, it's just eighty percent of the time you won't with an oddball procedure, you see, that's the difference.

Female voice: All right. Thank you.

Well, the do's and don'ts are: do the procedure, do it without alteration, run your session without additives or interjections, just relax and pilot it on through and at the other end you will all of a sudden say, "Hey, what do you know."

All right. But if you're going to investigate track with an E-Meter, then you do it before you fully clear somebody. Because you're not going to do it afterwards. You have to have very aberrated banks before you can really get data. Unless you ask somebody.

The little girl who doesn't believe that she can make a cake and doesn't believe the recipe will end up in one, seldom does make a cake. And if they do, it will be quite remarkable.

Okay, any other — any other questions? Yes.

4 dozen eggs

Male voice: How many packages would one have to run or would there be a fixed number of packages to be run, before the person really goes Clear?

3 pounds of sugar

How many packages will the person have to run to get Clear? All right, term "package" is Routine 3D. Hope you realize that. And it has no existence in 3GA, so let's — not scolding you — but let's — let's omit that. A package, we mean by a package, we mean the opposition goal and the terminal and all that sort of thing. We're not finding them today.

1 cup of flour

Now, how many cycle GPMs would you have to run out? I don't know. It's a very finite number. But I wouldn't know. you couldn't even, I don't think, guess from pc to pc. It's going to vary. Look at the life you've been leading, see. All right, now compare the life you've been leading to the life that somebody else has been leading. Now, have you ever run into a case which was basically just all free track? You know, you tell them to go back down the time track, you ask them to look at the picture and they tell you all about it? You ever run into such a case? All right, did you ever run into a case of, ask them to — what they're looking at and they tell you it's all black as night and it's never been any other way, except for this little rocket that's going from left to right. See — you get the idea?

1 bottle of vanilla

All right, there are two factors. One is severity of immersion into the GPM and the other is lightness of experience. These are each two different factors. You could have somebody with light experience who's thoroughly immersed into it and totally jet-black. Now, they'd clear up awful easy. It's a fact; you could have.

2 shakers full of salt

Then you've got somebody else with tremendous amounts of experience, lots of — lots of cycle GPMs and so forth, only for the last cycle, he's rather new on the cycle and he doesn't int — he doesn't tend to be smeared up in anything. It's all just free track and three dimensional color pictures and so forth and you say . . .

See, it's on the basis that you can't make a cake anyway, so how you make it isn't really necessary to know, you see.

All right. Now, this is a fooler. Because this bird is cruising along and you say, "Oh, what an easy case. There's nothing to this case, see." Crash! See, and we're back into the lineup and crash! Here we go again and there's horrible somatics and everything goes black and the person is totally appalled because everything has gone black. Now they know they're getting worse and everything . . .

And then you'll see some old lady with — somehow off in the Middle West on a farm or something like that. And she's apparently doing something else. And you hear something hit the bottom of a pot with a swish, swish of beating up something and something of this sort and all of a sudden there's a cake and a couple of pies on the table. They are perfect, they are absolutely delicious.

And then we find out that it takes three times as long to clear the free track person than did this black five that could never move an inch on the time track, see. These are the oddities you run into. I wouldn't know of any way of estimating it, for this reason: Nobody shows the total aberration of which they are track-capable, see. Nobody shows this much aberration. They never show as much aberration as can be keyed in, man. Impossible! And it's going to vary from person to person, case to case, so on one person you do twenty packages — I use your phrase — another person, why, you do fifty.

And then she is the other extreme. You say, "What's your recipe?" And she damn near goes mad trying to think of how she does it.

Also, this factor enters into it: The thoroughness with which the auditor is working Some auditor is being a little bit sloppy and he goes three cycles. And he just gets three GPMs of a cycle-type out of the road and off the main GPM very easily, see. Beautiful job of it. Beautiful job. And then he says it's so easy, now, that the fourth goal he finds, he finds very sloppily while the pc is being very insouciant and he's being cross-eyed. And he didn't check it out. He didn't add it up. And it's the wrong goal. It's a really wrong goal. So he lists it. So the case goes zzuupp! Thud! Crash! Black mass, where is it? You know, what wall?

