Well, you will have to tell me the date.

Okay. This is a short lecture about listing. This is lecture two, 14 June AD 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

Audience: 14th June.

Listing: Listing is an activity which is engaged upon after one has found a goal. I gave you a talk the other evening about how to find a goal. Well, the way you list a goal is relatively simple. If the goal is in – it stays in after being duly checked – you begin listing

Fourteenth! What planet? I've got so many calls to make these days, you know! 14 June, AD 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

Now, you may run into some problems of listing. And the first problems you run into is: the goal has been found, the goal has been checked out, the goal is – that’s fine – and the first thing you run into are the first invalidations the pc is being careful not to make with his new-found possession. So the first action of listing is a Prepcheck.

You know, there was a great many students came in the first part of the year and that has sort of peaked the attendance here for awhile. When they arrived, they didn't know whether they'd be classified or not and when they leave, they sometimes are and they sometimes aren't. I'm going to talk to you about training a little bit more in this lecture.

Now, you see, we – this has nothing to do with checking out goals or anything like that. Only let’s emphasize lists and listing all over again. This person has had a lot of Prepchecks on this subject, but he now has a – new expansive opportunities to invalidate.

Now, you think you are traveling fast now. Heh-heh-heh! You will think you were traveling so slow that your footprints are in front of you! Because this is the kind of a schedule that has to be met. can I give you a short rundown on same, what this is all about?

Now, this goal that he’s got there is going to do peculiar things in the next few sessions. It’s going to read and not read and it’s going to do this and it’s going to do that; because its reads are going to go over on to lists, and these reads are going to go onto items, and it’s going to flick back and forth. And it’d be funny if it didn’t, because you are using the most powerful method of getting rid of an aberrated prime postulate that has been devised: 3GA. So, of course, it’s going to do something to the goal.

Training, as you noticed, changed recently into three sections. Now, the three sections of training were Theory, Practical and the Auditing Section.

So the first thing we must know about listing is that when we start listing, we Prepcheck and make very sure that the goal is there to be listed. That’s for sure – because that’s the last, pure, clean opportunity we’re going to have to nail it down.

Definition of the three sections are simply, in Theory, they have to be able to duplicate the information in bulletins and tapes, texts.

Now, we make this as a specification for this particular reason: goals have often been found by other auditors and checked out by other auditors. But remember, if you are a listing auditor who did not find the goal, your responsibility for listing is tremendously great. So, you should start it with a Prepcheck.

In Practical — have to do, the doingness angle of the thing

Now, if the goal is partially listed and been partially listed, you’re kind of around the bend. Now you’re not so sure about this whole thing. And I know of no other way to go about it than to check the line wordings for a read. If the goal doesn’t read, perhaps the line wordings will read. If a line wording reads, of course the goal is valid.

Now, Practical actually used to be the Auditing Section. You know, used to fog around in it and that sort of thing But the Practical now is the supervision of doingness, just as doingness.

Now, this means then, that your Prepcheck – if you’re taking over a case that’s had a partially listed goal – your Prepcheck must include „discussion of items.“ You’re going to ask about goals and you’re going to ask about listing, and you must also ask about items, specific items and auditing sessions for items. Why? Because you could get a line ticking merely because it was ARC broke. See?

The Auditing Section is the fait accompli. When you get into the Auditing Section you're not supposed to be practicing, you're supposed to be auditing Because frankly, the only thing that is looked at in the Auditing Section will be the results that you obtain. In Practical it's how you do it and in the Auditing Section, the results.

Now, these line wordings are just as vital as the goal itself, so don’t skimp them. And they’re going to offer you some very tricky problems.

But of course, results are now dependent on the textbook solution, which is rather unique. It's unique in any science, for any result to be obtained by the textbook solution. They teach nuclear physics today and they still tickle the tiger's tail, see. They give you formulas — endless formulas — you know. And you're supposed to be able to figure it all out — and, they do — they figure it all out, but it doesn't have anything to do with nuclear physics. They still get in there and shove bars of plutonium in and out of this and that, see. It's quite remarkable. They even run their submarines this way. The chief engineer of an atomic submarine has to know all of the Theory in the world, see. He has to be in mathematics galore, and so on. When he wants the submarine to go faster, he goes down and shoves on a rod and adjusts it to a point where the water boils quicker. Crazy, you see. There's no textbook solution there at all.

The usual and ordinary goal is something like „to catch catfish.“ All right, that’s fine. That’s a perfectly ordinary goal. That lists – you can form up the wording very easily because you simply add „want,“ „not want,“ „oppose,“ „not oppose,“ before the goal, and then before each one of those, „Who or what would ?“

In medicine the textbook solution is more often violated than otherwise and if you use psychiatric textbook solutions everybody'd be dead. As far as psychology is concerned, it hasn't ever pretended to have a solution for human beings — it only has solutions for animals. Oh, I didn't — I didn't mean that as a dirty crack, because, frankly, we are burying them and their future. I invite you in the next decade to the funeral of both of those activities. Of psychiatry and psychology. It'll be a very sad funeral.

See, the formula is very simple – nothing to this, „Who or what would want to catch catfish?“ „Who or what would not want to catch catfish?“ „Who or what would oppose catching catfish?“ „Who or what would not oppose catching catfish?“ So those are perfectly valid lines in most cases.

But, they haven't got any textbook solutions. And right now we've moved up into the level of textbook solution.

But you have changed the goal, haven’t you? „To catch catfish“ has been changed to „catching catfish.“ So there’s one little alteration there that you should be rather careful of. Usually you will get away with it. This is quite valid and everything is fine. But if there’s any question in your mind, you had better put „the goal“ in front of the goal itself. „Who or what would want the goal to catch catfish?“ „Who or what would not want the goal to catch catfish?“ „Who or what would oppose the goal to catch catfish?“ „Who or what would not oppose the goal to catch catfish?“

All right, last night you saw a couple of auditing demonstrations. These were simply goal checkouts. I wanted you to see how you checked out a goal. That was the only reason I gave them. I didn't even particularly pick up goals that I wanted to check out or didn't want to check out. I thought I might learn something about it myself. How about a partly worded goal? How did it check out?

Now, that is not a perfect alternate, but it might be all right. Not perfect, but it might be all right. You must realize that there is no perfect wording You’ve got to have, however, „want to,“ „not want to,“ „oppose“ and „not oppose“ as the subject and character of your lines.

The first case that you saw had four hundred listed on each list of that particular goal. Now, if I'd tested it, you probably would have found the transfer of the goal reaction to one of the levels. Had I read the four lists off on the thing — you probably would have seen one of those lists ticking If one of those list lines had been ticking, then of course it tended to prove out the goal. Time was going on, I didn't want to upset anything and I particularly didn't have any pat solution to it. Didn't want to say anything much more about it, because I wanted you to concentrate on just this other idea of how did you prepcheck a pc so as to prove up a goal.

But goals vary, and for that reason – and pcs’ reaction to goals vary – semantics gets in the road of it. Now, any way that you can get the actual goal – as originally worded – expressed, is the best way to word it. That is the best way to word it.

Now, there was a tick on the second pc's line reads. I don't know if you saw it or not. one of the lines ticked. Well there's a high probability — is, that that goal could now be continued to be listed with profit. See, you could continue to list the goal with profit. Before I did anything more about this goal, I would read the lines off to it again and I would ascertain what was cooking here and test whether or not we could go onto a new goal, because I've already said I could always consider this goal a bit of a late one, that might list longly. And so you might profitably transfer over to another goal. But that would only be if one of those lines wasn't ticking too hard, you see.

Now, I can give you an alternate wording, but – of various kinds – but no wording would fail to have in it „want,“ „not want,“ „oppose“ and „not oppose.“ Those are the four lines. They are not necessarily in that order while you list them, but those are certainly the proper ways. And each one is preceded by „Who or what would ?“ Not „could“ or „can“ or anything but „would.“ „Who or what would ?“ Always „Who or what would ?“

In other words, the read that you get on a goal — I'm indebted for this term, to Charles, here. He said it very well. He said the read "transfers." That's exactly correct. That well describes it. The read transfers from the goal to one of the lines that you're listing. You see, "Who or what would not oppose going to war?" you see — clank! All right, well the goal, "to go to war" wouldn't read, but the line would read, if it's partially listed. Do you see that? There's more to be learned about this, there's more to be observed about this. But, there were some partially listed goals and I was simply checking them out. Giving you a Prepcheck example.

And now we get into interesting things. I have not seen many negative goals prove out, but negative goals can exist – not to invalidate negative goals. And it’s very, very remarkable that a negative goal does not lend itself to good listing at all – wording – doesn’t lend itself to good wording

Now, if you notice, on the second pc we had a lousy dirty needle. Now, you probably wondered why I didn't finish up my fish and fumble. I'd better tell you something about that, because, there were two things that happened in that session that you might have missed. One of them is I didn't finish the fish and fumble. Every time the pc said "goal" I got a dirty needle. So I found out I was fishing and fumbling for the goal. So I got out of there. I backed the fire engine right back into the stall. And we parked it right there and went on about our business. And I thought you might possibly have missed that.

