This is the first routine to make Dynamic Clears. Earlier Clears were cleared on only one or two dynamics. Such selectivity also resulted in clearing procedures not working all the way to clear on a large number of cases.
On receipt of this preview of Routine 3D transfer any case you are assessing or running over to this routine at once. Do not bother to end off unflat processes from Routine 3 or Routine 3A. On all persons already cleared go back through this routine completely with them. You may use the first valid checked out goal located on the person to start in all cases. Beyond that use no other material. Naturally those persons who have been audited on a goals terminal or who have had considerable auditing or who have been cleared will go much faster because of that.
You will find that it will be more rapid to do this procedure in full on any person than to complete any existing activity.
There are several new words in this routine. They are obvious in meaning.
After I discovered Modifiers I immediately went on to ease the difficulty auditors were having in finding them. And I found many additional shortcuts to clearing in general.
The skills necessary to use Routine 3D are the same as those needed to run Routine 3 with the addition that there is more assessing. Rapidity and extreme accuracy of assessment are mandatory in using Routine 3D. The selection of a wrong goal, terminal, modifier, opposition or counter-postulate and forcing it off on the preclear and running it can do considerable damage to a case. Any such damage can be remedied by going back over the whole thing and finding the correct item. If a wrong one has been found and used the Pre-Hav Scale will show an increasing number of levels active on each successive assessment. I would prefer that only auditors trained and graduated at Saint Hill use Routine 3D. It is very fast but it demands deadly accuracy.
On the first test assessment in full after the goal had been more or less spotted but not checked, a full first assessment on all parts of Routine 3D required five and a half hours including getting rudiments in, keeping them in and final assessment on the Pre-Hav Scale. This will not be found to be how much time it will averagely take. But is remarked to show that speed of assessment has nothing to do with accuracy of assessment.
The hardest part of Routine 3D is finding the first goal. After that the parts of Routine 3D are so plotted as to make easy completion.
The theory back of Routine 3D is that a goal has the anatomy of a problem and is not only postulate counter-postulate but also terminal counter-terminal.
NO MATTER WHAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY FOUND ON THE PRECLEAR OR CLEAR AFTER THE FIRST GOAL (without Modifier) USE ONLY THE ITEMS TURNED UP BY ROUTINE 3D AS FAR MORE RAPID AND SHORT- CUT THAN ANY DATA FOUND ON THE CASE PREVIOUSLY. DO NOT LOCATE THE ITEMS IN ANY DIFFERENT ORDER THAN THAT GIVEN ON THE FOLLOWING STEP
LIST. DO NOT FILL IN THE STEP LIST WITH DATA FROM EARLIER ASSESSMENTS. USF. ONLY 3D DISCOVERED DATA.
EACH TIME AN ITEM IS FOUND IT WILL BE DISCOVERED TO HAVE THE SAME NEEDLE PATTERN AS THE LAST ITEM. ALL PARTS FOUND WILL HAVE THE SAME NEEDLE PATTERN THROUGHOUT. THIS IS FOR CHECKING BY THE AUDITOR ONLY. IF SOME PART HAS A DIFFERENT NEEDLE PATTERN THAN THE ORIGINAL GOAL IT IS WRONG.
ALL PARTS OF ROUTINE 3D SHOULD BE CHECKED OUT BEFORE BEING RUN.
USE SEPARATE SHEETS OF PAPER. NUMBER EACH SHEET SO USED WITH THE SECTION NUMBER OF THE FOLLOWING. WHEN THE ITEM BEING ASSESSED HAS BEEN PROVED OUT WRITE IT ON THIS SHEET. DO NOT DESTROY ANY OF YOUR EXCESS SHEETS BUT STAPLE THEM TO THIS SHEET WHEN COMPLETE. ALL ASSESSMENTS LISTS AND RESULTS FOR ANY ONE PC MUST BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED TO PROVIDE FOR RECHECK IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG.
PC’S NAME __________ AUDITOR __________
DATE __________ LOCATION __________
1. GOALS ASSESSMENT. (Make sure that any goal found and used is something the pc has really wanted to do, not a difficulty or something that came in a dream.)
a. Write or have pc write a complete list of goals.
b. Add to the list by meter any secret or additional goals the pc may have. Add to list any time pc adds another goal during assessment.
c. Get rudiments in well before and during assessment.
d. Assess goals list by elimination.
PC’S GOAL __________
Checked out by __________
2. OPPOSITION ASSESSMENT.
a. Ask pc “Who or what would oppose that goal?” and carefully list every reply.
b. Add to list by meter any additional opposition terminals.
c. Get rudiments in well before and during assessment.
d. Assess opposition list by assessment by elimination.