It will work that way with you someday. Somebody will come along and they'll say, "Well, how do you do Routine 3GA?" You see you haven't seen a bulletin on it for years. "Oh well, uh — let's see, well, it's very important — uh — to prepcheck your rudiments. That's very important to prepcheck your rudiments. That's really how you do it, and to null everything out until you get it. Yeah, now you understand. Okay? All right, thank you."

The remedy for that sort of thing is to find the right goal. But you see, auditing would also tend to produce a variable picture. When we have four or five thousand cases in the racks, why, we can add up a statistical average. But I think the statistical average will be filled with so many variables that it'll be worthless. Some people live 'ard. And some people just haven't had a chance to.

And people will sit there and look very baffled, you see. And you'll say, "What's the matter with you? What's the matter with you? Haven't I told you adequately? Haven't I told you adequately?" And then some timid soul lifts his hand, one finger, you know, "Do you use an E-Meter?"

Okay? Answer your question? All right. Yes?

Okay, take a ten-minute break.

Male voice: Ron, what is the definition of Release and what test can you make to ascertain whether a person is a Release?

Thank you.

Oh, the whole subject of Release is a very easily covered subject — is the person better by reason of auditing and does he know it? That's a Release. In the first place, unless he's been released from some chronic difficulty that he considers — then he won't consider that he has been improved, because his attention is sort of thoroughly pinned down onto the chronic difficulty that until he has gotten out of that he won't admit to having gotten any better even though you may have cured him of a dozen other things.

So, a Release, purely and simply, is a person who has obtained results in processing and has a reality on the fact that he has attained those results. That, severely, is the definition of a Release. Now, when you try to subject this thing to a test — which can be duplicated in HCO offices for some sort of an award or something like that — you run into a difficulty. Because you don't want this sort of thing whereby you walk in — somebody walks in and says "Well, I feel much better by reason of my processing"

"All right, you're a Release, thank you."

The guy — it isn't necessarily true. They might just be hitting a manic at session end. I've never seen anybody so deliriously well, now, as a psychoanalyst I audited one time and she stayed "wonderfully, wonderfully well" for three days. Then she really fell on her coco. Coconut milk splattered in all directions, practically. She just sailed into the middle of a manic point, you see. Dramatizing like crazy. So, that doesn't give you anything

So something of the idea of a stability of gain enters into this when you talk about testing And it isn't something that an auditor would release — issue; he wouldn't issue an idea of having released the pc at the end of session, you see, or even perhaps at the end of an intensive. He'd let it cook for a little while. But he'd have to figure some way to ask just these two questions so that he wouldn't get an offhanded or unreal response, is: "Have you had a distinct gain from processing?" and "Do you have a reality that you have had that gain?" see. "Do you know Scientology has made you better and are you better?" That — that is it.

You see, it's one of these things that's overly simple. It's so simple that it's almost impossible to — well, you can't issue a perfect test for it. You'd have to put the person on the E-Meter and find out if they were telling you the truth and you'd have to do a lot of other things to have the perfect test. But that is a Release and that has been a Release just absolutely for years and years and years. But it gets fancied up. And what you see is a release form that has to be filled in to tell whether or not the person is released. Well, actually it's just trying to be secure in getting an answer to those two questions, whatever the form is.

And you'll find that a person who has not had any improvement because of auditing and who has no reality on that fact, basically, well, could be in propitiation, you know, and could be in some other state of mind. But you'll find that that person — they're never — not really very safe to have around. They've been audited for quite a while and they haven't had any gains and so forth and, "What is all this?" They — these are the people that give you trouble and so forth.

Why is that? Well that's because, of course we know now, they have withholds and missed withholds and things of this character. You know, a missed withhold can throw somebody down into propitiation.