Let’s take the goal „not to be detected.“ That’s the goal, „not to be detected.“ Not even „to not to be,“ see? It’s „not to be detected.“

It'd been on, already. And when I started to run it down to find out if we had a missed withhold or something of the sort, why, the pc discussing it, every time he came near the subject of goal, we had a missed withhold. We were prepchecking — we were prepchecking the goal, so it was no time to fish and fumble for it because we were about to run into the line very shortly as, "On goals, is there anything you failed to reveal?" you see. And sure enough, we had it. And I finally had to ask him a slightly altered question, "Who didn't find out about the goal?" You see?

„That’s my goal, ‘not to be detected.’ That’s it!“ It’s not „to not to be detected.“ See, just „not to be detected.“ What the hell are you going to do with this?

Now, the auditor had already picked up one person that had not found out about this goal — and maybe some mention of the other people — I don't know if there was mention of the other people, too. But we got a bit of a change the second that we ran through that. But on the subject of listing we got a considerable reaction. Remember?

Well, it depends on your meter. Your problem is to get „want,“ „not want,“ „oppose“ and „not oppose“ in front of that goal and „Who or what would ?“ in front of each one of those in some fashion that (underscore) registers on the meter like the goal. It’s got to register; got to make sense to the pc. So there’s two tests there that you can immediately resort to.

Now, on neither of these sessions would you have seen any reason to have called this a Prepcheck. There was no Who — there was no When, All, Appear or Who. So where was the Prepcheck? Well, I didn't run into anything that needed to be prepchecked. You see? Everything cleared up on a couple of questions, see? So we're talking about a terribly short track, see. We're talking about the short track of auditing or at best this life's listing. So if we're talking about such a short track and you can just knock it out, why cheers! See? We'll do so. And the reason we call it Prepchecking is because we're always prepared to prepcheck — form up the What question, go on sailing back on the line and do a stylized job on it. But on neither case did I run into any necessity to do so. See?

Now if you word it wrong, you’re going to get a cow’s dinner. You’re going to have three lines worded right and one line at right angles to the Federal Church, Incorporated and has nothing whatsoever to do with the case. There’s going to be one line missing.

These middle rudiments prepchecked out gave us an interesting reaction on the part of the first pc. The first pc was very defensive. Been talking to the pc earlier — was actually very dismayed. We invited her — we invited her, by the way, to stay over, to see the demonstration tonight. And then as a complete beast, you see, why, I suddenly realized I'd like a look at that goal and I'd like a look at the pc and see how the pc was operating Because the pc was a bit defensive about things, you see. So I put the pc in-session. It really took her by a storm. And, when she started into that session she was really boggled. The rudiments were all out and crisscrossed, you know. But, that was all right. Got a telex from her this morning She felt wonderful, surprised her half to death, you see. she felt wonderful and she was sawing into all the goals in the shop and had gotten another Saint Hill graduate all straightened out on his goal. So she'd instantly put it all to use at a high degree of velocity.

Now, that the pc can or cannot list on a line is actually no test. That’s not a test, because the line „not oppose“ is always something on the order of reaching into the wild blue nowhere, because it has never offered any resistance. It is the bull and the cape. See, nothing solid to push against – every time he lunges at the cape there’s nothing there. So you say to the pc, „Who or what would not oppose catching catfish?“ And the pc goes . . . Nothing there, you know? Makes him feel bad. Dandy. It’s nothing wrong with that. So he feels bad, but that’s no test. So he feels bad, but if you were running that and the pc was telling you he has a lot of trouble with it – most pcs will tell you they have a lot of trouble with it. Believe me, it’s a vital line, because it’s one of the four flows.

But before she was getting that Prepcheck, she was pretty queasy about the whole thing And she went away feeling fine.

Well, let’s suppose you worded it up in some fashion, „Who or what would not oppose catfish?“ See? You make a horrible error like that, see? Everything else was „catching catfish“ or „to catch catfish.“ But this last one – this last one was „would not oppose catfish.“ Well, he’s going to have – very interesting – very interesting list! No doubt, it’s going to be a fine list, but that needle is never going to go free. It’s going to park the case, you see? A mess.

All right. What you saw in the Prepcheck was all textbook solution. Did you notice that? There's no variation from the textbook. There was one blunder, I don't know if you noticed it. It was the second session, it was getting late and I had not been crossing my list off and I didn't know what I'd gotten the reaction on. I have a guilty conscious every time I make a pc expose something discreditable on a TV demonstration. I don't particularly like to do that to somebody, you know? Bang! You know? Catch them and drive them into a corner, and so on. He came up with a discreditable one on "careful of," you know? And he exploded with it and I looked down at my check sheet to ask the second question and I had neglected to mark it up to that point. So I had to take the safe route out. I checked the ones I knew bridged into the ones that I had gotten a reaction. See, that was pure and simple a blunder. See, I didn't remember that it was "careful of" at the moment I asked it, see.

Now, the negative goal offers you the problem of the double negative. „Who or what would not oppose not being detected?“ Isn’t that horrible? So the word the goal – by the way – by the way, don’t say that that’s impossible not to use the double negative, because for some reason or other a pc has already listed well on a double negative and wouldn’t have it any other way – and just listed fine. But we can’t count on all pcs doing this that well, so we get the goal interposed in there as a method of separating out the double negative. „Who or what would not oppose the goal not to be detected?“

He suddenly came up with this revelation — bang, you see. Well, was it on "Invalidate?" "Fail to reveal?" or "Careful of?" Which? And there I sat, see. I don't know if you might not have noticed that.

Now, when you’re doing that a question enters into it on the first line: „Who or what would want the goal not to be detected?“ Doesn’t work, does it?

But notice that — you might not have noticed it because it was a fairly smooth recovery. I just went simply back over to the last one I knew I had covered, took the next one, checked it — checked it and finally of course had it and it was "Careful of." Meantime the pc was sitting there almost exploding with the final — with the next answer. But you notice, it didn't disturb the pc.

Audience: Mm-mm. Mm.

Now, those demonstrations you're seeing are textbook solutions. That is to say that's textbook auditing There isn't any departure from that. The only envisaged — and I should mention this to particularly those leaving — the only envisaged change in Model Session, is to pull, "In this session . . . " to the head of all end rudiments. You precede them with "In this session." You've already had the change of the withhold question in beginning rudiments and end rudiments.

Well, it’s a mess. Now, you’d better reach into the truth of the situation, because that first line is basically concerned with an item which does have this goal. So in that particular case you can test the line, „Who or what would have the goal not to be detected?“ So we drop out „want“ and we’d substitute „have.“ But notice all the rest of them fall into line quite well, but that one changes. Do you see that?

But there is an additional change in Model Session and I can't tell you its absolute final form, but it runs something like this — because it's ragged. There's a raggedness to saying to somebody, "Do you have a present time problem?" He says, "Yes." Well, where are you at? See? It's an understood question. So, you could consider your rudiments question, this is the — this is the solution that I am researching right now. Consider your rudiments question this way: That the needle acknowledges for the pc so therefore you acknowledge for the pc. you an — pardon me — you answer for the pc.

You’ve got to get four flows that operate against this line – now this particular goal – four flows that operate around and with and in this goal.

Now, you see that that's going on all the time, with this anti-Q and A anyhow. You answer for the pc. you say, "Do you have a present time problem?" Clank! Well, you notice that you never wait to have the pc says he does or doesn't. You notice that you say he does or doesn't, see? You say, "All right, yes, what's that? That read." you see?

Now what do those flows consist of? The goal is a prime postulate which has accumulated on to itself a number of identities by which the purpose could be executed. It has assumed these identities because there were a bunch of people that didn’t want the goal and those were stupid and incomprehensible, so one had to prove it to them that the goal was okay.

After a fellow's been audited for a very short period of time he begins to expect this to happen, you see — and it is not disturbing at all. So that you've got a second question, on all rudiments questions, which is simply, "What is it?"

And there were a bunch of more people who violently and desperately opposed this goal and there were a bunch more people who didn’t oppose it, and nevertheless, were in some peculiar way associated with it.

It's just your — your second question. That's to keep the thing from hanging in the air. And that's what I'm testing out at this particular time. So you say, "Do you have a present time problem? That read. What is it?"

Now, if you can’t express those flows on your four listings directly and immediately surrounding this prime postulate, of course the thing is not going to go clean. This thing is going to mess itself up one way or the other. Now, to change wording in midflight can be quite upsetting to the pc. So after you’ve prepchecked and fixed up the goal, and it registers and it reads and it bangs like mad, and everything is fine, and any little dabs at listing or monkeying with it or invalidation – these things are all knocked out and they’re all cleaned up beautifully – you make sure of that wording And that wording should register.

And the pc says, belatedly, "Oh, well, uh — oohh — hmmm . . . " And you say, "Well, I'll repeat the question. What is it?"