OPPOSITION TERMINAL __________
Checked out by __________
3. OPPOSITION GOAL.
a. Ask pc “What would be a ______(Opposition Terminal above)______’s goals that would be in opposition to (pc’s goal)______?” You want to know what ideas the opposition would have that would directly counter the pc’s goal. This must be in the form of a sort of goal. It is not the basic goal of the opposition terminal, but the goal that opposes the pc’s goal.
b. Add to list by meter.
c. Get rudiments in well before and during assessment.
d. Assess Opposition Goals List by elimination.
OPPOSITION GOAL __________
Checked out by __________
4. MODIFIER. (In this you want to know what phrases are missing at the beginning or ending of the pc’s goal. These will be found to be bouncers, denyers, down bouncers, call backs, etc, in old Dianetic terminology. Pc can skid all over track while giving these.)
a. Ask pc “If your goal consistently failed what ideas would you add to it?” Make full list.
b. Add to list by meter.
c. Get rudiments in well before and during assessment.
d. Assess by elimination. NOTE: Several of these phrases may modify the pc’s goal. This is the only part of a goal’s assessment that does not reduce to just one. These remaining phrases will have to be added up and stacked in various ways to make sense with the pc’s goal and to give a smooth meter check out.
PC’S GOAL MODIFIER __________
Checked out by __________
5. GOALS TERMINAL FOR PC’S GOAL + MODIFIER. (Sec 1 + Sec 4 Abv.)
PC’S GOAL TERMINAL + MODIFIER _____________________
a. Ask pc “Who or what would (pc’s g +m)______?” and list every goals terminal the pc gives you.
b. Complete g. t. list using meter.
c. Get rudiments in well before and during assessment.
d. Assess list by elimination.
PC’S GOAL TERMINAL (Term for g + m) __________
6. PRE-HAV LEVEL.
a. Using goals terminal, reversing the flow every question by asking “Would (goals terminal)_____you?” for one level and “Would you_____(goals terminal)?” for the next, assess by elimination (without repeater technique and repeating only levels which fell on subsequent coverage of scale) and obtain the one level that still reacts.
| FIRST LEVEL __________ | SEVENTH LEVEL __________ |
| SECOND LEVEL __________ | EIGHTH LEVEL __________ |
| THIRD LEVEL __________ | NINTH LEVEL __________ |
| FOURTH LEVEL __________ | TENTH LEVEL __________ |
| FIFTH LEVEL __________ | ELEVENTH LEVEL __________ |
| SIXTH LEVEL __________ | TWELFTH LEVEL __________ |
FURTHER LEVELS:
7. COMPOSE COMMAND.
a. Using goals terminal and opposition terminal compose command:
COMMANDS _________________________________________
b. Clear commands with pc to make sure they make sense to him. (It is not whether he finds them easy but whether they can be answered by him despite duress caused.)
CLEARED COMMANDS _________________________________
c. Run command against TONE ARM, using only a TEN MINUTE test on an eighth of a TA Division.
d. When commands flat as in c, reassess on Pre-Hav as in 6 above. Compose new commands as in 7 on a separate sheet.
8. GOALS TEST.
a. When the goals terminal is flat from having been run on levels of the Pre-Hav Scale and out the bottom, recheck all sections above from I to 5 inclusive for any reads on the needle.
b. If a new goals terminal can be found on the goals list or newly added to the goals terminal list, use it in Section 6, noting it at the end of Section 5 above that you have done so.
c. When no goals terminal can be found that reacts, form up pc’s goal and opposition terminal and run one against the other. When flat, make new form.
GOAL — Something the pc wanted to be, to do or to have, whether the pc abandoned it, failed in it or not, just as in Routine 3.
MODIFIER — The unseen modification the pc has placed before or after his goal to insist upon winning or threaten with if he does not win, or to keep the goal in a games condition unknown even to himself. The Modifier is difficult to directly reach as it is full of bouncers, denyers, down bouncers, call backs, etc (see Dianetics). When the opposing factors are relieved by assessment the Modifier is more easily exposed. Described in Routine 3A. One never asks for the Modifer when doing step.
OPPOSITION TERMINAL — The person, group or object that has consistently opposed pc’s goal, making it a terminal counter-terminal situation of long duration.
OPPOSITION GOAL — The idea that is interlocked against the pc’s goal, making it a postulate counter-postulate situation of long duration. It is not actually the goal of the Opposition Terminal as the Opposition Terminal would see it, but only what the pc believes it was as it affects him.