Now the earliest statement of release is about 1952 and it's simply: The person knows he won't get worse. So you could add that as one of your requirements for Release and to get the full historic picture. He knows he won't keep on getting worse now. And you can achieve a Release rather easily on some people — just, you can break up a neurosis with ARC Straightwire. If you get somebody that's real bad off and it's what wall and what bank and you run a little bit of ARC Straightwire on him and all of a sudden it clears up and they've got some hope and they know they're pointed in some right direction.

Well, if you were then assured that that improvement would be stable, see, through waiting a week or two, why, you'd have a Release. Do you get the idea? All right. If you've — if a person has improved, by the way, by auditing — just to lay it on — if a person has improved by auditing, you've got one other factor here. you know that their missed withholds and that sort of thing are fairly clean and that you won't wake up some morning with a poniard sticking out of your abdomen. Looking down and finding poniard hilts in your abdomen, I don't know, you've probably done it yourself, but it's uncomfortable. Not that one feels that one is going to be struck at every time by other people, I'm just giving you whether their . . .

You'll find somebody who has not been to this exact definition a Release and they go along, just fine, for three or four months and pat you on the back and that sort of thing and then give a story to the newspapers and you wonder what the hell's going on here. There's no stability.

You see the value of a state called Release, then? You see, there is a value in having a state called Release, the difficulty of testing that state, because of the simplicity of its definition. Now, I think that's the best way to answer you on the subject of Release. Okay? All right. Of course, that's quite a question, what exactly is a Release.

Male voice: Troubled me for years.

Huh?

Male voice: Troubled me for years.

All right. Well, that is exactly what it is.

Male voice: Hmm.

Here's the weirdity. There's very few Scientologists realize they are Releases. They're bird-dogged on to Clear, you know. If they could answer that question positively and affirmatively, they're a Release.

By the way, this is very appropriate. We're just now getting a — we've got a release button, it's the "S" and double triangle, with an "R." a red "R" on it in the middle of the enamel. Very pretty little button. It's exactly the same size as the old "S" and double triangle.

Male voice: Can we all have one?

If you pass the test. Oh yes, and — but many are called and few are chosen. And in your particular case, because you brought up the subject, we'll give you one when you devise the perfect test!

Male voice: Okay. That's. . .

Because — well, frankly, right at the moment, we don't have one that I consider adequate. We just have guesstimates. Okay? "Many are called, few are chosen, the lightning often strikes...." Okay, you bet.

Yes?

Female voice: I have one more question. Uh — if someone gets good 3-D pictures on goals listing, that would be free track, wouldn't it? Would that be a possible indication for a goal or not a goal?

My — the whole subject goes back to the first lecture, Louise, is you're not interested, as the auditor, in whether they got pictures, haven't got pictures, where they're getting their goals from or anything else. you can read no indications from this because they're going to hit free track or they're going to hit black areas or they're going to hit free track and the second that you start to list it they'll hit black areas. When you finish the listing of it they'll be hitting free track. You don't — you're walking with a variation here, of considerable magnitude. And you should never, never, never, on listing goals, inquire if the pc has any pictures.

Female voice: Uh-huh.

Never. Never mention it to the pc. Because it's of no value of any kind in listing goals.

Female voice: Yeah.

Good enough.

Female voice: Thank you.

I didn't mean to scold you. That's a good point to keep in mind.

Female voice: If it — if it is mentioned, without asking?

Hm?

Female voice: If it is mentioned, during listing, without asking for it, I just wondered what. . .

So it's mentioned!

Female voice: Yeah.

TR 4. TR 4. Understand it. Acknowledge it. And return the pc to listing.

Female voice: Yes.

But God almighty, don't ever say, "You mean the last few goals you have listed you've had a stuck picture? Hm! That is very puzzling What is the stuck picture?" Now you could go on like this, you could say, "Well, what is the largest object in the picture?" Overboard would go your pc and that would be the end of goals listing

By the way, we had somebody, last year, who found a pc's goal by sticking the pc in a picture and then asking him for goals out of the picture. We didn't find a goal on the pc either. Because there weren't that many goals in that picture. I think the goal was, "Not to be beheaded" or something like that. That was a good thing to bring up, Louise. All right. Okay. Yes?

