NAME: ARC Break

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

You ask the person to describe the dynamics from one to eight. We don’t care about them being sequitur; any way you want to break it up, we don’t care.

COMMANDS: The coach makes up his mind there has been an actual specific ARC break. He doesn’t tell the student. He then says, “Start”. Then the student says:

Now you ask a person to describe each one of these dynamics. You are watching an E-Meter for a change in pattern. Therefore, you have to carefully isolate the change of pattern before you can tell whether or not the pattern’s changed on the E-Meter needle reading. But more important than that, you are looking for a dynamic that he makes mistakes on while he is trying to describe it, a dynamic he cannot describe, a dynamic that he won’t even approach, that he is very leary of, and his statement is confirmed by the E-Meter reading. In other words, you have got the statement of the pc in this particular analysis or diagnosis for Dynamic Straightwire.

• “HAVE I DONE SOMETHING WRONG?”

All right, then, we go all the way through asking for a terminal on these dynamics and we finally get a repeat. We will ask him for terminals on these dynamics; we’ll get the same dynamic to read again. Now the basic rule which sorts this out is – any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run. Simple as that. Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run.

The coach answers this appropriately and the student says:

Don’t run a terminal that is totally unreal to the preclear. Another stable datum which comes on top of it is: Never run a terminal that’s sensible. Never. If a terminal belongs on the dynamic you can almost say you’ll get nowhere running it. So, you are looking for terminals that they give you for a dynamic which don’t belong on the dynamic at all.

• “WHAT WAS IT?”

Now, if that terminal is real to the pc you will get a tremendous change in the case. If that terminal is totally unreal to the pc and if it does belong on the dynamic, why you’re not going to get any change on the case, why run it? Might as well run some other process. It is neither a long process nor an invariable process. Given enough skill you could undoubtedly find one of these on every case. Given enough skill. But it is limited by auditor skill. Furthermore, it gives auditors a chance to chop up pcs and it gives auditors a chance to write some script.

The coach answers, and then the student says:

You do not let the pc choose. You have auditors who actually believe that a pc is permitted power of choice in an auditing session. That one’s a blinker.

• “WHEN WAS IT?”

Where you find pcs out of session, it’s because nobody has trailed down a nutty dynamic.

The student gets it described and then says:

• “HOW IS IT NOW?”

Then when he’s got it more or less stamped out here then he takes it on the other side of the picture and says:

• “HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING WRONG IN THIS SESSION?”

The coach answers that appropriately and the student auditor asks:

• “WHAT WAS IT?” “WHEN WAS IT?” and “HOW IS IT NOW?”

When all have been handled satisfactorily the coach ends that cycle of action and then starts a new one.

PURPOSE: Is to train the student to handle ARC breaks in a session and to get them handled quickly and effectively on both the overt and motivator side, since there’s always an overt connected with an auditing ARC break of one kind or another.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on the reality and actuality of ARC breaks and the necessity of handling them. It should be pointed out that on an E-Meter it is the ARC break that causes the rising needle and also it must be pointed out that in actual auditing he will be using an E-Meter since he’s not running this with a meter in his hand. In real auditing he flattens it until his meter shows no change on the subject. In running this TR he is simply going to flatten it by the seat of his pants and the satisfaction of the coach.

This is a 2-way comm formal auditing non-duplicative process and is only used to patch up ARC breaks when one occurs. It is not a repetitive command process which is supposed to do something terrific for the pc. It doesn’t. It is just supposed to keep the session on the road and is not in itself therapeutic.

The student never answers or explains to the coach about the ARC break. In other words, we must keep the Auditor’s Code while running an ARC break out. Probably more strongly than we would ordinarily keep an Auditor’s Code. No evaluating questions. No invalidating questions. No explanations.

It should be understood that an ARC break is the only thing that will depress a profile. Nothing else will depress a profile except an ARC break. Handling ARC breaks is the only thing which keeps the profile from being depressed so this is a pretty important TR and it’s really got to be smooth and free. It is the one thing that can submerge an engram or foul the session. It should be understood that in actual auditing if the pc gives the auditor the Break as soon as the auditor asks for it, the question “What is it?” is dropped.