GOAL PLUS MODIFIER — The visible goal is added to the heretofore invisible modifier. This is the G + M, being the true whole track desire of the pc plus the threat to self or others if that desire is not accomplished.
GOALS TERMINAL — That valence into which pc has interiorized and which carries the goal, modifier and aberration which the pc attributes to self. This is the most
important single item and is the “pc’s terminal”. It is this for which we are searching and which was the whole target of Routine 3 and which is the primary target of Routine 3D. This “is” the pc as he exists at the moment of the start of processing.
PRE-HAV LEVEL — That dominant doingness or thinkingness at the moment of the goals terminal, as taken from the Primary Pre-Hav Scale.
No part given above is valid if it has been forced off on the pc by suggestions by the auditor. One never suggests any goal, terminal, opposition goal, opposition terminal, modifier or Pre-Hav level to the pc. To do so is to prevent the pc going clear. Helpfulness stems from doing excellent TRs, Model Session and Meter Handling. In Sec Checking one suggests. In assessing one never suggests. Many case failures can be traced to the auditor “knowing” better than the pc or the meter on these matters. An auditor can suppose all he pleases so long as he doesn’t suggest it to the pc. It would be kinder to shoot the pc than to disobey this rule.
The pc’s goal must be the pc’s goal, see above definition. It must not be a difficulty. To invalidate something the pc has given you as a goal (or other part) is to break down the whole activity of 3D. Out Rudiments alone make pc’s goal, etc, hard to find. The fastest way to drive them out is by invalidation or non-acceptance. A pc will accept the result of an assessment if correct. The pc will not accept, though appear to accept, the auditor’s suggestion or even suggestion for assessment.
If the pc gives a difficulty (as different than a goal, a difficulty being a get-rid-of desire, a goal being an actual desire) the auditor may not reject it as a “goal” but, putting it down as a “processing goal” (not to be assessed), the auditor can make up a get-rid- of list as a Processing Goals List and write all get-rid-of goals on it as Goals which will be reached in processing. He can even explain this to pc. He then appears to accept this goal, writes it down on something, acknowledges it and goes on. But the auditor can explain that he is listing for assessment “things to be attained in life and livingness”. This keeps the pc from feeling invalidated.
Beware of get-rid-of type goals (get rid of my fear of height) because they will assess out, being a whole problem — pc vs height, pc vs bank. But the goal could be missed. So use “Processing Goal” for “Get-rid-ofs”, and “Life and Livingness Goals” for what you will assess and in the body of which list the pc’s goal is going to be found.
Modifiers are sometimes given as goals. This only happens with an incomplete goals list. Of course, the Modifier will assess out. Usually this happens when the goal is discreditable. When this happens the auditor flubbed in getting all the meter needle actions off the questions about secret, withheld or discreditable goals. Example: “Goal” assessed was “not to be found out”. This is, of course, a Modifier just by inspection. When an effort was made to find “the thing that would Modify that goal”, the actual goal came up which was “To tell lies”. The G + M was “To tell lies and not to be found out”. The goal, being discreditable in the pc’s eyes (even though every pro playwright would have it), was missed by an inexpert auditor when the secret-withheld goals were being asked for. Surely it showed on the meter during the goals listing but was missed.
Modifiers threaten, give consequences, modify. They are not something the pc ever wanted to be, to do or to have.
Do R 3D by definition and accuracy and you’ll obtain accurate results.
When a pc gets the idea he or she can “beat the meter” all listing and assessing can go to pieces. Rudiments are hard to keep in, ARC breaks are frequent.
The primary sources of ARC breaks are, of course, all under the heading of “no auditing”. Auditing is considered scarce and valuable by the pc — valuable to the point of not being able to have it at all. Bad auditing, slipshod auditing and even no auditing at all, come under this heading.
When the meter is seen to apparently flub, always by reason of poor auditing, the pc sees (down deep where he lives as a thetan) a betrayal of himself and a win for his valence. The pc hates this.
Just miss a withhold and see the eventual fireworks.
The pc who feels guilty will try to beat the meter. If he or she does, then it’s an invalidation of auditing and disappointment causes chop and upset. The pc then proceeds to express the ARC break in invalidation of the auditor and, sometimes, the meter.
If a pc can force off a goal or the rest on the auditor by twitching a finger on the cans or convulsing each time a goal or whatever is mentioned and the auditor then “buys” it in assessment, the whole case runs thereafter like a 1918 tank. It doesn’t.