Now, after you’ve gone into the wording – make sure that you go into it well enough and thoroughly enough with discussion with the pc and that sort of thing – that this wording actually works out to be the wording for the four flows for that goal. Because after that, to change it is going to be upsetting

Now, you might run into a snag that way, but that is — that is, after a considerable amount of study, the only way I can see out of this particular dilemma that is smooth. It's just recover with a "What is it?" Don't use it every time, perhaps. But certainly, if your pc does not come up with the information instantly, after you've answered for the pc. See, you've already said yes — you say, "It read." And the pc — so on. you just say, "What is it?" Don't leave the pc sitting there in a long comm lag Got the idea? Now, there will be some more data on that, but that's the only envisaged change.

Now, this doesn’t say that you will never change the line – the wording of a listing, because you’ll pull a bloomer sometime or another on something and you’ll suddenly find out this line never has listed, you know? Nothing – no item on the line has anything to do with anything you’ve been doing, and something like that. That would be almost catastrophic, however.

Now training has worked out this way: The auditor who comes here usually has had lots of loses. He's had loses. Let's admit it, see. First place he's been auditing up against a not totally refined technology and he's been doing this and that and he's also been doing things that were way off-line and he's lost. He's had some loses. Furthermore, he didn't have the technology which cleared everybody who walked up the walk, you see. So naturally he had some loses.

Try desperately to hold to your original solution, having established it. So establish it with care and then hold to it unless the spot is absolutely untenable. If every time you say to the pc, „Who or what would not be a catfish?“ or whatever the goal is, he says, „I – I can’t answer it,“ see? And you get the middle rudiments in beautifully, polish it all off, and he still can’t answer it – you’re faced with some kind of a super emergency of this particular character. In other words, your wording was wrong in the first place and now it has moved into full view and the moon shines piteously down upon it all, and your crime lies stark upon the moor.

All right, then the faster we get a student into the Auditing Section to get some wins, the better off we are. Simple. We already have the solution that gives him wins. Get the rudiments in and do Havingness in the body of a session. Now, that will give him some wins — if they could read a meter, if they get the rudiments in, if they run the Havingness Process for the pc.

Well, the thing to do is be right before you start. It isn’t saying you can’t recover from it, but it’d be upsetting if you had to – pc now feels all confused.

So this calculation has moved up to this degree: If a student has not finished his Theory, Practical and has not audited his rudiments and Havingness and all of his Prepcheck and finished up all that auditing and all of the Theory and Practical for that auditing — that's three classes, see — by the end of his sixth week, his chance of leaving here Clear is greatly diminished.

Now, in listing, you probably will list against a low-sensitivity-set tone arm. In other words, you just turn the thing on barely and keep your needle more or less at set so as to get your relative tone arm read and position. Now, you get your relative action without having to madly shift the tone arm all the time to keep your needle on the dial. In other words, it can be neglected for periods while you’re busy writing and the fur flying in all directions.

Now, I was just working this out. Based on a sixteen-week course, if he has not finished up all of that work in that auditing — finished by the end of the sixth week — why his chances of leaving here — so Clear that you rap him on the rim and he rings for hours — these are badly diminished, you see — the chances of doing that. you follow this reasoning?

Now, every fifth session you’re going to prepcheck the whole subject of goals, listing, auditing and so forth, newly, just as you did in a Goals Assessment. And you’re going to run the middle ruds, regardless of how often you prepcheck them, every time you stop running a list – regardless of whether it needs it or not. You’re going to get the middle rudiments in every time you stop listing on a list.

Well, actually, it means for faster wins, if you look at it this way, because he's up against something that should win and if he doesn't get a win hell be checked up on it in a hurry. So we look at the body of the course up to that point, as a fait accompli, and then we go on at the beginning of the seventh week to find a goal, and so forth. We might take that seventh week, on a dual capacity. We let him start finding the goal — because already he can prepcheck, see — during that week while he studies the Theory and practice of what he is doing in a Goals Assessment, like mad.

Now, you’ll find that there’s a periodic order of frequency of action for each list, which diminishes. (Boy, didn’t that sound complicated? ‘Tisn’t. I’ll say it in English.) It decreases: The length of time a list is active for one listing before you leave it to the next becomes progressively shorter. You’ll get good action on the TA on a list, and then the action will slow and become less impressive. Get your middle rudiments in, go to your next list and list that, and you’ll find out you’ve got your TA action back again, and then that will diminish. So you re always running to diminish TA action.

Now, we go on out to the far end of the course — the remaining many weeks of the course, up to sixteen weeks — and we polish up this auditor. In other words, we polish him up. Now, that doesn't mean that you who have not finished this by the end of the sixth week necessarily are out in the rain. But I would say, unless streams of sweat like Niagara Falls started falling from your brow, and if you have gone as much as three months now and are not yet on a Goals Assessment on anybody or on yourself and so on, your chances of leaving here Clear are quite poor. If you're only up to two months, well we might make it rather easily, still, you understand. If you're here three weeks and are still stumbling around with Model Session you ought to have your head examined. See, you should have finished that at the end of the first week. see what I mean?

Now, I couldn’t tell you, because we can’t hazard a guess, where this prime postulate is going to sit on the pc’s track. What GPM – what track, or rather what cycle GPM is this thing preceding Well, we don’t know that. So we don’t know how much bank we’re relieving and so forth.

Grooming up the auditor would most easily take place, of course — making the auditor an absolute finished product — would more easily take place after he'd had wins. you see? So anyway, we had a bit of a conference this afternoon and that's what we were talking about and we're going to run it from that particular quarter.

But ordinarily, I’d say a half hour of listing on a list seems overly long, but you probably, you probably at the beginning, on a very mucked-up pc would only be able to list – if you’re going to list all the TA action out, see, all the TA action is going to come out and so on – you’d probably find it a session – I just want to give you an example – a session per list. See, you’d list – list one for a session, list two for a session, list three for a session, list four for a session. You understand?

Now, this has some influence on training outside. The Saint Hill graduate, going out of here, at this stage of the game, is — right at this moment — is the only one that knows anything about this three — three-section training system.

I’m not recommending that. Don’t put that down as recommended. I’m just giving you how long that list would remain active before the TA action went out of it. It is, however, very unbalancing and impractical to do anything like this. It’s impractical.

And I have gotten back some questionnaires, answers from Ds of T. that show they're terribly adrift. One of them wanted to know . . . Many of them were very good, but some of them, hm-mm. One of them wanted to know what you did with the incoming students after all the old students had gotten up into higher classes, if you were using the class system. That's still got me boggled. I don't what he doesn't know, you see. That's rather marvelous — you get to asking that as a question. I don't know what he's talking about!

So, you just do – better do it by the count at first or by the minutes or any other way. But if you stop a pc in the middle of an automaticity, he gets a suppression. So, allow – allowing for automaticities, you more or less list an arbitrary number for each list, making perhaps fifteen minutes a list early on – something of this sort. you list maybe fifteen minutes on each list: list fifteen minutes, get your middle rudiments in; list your next list fifteen minutes, get your middle rudiments in; list your next list fifteen minutes, get your middle rudiments in; list your next list fifteen minutes and get your middle rudiments in; go back to your first list and list it. Now, of course, none of those lists were exhausted, so your TA action there is deceptively high.

And, a few questions of this character demonstrate that, the workability and how the system goes together, and so forth, is very much, a question in the minds of people out in Academies and that sort of thing so any assistance that any of you can give an Academy in straightening this out would be appreciated. Any way you can give them a reality on it, would be appreciated. But all training is going onto this pattern. I think you'll agree with me that it's a rather successful pattern of training

Now, if a pc gets into an automaticity, for heaven’s sakes don’t stop him in his tracks – please. Please don’t stop him in his tracks, because he’ll do a suppress. So if a pc is listing rapidly and freely, let him go on listing, but that doesn’t mean four sessions. You understand? Doesn’t even mean one session, because none of these automaticities will run more than maybe 135, 150, 175 items. That’s an awful lot. And that’s an extreme automaticity. But they’ll just start firing off, you know? „Waterbuck, tiger, clock, policeman,“ you know? And you’re having a hell of a time keeping up with him.

Audience: Mm-mm, yes.

Now, on listing it is very, very bad form to do either one of two things: to tell the pc to wait while you write the thing down and to fail to write it down. Either one of those things is a crime. You pays your money and you takes your chance!

We should actually only be teaching here Class III. That's what we all actually ought to be teaching Training is slowed down by the fact that we have to groom up the earlier classes. That's what holds one back. But naturally if we didn't have the technology, how could anybody learn it? If we didn't have it grooved and so on.

However, the pc will comm lag in the ordinary course of human existence, adequately as he runs along on a list line to give you lags, at which moment you can catch up. Of course, if you got into a 135-item automaticity that was firing off like a machine gun, you’ve practically had it. Now, how you handle that, I don’t know. As far as a solution to the thing is concerned, it’s wrong to stop the pc and it’s wrong to miss the items. Well, you say, „Well, I guess I’ll just have to write faster.“ Yeah, that’s a good answer; that’s a good answer.

But, I've been working like mad along this particular line and I've finally got it grooved out and, your mistakes have served. Don't think that your mistakes have gone unacknowledged. The — most of what we call a textbook solution today is in there to get around the mistakes you have made or to steer you through those chasms and back alleys that you might otherwise have gone into and so forth.