Male voice: Uh, in your E-Meter book you mentioned about an OT meter. Is that still going to be used ?

In your E-Meter book you mentioned about an OT meter, is that going to be used or not? All right. Well, I haven't had any need of it. We would be researching it madly if we had much need of it. We started into researching on it. We found out body read is so enormous on that type of reaction. We did a little other research on it. We tried to get a very sensitive needle meter that the medicos have — I guess they've tried to duplicate our E-Meter, which has been around long enough — and it wouldn't read either.

And we've gone into this, but frankly, we haven't, since the advent of the Mark IV — see, that was not — the Mark IV hadn't appeared at that time or had been proven out — we haven't found any real reason to have an OT meter, yet. If we do, we have gotten a leg up on its research and so on, but I won't say that there is no reason for one. But right now we don't need one, so there is no priority on it. Okay?

Male voice: Yeah.

All right. Okay, any other questions? Yes?

Male voice: Could you briefly summarize the data you're got now about chronic tone arm readings, at say 4.5, 3.5, 2.5, 1.5? You told us a number of things about chronic tone arm reads over the years, like 4.5 equals actually stuck in a crowd, is a chronic reading there.

Yes.

Male voice: Could you give us your — the current . . .

The significance of chronic tone arm read.

Male voice: Yeah. Especially 2.5 and 3.5.

Yeah, well they're the same as they were. The same as they were. Your person who reads below 2.0 is lower in responsibility and the same as they've always been. 2.5 is inevitably something about a machine, a robot or something like that. Your 4.5 is a crowd, it's just as it's always been. I don't know what 7 is. But it's something And in general, chronic reads on people grabbed off the street do fall into these categories. But you must realize that you no more than start to get the rudiments in and you start upsetting this. And when you prepcheck the pc you upset it farther.. You're keying out things now. Now, you've changed the pc's position on the track and numerous other things with R3GA and your tone arm sweeps, as they move back and forth across the dial, actually denote nothing of any significance except that you have motion on whatever you are doing, because it's all relative motion. See, it ceases to be fixed motion as soon as you start disturbing the case and it then and there becomes relative motion.

You're starting to push around the reactive bank. Your modern processes do not leave this chronic state of affairs chronic. They're very briefly there. So that the meaningfulness of a tone arm, once it has started to move on a pc by reason of Prepchecking and R3GA is practically zero. It has no meaning as such except the fellow isn't Clear. Masses are passing through, don't you see. It doesn't even mean if he has a high TA that he has a withhold now. See? There's no significance actually attaches to the exact meaning of a tone arm read, once you have started the fellow in the modern processing But all of those reads, which have been announced previously, are all factual and apply very definitely to the man in the street. If he's sitting at 4.5, you can adjudicate some oddball facts about him with regard to crowds. If he's sitting at 2.5, you can make some kind of an odd estimate on what the fellow might be doing in life.

You could tell fortunes with it that would upset people god-awfully. The — this guy walks in, sits down, PE Course, you know. I'm not saying you should do this, but he comes in, sits down, you put the cans in his hands and you find out he's reading at 1.5. Well, you could start off with a long song and dance, "Now let's see, now you've often, often had difficulty with your family, isn't that correct? Hm-hm, yes, hm-hm, as a matter of fact you've left home quite a few times. Yes, hm, you ever been married? Yes, well, you've left your wife a few times and you haven't been doing too well in business. And, you haven't been this and you haven't been that . . ."

He'd agree, "Oh my God," he'd say, "Yes."

"You very often are very careless of yourself, you stand out in the rain very often without coming inside."

And he'd say, "Oh, yes, yes. How — how did you know that? How did you know that?"

See, you could go on and on. Some bird is sitting at 2.5, see, and he comes in there and you say, "Well, you constantly tinker with machines. You are very interested in computers. You probably have wondered about giving people orders at a distance through some communication equipment and having those orders exactly, promptly, immediately and never defied — obeyed, you see. Never defied under any circumstance."