It’s a sloppy auditor who gets into this trouble but, such are the powers of persuasion of a valence, even a good auditor sometimes “buys” a goal, terminal, etc, the pc “sells” him or her by a convulsion every time or a shift of a finger. Study body reaction patterns as per E-Meter Essentials until they can be detected and make a convulsing pc sit ramrod still when being checked out. About 5% of all pcs seem to try to “sell” with body convulsion. It’s uniformly dangerous to “buy” a result accompanied by a convulsion. Even if it’s right, the pc can still be made to sit still, you know. “It makes me double over” may be true, “It makes my hand twitch” may be a fact, but don’t buy it until it’s assessed and checked without the convulsion.
It’s good practice to find out periodically on a pc if any withholds have been missed. And it’s good practice to do the lot of rudiments and assessment at highest sensitivity if you can. If not, do it at least at a dial drop.
And when the pc ARC breaks a lot or seeks to invalidate the auditor, clear up two definite points:
You want only Instant Reads that occur right after you finish question. You do not want latent reads that occur 1/2 to one second after you end. You want the instant read on what you’re looking for, not the natural read on the goal or already known item or items. Don’t sit staring at a meter waiting for it to finally read. Get on with the job.
When you obtain an item, a secondary method of checking before getting it checked out, is to find if the item drops the same as the other items already found. If a goal rock slams, then finally, all other items in turn will rock slam. If a goal theta bops, then all other items of 3D will theta bop.
This is not used in selecting items. It is used to double check after they’re found.
If one is of a different needle reaction than the rest, it is probably wrong.
In assessing:
Get Rudiments in at highest sensitivity.
With sensitivity at 16, complete list by making sure that pc is nul on your asking for more terminals or items. Say “Who or what would” and get items until needle is nul.
Get Rudiments in at highest sensitivity.
Assess list by elimination with meter set for a 1 dial drop, on can squeeze. Read an item only 3 times.
Acknowledge pc as though pc spoke, which pc didn’t. (Pcs are silent during assessment unless they have cognitions or wish to add to list.) Cover list often. Be rapid, accurate, sure. Tell pc if item is still in or is out. Go on to next. Read it three times. If it’s still reacting on needle, leave it in by putting 1/2 of a cross beside it. If it didn’t react, complete the X. Always acknowledge. Always tell pc if item was in or out. Barrel right along. The more chat, the more chance of out Rudiments.
Get Rudiments in any time it looks like they’re out.
If whole list nuls, add new ones to it by meter. Get Rudiments in. Check whole list again even the “out” ones.
When adding to list use secret, discreditable, unworthy in questions about new items as well as just asking for them.
If a list is still nul and even though all Rudiments are in and you are very sure they are and there are no more items by meter, go back to the beginning of the 3D form and check it out. The whole thing may have blown. Start again at any point where you get a consecutive read and do it all again. Example: Goal still in. Opp Term still in. OK, do an Opposition Goal list again. Anytime the goal is gone, get Rudiments in, check goal out. If it’s still gone do a new goals assessment and continue.
Toward the end of clearing, this happens frequently that subsequent lists blow the goal and all. Eventually, not even a goal will stay in.
When looking for new goals always use the original list all over again and as added to from time to time. Always nul meter at sensitivity 16 on question asking for new goals.
A pc should be security checked throughout being run on Routine 3D, by another auditor or frequently a session on a Security Check form only. Use standard forms.
Also do a Dynamic Assessment on pc and dream up a Security Check for that dynamic found or use eventual Dynamic Sec Check forms 11 to 18 inclusive when they have been created and issued.
Sec Checks should be given more time earlier on case than later. Whole track type checking will eventually become necessary.
Command patterns for R 3D have not been completely worked out in formula at this writing.
Slow or unsuccessful assessments occur because of:
Before we learned it was Out Rudiments that hid goals and terminals, it was taking 3 months to find a goal! As it usually took me an hour or two, this long time for assessment exceeded my reality. I eventually pinned it down. It was Out Rudiments. As soon as I found that, I had auditors locating goals within 2 weeks of 2 1/2 hour per day sessions and sometimes both goal and terminal in that time.
R 3D is easier to do as it removes invalidation to a large extent even while assessing. But Rules 1 and 2 above are extremely important.
First in assessment is Accuracy. Second in assessment is Speed.
Don’t waste time in assessing but take all you need in getting Rudiments in and Sec Checking. That’s saved time.
Here is Routine 3D.
It takes a skilled auditor to use it. Be one. And make Clears!