Another thing you could do, of course, is set a tape recorder going back of you – not advised. You won’t find that you have too much trouble with this, but there is some little problem comes up in connection with it.

- For instance we used to have as a maxim, "The auditor must get an answer to every command he gives." Remember that? Yeah, but how few auditors knew this! We'd get a new auditor coming up the line and all of a sudden he'd be saying, "Do cats spit?" you know, "Do cats spit? Do cats spit?" And the pc about every third time he asked it, you know, would say, "I think 90." And he thought this was all right, see?

Now, when you’re so busy writing, how do you ever find time to keep your auditor’s report? That’s difficult too. But actually, pcs can be encouraged to comm lag You say, „Well, you think there’s any more on that particular list, now? ‘Who or what would not want to catch catfish?“’ You already knew he’d run out, see? That’s not advised either, but I’m afraid I would subterfuge to it in more agonized moments of auditing.

And of course you had your end rudiments set up and the pc is way out of session and you'd be surprised how often this is the case. So much so that you know, you could take — you could take an old-time auditor and ask him in the first session in which he had failed to answer an auditing command and you'd find out you'd get a little bit of a case surge. Quite interesting. Just ask him, "What was the first time you failed to answer an auditing question or command?" you know. And it'll rip up the line like a — like a mad buzz saw. I remember Herbie one time when he first heard it, he just suddenly — on an ACC — and he just suddenly had remembered the first time, you know? Made an awful difference to him. He walked out of there — he was glowing.

Now, your setup on listing is that your lists must be kept of parity length. Try to keep them somewhere on the equal number of pages. Don’t let one list run madly ahead of others. And you will see this tendency before you have been listing on four lists very long You will all of a sudden look over at list three: „Who or what would not oppose catching catfish?“ Ahumpf. It has twenty items on it and everything else has two hundred. Now you’re up against the horrors of trying to catch that list up. Now, how do you do it? Well, you don’t encourage any additionals on any of the other lists, that’s all. You list some on „Who or what would not oppose catching catfish?“ You list quite a few, see? You list as many as you can possibly get listed and then you list briefly the other three lists, just almost as many as are volunteered. You just say the name of the list and the fellow gives you one item. And you say, „Fine,“ and you say the name of the list and he gives you one item – that’s the next list – and you say the name of the next list, and he gives you one item. And then, you of course have gotten your middle rudiments in very carefully when you left this other list. Do you see? Well, get them in again very carefully, you know, and then list eighty on it. you can bring a list back to balance. But really it’s quite wrong to get the list far out of balance.

But, so what do you have now? You have an end rudiment, something that constantly reminds the auditor of this. Constant. It's always in front of his eyes. Every time he goes down the Model Session line, he hits all the basic errors that have been constant and continuous in auditing of course, it so happens that these things are the sins of auditing and when — they're only the sins of auditing when they're out of order, auditing doesn't take place, so of course they do belong in as rudiments. But you see how the thing is packaged up? Instead of an isolated unimportant maxim that nobody has ever read, the thing sits there and is done every session.

Now, in the first part of listing you list more or less arbitrarily, in other words. You list arbitrarily as in terms of time. you keep an arbitrary number increasing That is to say, you – you’re listing maybe twenty per each, and so forth, because it’s not important early on. It’s such a mass anyhow, that it doesn’t make much difference as long as they all get listed. And then as long as there’s some equality in the lengths of the lists, you’re not going to get lost as you go along the line.

Well, it works this way: The auditor going by this particular point is reminded every session, because he occasionally finds the thing out, you see. And he's reminded every session, you see, that he should get his auditing commands answered. You get the idea? And he's reminded about these other little points. He's reminded about the pc's overts during the session under the heading of "damage" you see? All kinds of points are interwoven into this thing. Actually it'd make an interesting crossword crazy quilt, if you figured out all the things that have finally been lined up into the textbook solution.

But later on there’s another factor enters into listing As you come on down the homestretch, you will find that you are up against the terrible thing called a free needle. Now, let me point out to you that it is an Auditor’s Code break to list a line on which a free needle has appeared. Why is it a Code break? Because then you’re running a process that is not producing change. See that?

Actually, they're minimal. They're the minimal number. You could get far, far more expansive about this thing. But I'm certain now, that you'd be running off into relatively unimportant data. yet — oh, you could — you could trim it up, see. you could put more in it, but you'd be running off into unimportances. You'd be running off into things that processes or listing or something like that would normally care for. We've got the minimal number — well, we've got the minimum and maximum. Beyond what we have as the textbook solution, you can be pretty confident that it can be safely ignored. See, if it isn't in the textbook solution, it can be ignored — not with — not — without vast consequences, don't you see? But those points which are the textbook solution if ignored will scuttle the lot. The ship will go down in a trail of bubbles.

So you come on down the line and you’ve listed six, eight – something like that – and all of a sudden the needle is floating and free. Well, don’t sit there admiring it. A stage four needle can be mistaken, by the way, for a free, floating needle, but only by a very amateur amateur. Stage four is a repetitive sweep up and a stick and a fall, and so forth. Well, the free floating needle just drifts. It’s a beautiful thing to see. you never make the mistake of reading one after you’ve seen one once – that is a free needle.

Now, there's only one thing that I myself have felt questioning about, in all this. I've seen a pc get — and myself in one session got — sufficiently ARC broke that nothing in the rudiments or anything in any part of it would do anything about. That was very interesting There was nothing would have done anything about any part of it. Why? Well, I finally worked it out and you'll be interested in this little piece of technology here, which was based on a subjective reality. Why did nothing in the whole ruddy lot affect this particular ARC break line. And you 11 find out, then, that an ARC break can exist outside of this particular area. The healing of same is a bit too heroic to attempt. In other words it's too big to straighten out in a rudiments proposition.

Well, when you list down to a free needle, you’re now going to upset the interesting pattern of your way, because you’re only now going to list the next line that produces a needle reaction. So you list down to a free needle and then you read the next line to the pc with the forecast of „This is a test,“ see? And if that free needle isn’t upset – that is to say, if it doesn’t stick or bop or do something – you don’t list that line. you skip that line. you go on to the next line after that and test it. If it remained free, you go on to the next line and you test it and if it remained free, you go on to the first one and test it; and if it remained free and you couldn’t get any of the four lines to react at all, you better find a new goal because that one is dead.

And that is this: When a pc takes responsibility for withholding — it took me many weeks to finally curve down to what the answer of that was. And don't think about it too long, you'll get a headache! If a pc has taken responsibility — we're still on the subject of Model Session, see. If pc has taken responsibility for withholding from this auditor or from there on out, he has dove-tailed straight into the mechanics of Routine 3GA. There is the bridge. There is the button that makes 3GA what it is. Because 3GA of course is based on the mechanics of taking full responsibility in a limited way, for one purpose.

But toward the end of listing you will discover that you had better list by test – you better list by test. In other words, line one all of a sudden has taken it into its head to float free and line two doesn’t upset it, but line three does, so you’d better list line three to free needle. But if it doesn’t go to free needle after a little while, you figure you’re running on too far and too fast, you’d better go to line four. Do you see? What you’re trying to achieve, there, is listing by test. You’re only going to list against the needle in other words. If you don’t get a needle reaction when you read the line „Who or what would want to catch catfish?“ then you don’t list it.

The individual dedicates himself to never eating cats, you see, or some such goal, you see. He dedicates himself, basically, newly, primordially and before anything occurs, you know, prime postulate. He takes full responsibility for this prime postulate and here he goes.

You’ll find this way, at the end of the case, you catch up all the inequalities of lines. When those inequalities are all caught up... By the way, they’re not numerical inequalities, they’ll just be charge inequalities. Don’t you see? Your lines now at the end, by doing this, might get quite uneven. They won’t become double the length or anything like that, but they will become uneven just because you’re listing against needle reaction.

Now, because he's taken full responsibility for the prime postulate, he of course, has set up a thing where all other things are otherness. See, so everything else is an otherness. So this is a marvelous pat, single look and a departure from all pan-determinism. And he's had it. Oh, he's had it for more reasons than that. Any other action than never eating cats... See, funny part of it is, it just doesn't even have to do with cats, you know. It doesn't even have to do with eating. Just an other action. You know, like gazing at cherry trees — is an alter-isness of the basic purpose. So, he mustn't do anything but it, because he's taken full responsibility for it. This is what he stands for — to never eat cats. Therefore doing anything else under the sun, moon and stars is a breakdown of his own determinism — which of course is very isolated determinism. And this is the way he backs out of the universe, see. And thereby runs square into it with a thud.

Now, I must caution you against the sins of overlisting. The sin of overlisting is of course an Auditor’s Code break. The needle is free and it isn’t upset by a line and it isn’t upset by further items – you’re, of course, listing a flat process. It is like running a process that no longer produces change on the case and it’ll upset the pc.

You see how single-minded all this gets? So therefore other occurrences are not as-ised, they are alter-ised, mass gathers around these things and that sort of thing.