"Yes. Yes. How did you know that?"

You see, of course you've got a robot read. And you just read the character . . .

"You run your home on a highly systematic basis and are very, very impatient of your wife's irregularities. Isn't that true?"

You could go on, you know, you could make an astrologist look like a punk with this thing. And, you've got other reads and so forth. This boy comes in, he's reading at 2.0.

"Well, you've had a great deal of trouble with women, haven't you? You've had a lot of trouble with your mother, isn't that correct? Yes, and the last time you were in love, it didn't go well, isn't that right? You have a tendency to be rather didactic with regard to women and give them orders and — to do this and to do that, with women, but secretly, down underneath it all, you are really afraid of them, aren't you? Isn't that the case?"

"Oh, yes, yes, yes, how did you ever know that?" you see.

Some girl walks in, she's reading at 3.0. "Now, you've been death on men, haven't you? You've always had trouble with men, isn't that correct?"

Oh, my, you could go on and on. Or, "You've often thought of getting married and/or of staying married — which are you, married or unmarried? Now, you've often thought of — of staying married, but have changed your mind."

Oh, man, you could really read it out well. "You actually don't prefer housework. You think the woman's place is not in the home. Is that correct?" Yeah, you could really do that.

Have — he reads at 4.5, "You haven't — you often thought of yourself as a priest or heading a large congregation or a large organization of some kind or another? Have, you had — often had thoughts of doing revolutionary type work. you have envisioned yourself as out there talking to the multitude, isn't that correct? You don't like armies or navies and you don't like crowds. You hate to go downtown at the rush hour. Isn't that right?" And so on.

"Oh, yes, yes, how did you know?" you see. 4.5.

You'll get the positive-negative aspect. You'll get the plus and minus aspect the way one of these reads. And if anybody wanted to do a complete job of this, he would actually have a fortunetelling scheme that would make anything since Chaldea look pale. But its validity, for an auditor, once it has been disturbed, becomes zero. you audit a guy for a while and — well, it's true, if he settled down on a new read and stayed there several weeks, yes, he'll have the characteristics of the new read. But you see auditing doesn't really do that with somebody. It moves it all over the place.

Answer your question?

Male voice: It does, thank you.

All right, didn't mean to answer it at such length, but it's an amusing subject to me. Some of the things you can do — the longer we look into this, why the more swami the swamis look.

Someday — I used to be very good at telling fortunes and that sort of thing. Simple expedient, reading other people's pictures. It was very embarrassing to people. They come in and you tell them all about what — where they've been that day. I never realized at the time that you could also shift their bank. And I've never worked it out since, so that you moved the somatic strip and looked at the pictures. You see, you get the idea? You can — you could look at the pictures where they've been that day, you'd say, "Well, where have you been today? Let me see, I can tell you where you have been today." You see, you're reading their pictures. And you give them just a description of the picture you see, you see. And, "Oh, yes, yes" and it sounds very wonderful. "You must be very prescient" and so forth. Of course they're carrying it right in front of their face.

Well, as the years have gone on — I hadn't thought, actually, until just this moment, the fact that all you have to do is move the somatic strip through various portions of the person's past, you see, in order to read all of their past life, you know. And then really all you'd have to do is move in future track. Well, we don't know anything about the validity of future track, but you could at least move in the track on them that they would like to have or were afraid of having as a future and either one of them would be other — equally satisfactory in a fortunetelling, wouldn't it?

You know, it's funny how tricky man has been about all of these tricks without ever being able to do anything for man, isn't it? You realize all fortunetelling is basically based on making the person agree to a postulate. You create the future for them by creating a postulate. So the next time the ancient witch gazes into her boiling cauldron and says, "I see you meeting with a dark-haired young man." you say, "I don't like dark-haired young men. Make it a blond." Something like that, you see. Or she says a blond, say, "I don't like blonds. I like dark-haired young men." you see. Get her to change it around, till you get an acceptable future!

Okay, well, we're overtime and overdue. That's it.

Thank you very much.

Good night.