But that isn’t why you mustn’t overlist. You can fix up an upset; I’m sure you can keep in rudiments now, thank God. But your goal that you’re operating with on this pc is not the prime postulate of his entrance into this universe. It is only the beginning of some cycle or another that you have laid your paws on through a Goals Assessment. And it might be no more ancient than a few centuries – might be that close to PT. Now look, this thing has some dim harmonic against some other goal earlier or something, because there’s earlier material that can be pulled up. And you get too enthusiastic and you start yanking in earlier track, because you’re pressing the pc to give you items, and the pc obligingly starts picking up the wrong GPM.

Now, if a pc were to — you understand that it's a withhold in a — it's a withhold missed that louses up a session. Have you got a reality on that these days? Yeah, well! All right.

So you list just to free needle. You don’t list beyond free needle on each one of the lists.

It's the withhold missed that louses up the session, see. Now, what if a pc took responsibility for never getting any off? If you could push a pc into a point where he would make a postulate that he would never get off his withholds, you'll get an ARC break that no rudiments could undo. And I don't even know if a process would undo it, because, of course, it ties right straight into the GPM — just like that. Nothing would go straighter to the heart of anything. It'd just key in all those basic purposes, you see? Not that they're responsibility for withholding But they are certainly responsibility for an action of one kind or another. So when he takes responsibility for the highest button in the bank — withholding — why of course, wow! Do you see why?

My, you know, I’ll tell you this on the side, it’s a great relief to be able to talk to you about what you do with a free needle.

Now, if you were to try to run a pc on this, "What withholdingness have you taken responsibility for?" I guarantee that you would get more somatics per square unit of pc than he ever thought existed. Because you're trying to run the GPM out from the topside down.

So anyway, it’s a little merry-go-round and you keep going around: one, two, three, four; one, two, three, four; one, two, three, four – like a well-ordered engine. And it batters down the gates of Jericho like a bang so there’s nothing much to handling it, providing you are listing the right lines and you kept your rudiments in when you did so.

Now, I'm still talking about Model Session, so the final question of Model Session is under — on withholds, is under test at this time. I'm trying to find out, before we finalize any versions, whether or not you could ask anything that would undo the possibility that the pc had postulated that he wasn't going to tell you anything or talk to you in that session. It would be "Have you taken responsibility for any withholds?" Well, that doesn't do it of course. "Have you taken responsibility for not talking to me?" That might. And so forth.

Now, toward the end, you will find that getting the middle rudiments in every time you list one item gets to be just a little bit of a strain, and more tends to throw the pc out of session than in. So I would only get them in as I went around each time there was a beefy line listing going on or you did fifteen items or you did ten items or you did something like that. Now get the middle rudiments in. And now you’ve got two and that only took one or two items each, and then the third one, it took ten items. Well, get your middle rudiments in against the ten. Do you see? And you’ll find out you’ll make more progress. Otherwise than that, early on in listing, you run it every time you have finished a list – see, every time you’ve stopped listing on this.

Well, I've got to thrash through the woods and the saurian forests and the deep bituminous zinc pits and get this one properly nailed down and so forth. That's why you don't have a final version of Model Session, complete.

Now, the reason a pc stops listing is because the pc has some middle rudiment out – just mark that up. That is the only reason a pc stops listing, whether he’s listing a goal or he’s listing any kind of a line proceeding from a goal – only one reason, is the middle rudiments are out.

But I have found a button which is in excess of all other buttons. There couldn't be any button senior to it. 3GA is clearing people, you see. We're sitting there. The only indicated theory that explains this phenomena, locks up with this particular question. We already got a reality on what happens when these things do get collided one with another and it is quite cataclysmic. It is undone with the greatest of ease by 3GA. Maybe the rudiment process in the end rudiments for the final responsibility for the withhold question, whatever that works out, of course is: Do 3GA, you know?

A pc, however, can accumulate sufficient residual charge on the subject between sessions, and so on, that the middle rudiments have to be prepchecked to get it all swept in. So you could perhaps find that the fourth session after your Prepcheck – your last Prepcheck of the middle ruds – ran more arduously than the one that ran immediately after the Prepcheck session.

I've got to work on this a little bit farther and find out if there is anything there that can be done which would wipe out any possibility of the pc doing such an idiotic thing as to deciding never to talk to the auditor again or something like that during the session. Because that would be the only thing that could keep him in a permanent ARC break. And I swear to you there'd be no process under the sun, moon or stars could budge it. Because it locks right straight down against the GPM. It's absolutely bang, bang! It is.

But listing stops, and – take it from me, it’s absolutely true – it only stops when the middle rudiments are out. It does not stop because the pc is out of items. It doesn’t stop for any other reason. You could probably force a pc with middle rudiments to list a thousand items on a single one of these lines. The fantastic imbalance which this would cause in a bank would be absolutely frightful. But you could use middle rudiments to make him list quite happily on all thousand before you touched the other three. If you did such a thing, you ought to be shot, but I’m just showing you the extent of the middle rudiments in assisting listing.

The reason why you get occluded childhood, probably, is the number of times you decided you weren't going to communicate. And took full responsibility for not doing so. "I'm never going to talk to you again! I hate you! You're a beast!" Yeah. That kind of thing That locks right straight in on the GPM, bang.

Never get the idea that the pc has run out of items. Never get the idea that this is a „Oh well, naturally, he can’t think of any more,“ and so forth. This is not true. He hasn’t thought of a single one since you started auditing him. He hasn’t! He hasn’t thought of a single item. Pcs don’t think of items – they deal them off the bank. If he had no more items to deal off, he would have no GPM! So obviously, he stops listing only when the middle rudiments have gone out and he, therefore, can’t get into communication. Do you see?

All right, enough for that. I'm just forecasting technology there. There's nothing extraordinary about that; it's just another mechanism of the alter-is of the bank — responsibility for. All this alter-is exists on the total responsibility the pc has taken for a basic postulate. And if he's entered such a basic postulate into the session, as would actually make a goal, you could hang the session up, see, on top of the GPM. So that this particular session is now part of the GPM. He's run a GPM session.

Now, what do you do after you have brought one goal and four lists down to a free needle on each list? That is the end of your first stage. In earlier days you would have called this a Clear and gone around and patted everybody on the back. Well, we’ll still call it a Clear, why not? Because we have – we can say a stable Clear; we can say a Theta Clear; we can say other states of case, don’t you see? That guy is sure Clear. You can clear up his needle almost any time by cleaning up the middle ruds on the goal or something, see, or on lines or on life or something You can always get your free needle back. He wakes up in the morning; he finds out that he’s at 3.24 constantly or do a little Prepcheck, and you can get that out of the road, and he 11 happily wake up every morning dead-on at 3.0. Do a fish and fumble for fifteen minutes – you could probably accomplish that, you see? Ten minutes, eight minutes.

Now, the possibilities of this happening if you use the textbook solution are quite, quite remote. But, it could happen.

So your listing is auditing and is done as the sole operation of auditing

All right, let's look a little further now. Existing technology, changes in: Nyet. I've just been waiting around and shifting around and working like a beaver trying to get a clearing process that applied to all cases. Everybody run with any degree of expertness, high technical accuracy, yes.

Now, you want to watch your acknowledgment in listing This is another little tip. The fellow says, „A grizzly bear, a lion, a wolf, a – something-other, so on.“ Well, now, of course, the fact you’re writing these things down is an acknowledgment all by itself. That’s quite an acknowledgment. But you keep up a little humming song of „Mm-hm,“ and let me tell you, you will be a lot, lot better off than: He says, „A lion,“ you say, „Thank you!“

But, anyone who has been run with expertness on 3GA and some that have been run remotely from here with no more than bulletin data, have gone Clear. 3GA is not laying any eggs that are not very easily explained or straightened out by just straightening out the technology.

Well, that’s the end of that, man. The guy – sits back and – what happened? You’re not now going to get the next two items until you get the middle rudiments in. It’s operated as an invalidation; you ended cycle. Of course, end of cycle is the end of the list. So listing is sort of on the basis of he says, „A lion, a catfish, a grizzly bear, a wolf.“ And the auditor each time is saying – or as often as he gets around to it – saying, „Mm-hm. Any more? All right.“ Saying, „Mm-hm. Got that. All right. Thank you,“ and so on. He’s just going on.

So you heard so often that we're there and all of that sort of thing But I think you have also heard that, yeah, we're clearing people, but the percentage is damn lousy. I think you've heard that. Well, the reason why I wasn't concentrating in this particular line, during the past year, concentrating on old clearing techniques — one of the reasons you were getting chained all the time — is I was trying to move over into the category of all cases Clear, see. Clearing is no good to you or anybody else unless it — you can make a full sweep, you see.

Now, an auditor doing listing very often feels so much like a secretary obeying the boss that they lose control of the session. I’ve noticed this as a phenomenon. They get so willing to be inflowed on that they don’t control the session and that is the first great auditing error in listing You just keep writing and you never do anything else and the next darn thing you know the pc is out from under, all the rudiments are out – not just the middle rudiments – and, you’ve got hell to pay. So, when you’ve stopped listing you give him a good acknowledgment – not to blow him out of the chair or something like that – but, you give him a good acknowledgment and say, „Now we’re going to do the middle rudiments.“ And you go ahead and do the middle rudiments in a very brisk fashion.

It can't be that Joan and Bill and Isabel can be cleared, but, Mr. Snodgrass and so forth, hell never make it. you just get consistent randomity of various characters.

Now, in listing, you peculiarly must look much more like an auditor at the time you are doing rudiments and middle rudiments than you would in a Prepcheck session. You must really look like an auditor when you were doing these things because you’ve so little looked like an auditor before then. There you are, scribbling away and saying, „Mm-hm, mm-hm, yes, mm-hm, fine,“ and you write, and you write and paper and trying to catch up. And the pc sees he’s got sweat streaming off your brow. He sort of slows down, and we see that we have two pages here now – we’ve listed two pages on everything else so that sounds good. So we say, „All right. Now we’re going to do some middle rudiments.“ And right about that moment, you fix him with your beady eye, you know? And man you really do those middle rudiments.

Well, 3GA apparently — and this is without any real reservation — I — everywhere it is — I just put "apparently" in because it's fashionable — 3GA has been taking every case apart that it was intelligently addressed to. Where the textbook solution of technology was applied to the case and the technique was 3GA, we got coming out the other end of the line some results. Now, of course, we had to know a little bit more about this and about that. But one learns that from what can an auditor do wrong And what are they doing wrong at this particular time with this particular technology. And you keep that corrected up rather than shifting the basic technology.

Now, „In this session is there anything you have suppressed? Invalidated? Failed to reveal? Yes? What have you failed to reveal? Hmmm. All right, good. I’ll check that on the meter. In this session is there anything you have failed to reveal? Good.“ Get that clean – clean as a wolf’s tooth – finish it up. you say, „All right. Now we’re going back to listing.“ Put in the R-factor and you read off your next line – read it off as a good auditing command. That’s really the last auditing command you’re going to give him till you’ve listed two pages. Don’t you see? You’re going to read it to him occasionally, going to remind him of it.

Now, I gave you a talk just last Tuesday on how you do a Goals Assessment and so on. Now, that talk pointed up and summarized it. That's the first actual release of 3GA, the first bulletin on 3GA is sitting on my desk half-written at this moment — as formal release, see. The only things I was curious about and more or less were those things which were standing in people's road. I mean I was still working on these points, trying to ask these questions and get intelligent answers.

Your first one is, „Who or what would not oppose catching catfish?“

How many should a goals list consist of, you know? Do — can you completely discharge a goals list? Is there such a thing as a complete goals list? Yes, there is and about how long would it be? Well, I can't tell you how long it would be, but I can tell you how short it must not be. It must not be shorter than 850, see. Might be longer than that. And probably the proper question on it is — you said today — is, "Is this goals list complete?" not "Are there any more goals?" And this sort of thing, however, is . . . It's obvious that if you haven't got a goal that you can get a goal. We've never failed to find a goal on somebody. But what's the easy way of finding the goal? That's been the main question.

And he says, „a grizzly bear,“ and so forth. And he – you go ahead and you write „Mm-hm, mm-hm, mm-hm, fine, fine, fine.“ Your actual acknowledgment is when you’ve finished listing for that list. Then you give him the cheery, „Thank you“ and you’ve got to take over control of the session again.

Soon as this got broadly workable, I could understand more about the GPM and see a new method of tearing the GPM to pieces. And then I found out where the GPM went, so that's that. The GPM will go poof! And that's that. There is no GPM after you finish off this type of activity.

It’s one of these awfully long auditing answers. You see, „who or what“ are not singular. You consider them as a plural auditing request. And if you consider it as a plurality of auditing request, then you’re not always getting in his road by saying – he’s saying, „A grizzly bear, a lion, a – a – a – a wolf,“ and – and right about the time he said, „a grizzly bear,“ you see, you said, „Thank you. Now, who or what would not oppose catching catfish?’’ What are you doing burning up time, man? He knows what he’s talking about. He hasn’t lost the auditing command, see? What are you doing getting in his road?

Now, how many — how many goals do you have to list out? Well, I haven't demanded anything more than 3G — of 3GA at this particular stage of the game, than that it did bring the pc, by listing, down to a free needle. Because I know by experience that if you can bring a pc down to a free needle, you could find another goal and bring him down to a free needle. We've done this lots of times, see.

Well, he sort of runs down and you know you got to make two pages on this sprint. See? He sort of runs down and you say, „All right. Now, who or what would want – would not oppose catching catfish?“ See? „Got some more there?“ See, and go on running, and he thinks about it and so forth, and he’ll get some more. Now, supposing – supposing you had a – you had a goal set and you actually – yourself – and you had to get two pages out of this pc. How are you going to get the two pages out? Well, it’s by throwing the middle rudiments in when he just refuses to go on. Well, he says, „That’s all I can think of.“ Well, you see he hasn’t thought of any anyhow. So you get the – you get the middle rudiments in. And also get them in when you have finished the list. you see? So that’s the additional use. you must get them in when you have stopped listing a list of any length, you see? You must get them in, but you coax him into additional listing by getting them in when he stops.

And you can keep doing this and I also know now if the GPM entirely disappeared, how to get it back again. I can always get a GPM back. I know about — oh, I know lots of ways. I know lots of ways. Let a psychologist question the fellow, I mean. So his needle is clear. So his needle is gorgeously clear and so on. It's free and floating and he's only had one goal listed. How are you going to find some more GPMs to list, see? Uhh! Well, it's gone, you know? You can't get any tick on a goals list or something like that. Aw, I could fix that pretty easy, long as there's any GPM there, why — and so on.

He’s sitting there and he’s saying, „Ah, mmmm, hrrrr, I just can’t think of any more. I mean, it’s all too dreadful.“

I'll give you a method of doing so. This shows you how corny this could be and so forth. "Did you ever want to do anything you couldn't? Thank you, that's it." All right, just write that down as a goal and insist on auditing it for a few seconds and the GPM will be in. And then prepcheck it and run out the suddenness of it. But you'll have a GPM to audit.

And you’ve got two pages to go and you’ve only done one. you see? So you better roll up your sleeve and you say, „All right. Well, thank you.“ See? And,

Obviously, if the fellow can still give you a spot purpose that he couldn't do, you still have a piece of lock on the GPM, you see. So you could just pull that in so that you could do enough with it so the fellow would take off and you get a registry on the meter again. That's horseplay — what I'm talking to you about — because I don't think you'll run into this particular problem. But even if you did run into it, you could solve it.

„Now let’s get some middle rudiments in before we go on listing on this list.“ You get the reality factor in there, see? Never let him think you’re going over to some other list. Get them in, square them up, find out what it was, and he’ll come back up, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. You see? You got your two pages. You say, „All right, that’s it. We hit our quota here. Thank you very much. All right. We got that now – thank you. Good. Thank you. Thank you!“ He’s now going to run four pages on you, don’t you see?

Now, on the problems of listing, these are very simple problems. The only real dangers and the only thing that a graduate of Saint Hill should be very careful about, is just kick the living teeth in of any untrained, unschooled auditor who is trying to use 3GA. Just bat their brains in mercilessly. Just tear off their thetan and send it in for a box of shredded wheat, see. Because let me tell you, that could get a pc into more trouble than you can easily dig him out of.

You say, „All right. We’re going to do some middle rudiments here before we go on to the next list. All right? Good! Good. All right.“ And go ahead and do so.

Now, 3GA solves 3GA. That's how you know you're there, see. you run a 3GA wrong, why, you do more 3GA to run it right. Now, it's a peculiarity of problems in this universe and the mind and a lot of other things, that a prime solution runs out errors to itself. See, that is the test of a prime solution. You make an error with this solution and then it corrects the error. So therefore it isn't a cure. That tells you it is not a cure. So 3GA is the first thing we have that isn't a cure. 3GA is not a cure. A cure does something about a prior problem. 3GA doesn't do anything about a prior problem. 3GA operates on the prime — the prime postulate. There can't be anything ahead of a prime postulate. It wouldn't even register as a goal if it weren't a prime postulate in some section of track. So it isn't solving anything. Oddly enough it solves nothing But it puts the person into a situation where he doesn't have to be solved. This is very tricky. But you'd find out if you were discussing this with a Catholic priest or a mathematician or something of that nature, but they would tell you that the Prime Mover Unmoved is the only thing that can resolve the Prime Mover Unmoved. That's right, you see, it's perfectly true. It's a mathematical fact, you see. The only thing that divides seven is seven, you know, that kind of thing. And you've got one of those things in 3GA.

Pc takes handling on lists. And you sit there as an animated wound-up stenographer, see, you’re going to have a bad time. You’ve got to control that session. But the liability of a listing session is, you look like you’re so little in control when you’re writing the thing, but of course you, in resumption of control you have to do with a little more power than you would ordinarily do so.

But somebody using — it isn't so dangerous that you as an auditor cannot undo the damage done, providing the person's still alive, see. you could undo it. But you can really wind somebody up in a ball, you know? Some other — some corny auditing and auditing over the top of missed withholds and messing it up and finding the wrong goal — as they inevitably would — listing the thing.

But it’s all very delicate and it’s very easy to smash these items down; it’s very easy to glum it up one way or the other. Now, if you fake one item – just like listing a goals list – if you fake one, you know very well you may never null these things; you probably never will. And supposing you say, „Because we’re never going to null these things, it doesn’t matter whether I understood did he say ‘a wolf’ or ‘a wuff’?“ You’ve entered a missed withhold into the session and it’s going to blow up. So you have to ask him right then when you missed it, „I didn’t get that. Did you say, ‘a wolf’?“

The reason I say this is because I've never seen right goals found broadly. The number of wrong goals I've seen found in the field is terrific. That's too many. I know some of you blame yourselves occasionally for having found wrong goals or maybe something of this sort.

„No,“ he said, „I said ‘a wuff.“’

Well, you'll find wrong goals until you go at it in a — in a perfect textbook method and with a total Prepcheck and there's too many things can make a goal apparently stay in, don't you see? And you get a supercharged list that you haven't exhausted any of the charge out of it is, you've got a goals list of fifteen. Well, the charge is liable to go around and round on this fifteen, you see — and things are liable to shift one way or the other. You can get a goal that reacted all right, but it's much more likely just reacting because the whole subject of goals is charged than because it's the goal.

You say, «A wuff? What’s a wuff?“ See, remember. Remember – TR 2. „What’s a wuff?“

Now, you list that thing and it's going to beef up the bank. It'll beef up the bank worse than any creative process we have ever had. It is pure agony. You run — of course you start running an alter-is, you see, and what are you going to get? You're going to get alter-is. Well, mass is alter-is. So, of course, the longer you run it, the more mass in the mind you're going to get. So, some character is going to be very insouciant and he's going to — he's going to know how to audit there. He got an E-Meter — he had it built — he got a couple of pipe wrenches and hooked them up somehow. And — he's really going to go to town. And he can — he can find somebody's goal all right because he knows what the pc's goal is already. As a matter of fact, he tells him, in fact. And what do you know! You know that goal will react after that? Marvelous. But it'll go right on reacting.

„Well, a wuff’s a wuff. Well, they’re big, boundy things that – they’re big, boundy things, you know, and they have hair all over them. And some – oh, they were on some other planet around here!“

And you, if you didn't know Prepchecking could actually touch that goal and you'd find out it was in. "To be an old witch," you see, or something like this. It doesn't even have to be an insulting goal. "Oh, well, I see here you've got 'old' appearing on your goals list a lot of times, and so forth. And you often talk about witches, so therefore I can see here plainly that your goal is to be an old witch. All right, to be an old witch." Tick. "To be an old witch." Tick. "To be an old witch." Tick, you see?

„Oh, a kind of animal on another planet. Is that it?“

A fellow who didn't know his business could actually come along afterwards and say, "What's — " to the pc, "What's your goal?" and he said, "To be an old witch." And it would go tick-tick-tick-tick. Marvelous! Look just like a goal. you prepcheck the thing, it goes ppfff. See? Because it's been suggested to the pc and the misowningness of it has made it seize up into the GPM, you see? Wrong ownership causes it to read. you can always make a goal read.

„Oh, yeah,“ he said. „A wuff“

Now, if you take that goal and you list it, the mass in the bank is going to increase and increase and increase and the pc's going to feel worse and worse and worse and be more and more unhappy and unhappy and unhappy. That's why you must only handle a valid goal and why you mustn't let people who are not qualified monkey with this stuff.

„Oh-ho!“ you say. „Well, good. Good.“ And you write it down.

Now, furthermore, a person who is briefly trained and so forth, may be able to put forth a fair technical show and so forth. Well, let's say he's had a PE Course and been on a co-audit, you know and — something like that — and he's going to find himself a goal. Well man, he can do it. you see, he can find himself a goal. He can find himself almost any kind of a goal he wants. And he can list it. The next thing you know the pc's eyes are sticking out about an inch and a half from underneath his lids, or sunk back an inch and a half into the skull or something like this, see. He's getting nauseated and he's dizzy and so forth. And then somebody — this fellow reads in a book and well, "The process that turned it on will turn it off." So he goes on listing it.

But you just let it go on the basis of „Mm-hm, I’m just going to fake it in,“ you know? And the next thing you know he’s slowing down and you’re slowing down, and your auditing is tiring you out, and you don’t know whether you’re going or coming.

So, you're dealing — you're dealing in a sphere where you have exceeded old Class I processes, of which this is totally true. you could louse somebody up with this done wrong You can find the goal, prove it out, he'd list it, you see, and the pc caves in. Well, why is that? Must be Scientology doesn't work.

Now, keep your R-factor in but also keep those missed withholds off the auditor, huh? TR 2 says that you understand. And he gives you a bunch of porridge and you don’t know where to pour it. you better find out, man! He sounds quite – quite – quite raspy sometimes. He’ll sound quite snarly to you sometime. „What are you – idiot? What’s the matter with you? You don’t know what a wuff is? You know? A wuff! You know? A wuff! A wuff! A wuff! A wuff! A wuff!“

So anyhow, there is your — there is your limit of use. The people who are not adequately trained to do this sort of thing shouldn't be using it, that's all. Some Academy might try to teach this to new HPAs or something like that, you see. Nah. NQ They haven't been in the saddle long enough. That's about what it amounts to, they don't appreciate anything that goes on, they wouldn't be enough on the ball. They couldn't catch it that quick. They'd still be fumbling with the sensitivity knob which they never got checked out, you know?

Well, the reason he’s acting like this is because he thinks he – you have a missed withhold. That’s the only reason the asperity, and as soon as you eventually get it, if you really do get it – the apparency of the missed withhold disappears and that makes it all right, see? The thing to do wrong at that time is not to get it. you want to know what a wuff is; he can tell you what a wuff is. Of course, it really doesn’t matter to a hill of beans whether – factually, whether you get that it’s a wuff or a wolf or a what, because you’re never going back over it again, except if you didn’t understand it. And a falsity enters into the session there which can crash the whole session, you see?

So anyway, actually, we are at a position now where all we've got to do is kick up the general grade of auditing. And you speak of training — should a Saint Hill graduate train? Yes, by all means. Don't however run a four, five, six, eight-week course someplace and call it a Class II Course and have some people on it and that sort of thing. Don't do that kind of training.

Next thing you know you don’t like auditing this pc. Your hand gets so tired when you write. There’ll be all kinds of things like this. It’s just missed withholds; you didn’t know what the hell the pc was talking about. You were missing them, then the pc gets sensitive to these things, you know? And then it enters into the tone of your voice. And next thing you know, his session is going out, and he doesn’t feel like listing, and you can’t keep the middle rudiments in, and God help us all.

Rather, get some people — I don't care if they pay you or don't pay you. Say, "Yeah, I'll bring you up to scruff. Yeah, I'll make something out of you." And run them through checksheets and classes or anything you care to over a period of time, until they can audit, don't you see? I'm talking about oldtime auditors, bringing them up the stuff and so on. That's what I mean when I say a Saint Hill graduate should train.

Keep your R-factor up and for God’s sakes understand what the pc is saying before you go on. Very, very important.

As far as somebody going on a full-time course is concerned it takes today a considerable staff and a lot of administrative organization to handle this thing and you would wind up the loser if you tried to handle something like that. Oh, yeah, by all means say, "All right, I'm running a bit of a center here. you want to be an apprentice to this activity, all right. I'll require — when you are finally fully trained — I will require a thousand hours of auditing of you — of pcs of my selection and collection." I don't care what you do. But, oh, yeah, by all means train them up — apprentices — train them up, any way you want to. See, your training to a large degree would be lost if you didn't do such a thing.

Now, you look over the lists quite routinely, count them up; make sure they’re in parity; do good administration on the thing; make it so these things can be looked over and so on. one of the things you do with a list or one of the things you will notice about a list, is when an actual goal is being listed out that the items will transfer over from list to list. And it almost is a test that when an item has been on all four lists, why, that’s about the way it is. It’s very funny, but I mean, the item will transfer.

As far as putting in a formal Class II type of course is concerned, saying "You come here for five weeks," and that sort — nah. Aber nicht. Bum show. You haven't the equipment or anything else to do so. You'll get a lot of people upset with you and so on.

„Officer.“ „An officer is something that would want to catch catfish,“ and then „An officer is something that would not want to catch catfish,“ and then „An officer is something that would oppose catching catfish,“ and then „An officer is something that would not oppose catching catfish.“ As idiotic as it may seem, he’s even thinking of a game warden, you know? He would not oppose catching catfish. By this time, it’s gone the full route, and all four flows are discharged off the item, and the item is fully discharged against other items and it lies null. So you find the whole list tears on through this.

Way to do it, say, "Well, if you want to hang around for the next two years and contribute a thousand pounds to the center, why, we'll make you an auditor at the other end of the line." I don't care what you tell them. But it must be on the basis of, "You've got to stick around long enough till you can do it and you abide by whether I tell you, you can do it or not. you understand?" That would be the end of that.

Pc is trying to do this or is trying to strain at it or something like that – he will soon fall wise to the whole thing.

Now, in an Academy — would run a retread course on a grind-grind daytime basis — remember that it is not qualified to issue a classification. It can say it's a Class II Course, but it doesn't make a Class II Auditor.

Well, now, that is listing. After listing is completed, find yourself a new goal. I wish I could tell you how many goals there should be on the new list for – to find the new goal. I can’t at this particular time. However, I can make a very good forecast founded on very accurate information that the list would only be about half as long and that the length of time it would take to find it is briefer and the amount of items it would take to list it out are less and you get – as we already have had ample experience of in Routine 3s – you get a dwindling quantity of everything. And eventually you can’t get anything and nothing will stay in and so forth, and you hit the pc on the rim and he rings for an hour.

This is the regulations along the line. Yes, by all means, train some people. I used to train auditors on this basis myself. I'd go downstairs to eat breakfast and so on . . . We're actually back in the old swing of 42 Aberdeen Road, practically, now. Want to say goodnight to the children, I'd have to go — I go outside where they're sitting talking to an auditor — you know, call them in — tell them good night. They — this is — this is usual and ordinary.

You should, with this particular thing, wind up at the other end of the line with a – with a Theta Clear. Now, it’s also my guess that on most pcs you will eventually find a type of goal that you find in the basics of Scientology. These things will register – suddenly register. Why didn’t they register before? Is there one basic goal for all pcs? Oh, yes! But they daren’t reach it and it’s not real.

You shouldn't, however, mess yourself up to this extent: of let them audit pcs for you before — they don't know what they're doing Because you will very quickly learn this lesson yourself. Actually there's no reason for my telling you this at this particular stage of the game. You'd find it out for yourself. You'd learn fast. People will be on the phone two and three o'clock in the morning, the police would be coming up from the morgue, to find out — to identify . . . Be a cheerful scene.

You want the goal that registers now – not the perfect goal – because they eventually get back earlier and earlier and earlier and earlier on the track and they will eventually run into prime, prime, prime (exclamation point) postulate, which sweeps all before it. you will see then that there’s a broader generality going into this thing and its regular progress back on the track. Different areas are being tapped; different subject matter being hit.

Some of you may have seen the code of ethics of the National Academy of American Psychology cooked up by us. you might have seen that, you know. "Must be willing to accept the treatment they dish out." you know, and — did you ever see those?

What happens to the GPM as it is being listed? Actually, the repetition of items gets the discharge off of the basic postulate which you call a goal. And the definition of a goal is: a basic postulate for whom the individual has taken full responsibility. Therefore, as that tends to be discharged – that is to say, the items (bricks built up on that postulate) – tend to not resist the postulate anymore, the postulate itself runs out. And because it is the only brick that is keeping the house built, you don’t get the house falling down – this is not the result of it.

Audience: Mm-mm. Yes.

You don’t get the house being blown away and moved over into the next county; you don’t get the house being disintegrated or sold as scrap. It’s just, oddly enough, the house diminishes and diminishes, and the bricks get thinner and thinner, and you eventually have a no-brick, no-basement, no-first-floor, no-roof, no-chimney edifice. The pc is now sitting there with all the experience accumulated on the line and none of the mass, because there’s no alter-is connected with it.

Well, we're thinking of calling this a convention. A convention of ethics. The convention of ethics of international healing, you see, so that we have the World Mental Health Organization. Now, this is the only — the only horrible plot, this, in the very near future. We incorporate this thing in Switzerland, see. And it's the World Mental Health Organization. And its literature cannot be told from the World Health Organization, you see. And we have — we have credentials which we issue to people who subscribe to the convention of international healing ethics, you see. And we give them a certificate they can hang on the wall.

There’s no way known to man or beast to get a prime postulate back earlier than his experience. So of course he’s had it. you say, „How stable is a Clear?“ A Clear is stable as you’re unable to put a prime postulate ahead of the whole track again. See, that’s how stable a Clear is. And of course you can’t do it.

Well, it has various things like not curing people they can't help, you know, all these various embarrassing points. Returning people's money if they don't help them. you know, the very things that these clucks out there would never dream of approaching, you know? Guy can't give a prefrontal lobotomy by it, unless he's had one, you know? So anyway, this is — this is this sort of thing.

Now, that doesn’t say that you couldn’t get the pc sitting there gritting his teeth making a new prime postulate and going out and fighting the whole world to make that postulate stick and not have him accumulate a GPM – in another two hundred million years he’d have something to show for a GPM. He’d be in rather serious trouble, let us say, in fifteen or twenty trillion. He’d be having a rough time of it in another – another hundred trillion from now. And two hundred trillion, well, he’d be in the same condition you were when you came into Scientology.

Now, this doesn't go out on a common line at all; what we do is . . . This is just a mock-up. This might not come to view, you see, but we're going to try to push it in that direction. And that is we appoint people around the world — inspectors for the World Mental Health Organization. And they have a card that identifies them perfectly, you see — a perfectly fine card — and they have a questionnaire. They have several types of questionnaire, one is for a doctor's office, one is for a psychiatric office, one is for a psychology department of a university. One is for a mental hospital, one is for a regular hospital. And sometime when you want a lot of laughs, you see, why you take your card down and you see — you see Doctor Cutsbin. And you simply walk in, you hand him this and it announces that you're an inspector for the World Mental Health Organization.

All right. Well, that is listing and that is what is done with it and I wanted you to get all the data I had on it. Probably more data will come up, but not all the mistakes have been made yet, so I can’t settle them out.

Now, that's a perfectly valid organization, don't you see? And we actually are the only world mental health organization there is, so this — you want to fill out this form. you want to know about his results. And you want to know about his technology and his facilities and his credentials. And you just fill out a form representing those various things. And it's in triplicate and you send one to the minister of health, of the government of the country you're in, as "failed." "Failed and forwarded to the International Headquarters in Switzerland." And the other thing — you simply send it to his superiors, whoever they are, board of trustees of the hospital, don't you see. And the other one of course you send to Switzerland. It's very interesting Saturday morning's work when you're walking around someplace.

Thank you very much.

Think of going into a mental hospital and presenting a card to inspect their results and their facilities and their technology, you know, and their ethics and credentials. Think of this, man. You'll be surprised. It's not just a gag, because I think the right to inspect gives the right to command. And it's your first gradient scale step over taking control. All you do is inspect. But you tell the — you're very pleasant, you see, while you're in such an interview. Very pleasant about the whole thing He protests, "Oh, you people. I've heard about you people. You're a bunch of quacks and.... "

Good night!

"Yes that's fine. 'Opinion of World Mental Health Organization — bunch of quacks and bums,' that's fine."

Yeah, you can have a lot of fun with that. Anyway, you'd be surprised. They'd actually get all whipped up about this sort of thing. Inspect the Department of Psychology of Natal University. Of course, obviously they haven't anybody there who is qualified to teach anything about the human mind. Nobody's graduated from the Academy of Scientology in Johannesburg — they haven't got one in the place. You put it down as a serious omission. Numerous false credentials in the area. It would be a lot of fun.

Well, actually you don't have to do it at all. But very often you have PE Courses and you have people coming in asking you what they can do. So you appoint them as inspectors. Yeah, I think — I think there'd be a lot of red faces, wouldn't there?

But I think the right to inspect is something that you can simply create by assumption. And I think it's a gradient step on the right to command. You're actually going to get people worried about this. See, they'll be worried about you.

Now, it might work out that one copy goes to the newspaper, you see — one copy goes to the minister of health of the country and the other copy goes here. We'll work out these little details later. But I can — I can hear the scream now, from the Sunday-Monday line clear around to the SundayMonday line, you see. Campaigns on the floor of the United Nations that we have abrogated their authority, so forth. It's all good publicity. Nobody can do anything to you at all for inspecting

Newspapers could become very worried that they had a hospital in the place that was not qualified, that was not staffed by qualified practitioners and that killed patients. And had been condemned by the World Mental Health Organization. "Spinbin Lawn Hospital condemned by World Mental Health Organization." "Doctor Cutsbin declared to have inadequate training and credentials." "Quack Doctor commands hospital."

Maybe we'll have a rightist press that will be as enthusiastic someday as the leftist press. Not that we're right or left.

Actually, you know — you know politically where we stand. We're so far to the left that we sometimes look right.

If a communist ever asks you where you stand politically, the way to worry him — the way to worry him, is to come down on him with all four feet — by wanting a government. And he'll look at you and he'll know exactly what speech to give you. He'll pull it right out of the file. It's "how you deal with an anarchist." And he'll say, "The valuable parts of governments, governments serve a useful purpose." See, and he'll try to argue you into — not revolution, but how you have to have a government, so forth. And I don't think very many of us would buy that. But we're actually so far to the left we sometimes look to the right. We actually are not on the spectrum at all.

But where it comes to reasonableness, you can't be sensible on this planet at this particular time and belong anyplace on the spectrum of government politics.

Okay, well, having given you a few words of cheer and forecast, why we declare it closed.

Thank you.

Audience: Thank you.