Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. This is what?

This is the second lecture, 12 July, 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course — and it has to do with E-Meter training: E-Meter training.

Audience: The twelfth.

If people can't read an E-Meter, what's the matter with them? Obviously, it's bank. Obviously, it's lots of things.

Twelve-twelve, huh?

Well, I'll tell you what the answer isn't. It's to audit everybody until they're Clear and then let them audit. This is very often proposed to me as a solution. Somebody calculated it, that it'd take twenty-nine thousand years for the auditors now trained on the east coast of the United States to finish up New York City — something like twenty-nine thousand years. And they're not that durable! That was my own comment on the thing, you know? You see, that's not and never has been a solution.

Audience: It's not twelve-twelve — twelve-seven — yeah — twelve-twelve.

Another solution that's been proposed to me is that I audit everybody. That's not a solution either.

Twelve July, AD 12. All right.

No, the solution we're working on is a perfectly valid solution. Now we've got it narrowed down to — its most random factor at the present moment is the variability of meter reading — one auditor to the next. Auditors make mistakes reading meters.

First lecture Saint Hill Special Briefing Course having to do with meters. Meters, their importance.

Now, it isn't their banks, except indirectly, because the thing can be countered educationally. It can be countered very easily educationally. And you could say, "Well, the fellow's bank . . ." so on, and so on, and so on, and so on, et cetera and et cetera. Oh, that's perfectly true — perfectly true — but it can be countered educationally more easily than by processing. That's quite interesting. And it's a fact tremendously in our favor.

With all due respect to meters, I feel I should apologize for coming a little bit late to this lecture — three, four, five minutes. But you should realize that this particular planet has a great many lures. There are all kinds of things. There's drink, you know, there's beautiful women. There are all of these various things and they lure you away and distract your attention from what you should be doing. And recently — I'd had a Lincoln for ages and — since about 54 and I traded — I sold it and got a fantastic price for it. And then I traded the — an old Humber we had out here for it, you see, and I got me a Jaguar and — a 60, 61 Jag — and came out all straight on this. And I regret to have to report to you that the Jaguar is leading me astray. I went out to take a fifteen-minute run to get some fresh air and came back three hours later. So you see, sometimes it's drink, sometimes it's women — in this particular case it's a Jaguar. You'll pardon me weaknesses. Blame it on the planet.

First thing that's wrong with auditor meter reading is the auditor can't see. Now, that's a — that's not all of it, that's not all of it — but the auditor has a difficulty in seeing. And Scientologists, quite understandably (and I could compliment them for it) don't like to wear glasses. Fine, fine. But I'm afraid that the order of magnitude of the crime of wearing glasses doesn't even vaguely compare with the crime of not reading a meter. So that's first and foremost.

Well, I was actually celebrating. I felt I should go out and get some fresh air and look at the countryside and celebrate, because you don't know it yet — but we've cracked it! We've cracked it.

So this is — actually, this is a lecture of what we're going to do about this, you see? This is a lecture of what we're going to do about this.

In scientific research one follows certain laws. Take far too long to enumerate them. You'll find some of them I've used in Dianetics and Scientology are actually developed for the first time and has made it possible to crack some problems that have been cracking people. And, nevertheless, somebody comes along and tells you we don't follow the laws of research as used, well, I'm afraid that they are adventurous in the extreme because any law of research this planet has we follow and better — to an enormous extent. See, they just don't even vaguely have the rigor of research that has been followed in Scientology. Because we're not interested in anything but effectiveness and we've been cracking away — not at the idea that everybody was crazy — we've been going in a somewhat different plane and on a different road up. When you can get a research problem down to where you have one variable and there's only one thing you have to remedy to straighten things out, why, voilà! You're there, you see.

When a person is going to be an auditor — not the pc off the street, the raw-meat pc — and we're auditing them, when we first audit this person, we should make out a Case Assessment Form. This more or less falls under the heading of Academy auditing — course auditing Make out a Case Assessment Form. It's the old one; same one you would do if you were going to do a Problems Intensive, but you don't do the final two sections that you would do for the Problems Intensive. And in the process of doing this you'll find most paper matchbooks have some fantastically small printing in them. you look around on almost any paper of matches and you'll find some very tiny printing of one kind or another. Says all the advertising or something like that on it, and then it also says that it was printed and made in Racine, Birmingham, or something. See? Or a railway timetable — that also has some fantastically small print. Not supposed to be read by anybody because they'd never take the trains if they could read it, you know?

All right. Clearing people, fixing up needles and states of mind in order to sit quiet enough and find somebody's goal — we've got that sort of thing We've even got CCHs. They go tremendously far south. We've got all kinds of stuff here, you see. And I take a look at you and realize you've been audited in the last twenty-four hours and I can't figure how that possibly could have happened. Don't you see?

Reg suggested the other day the stock market report in the newspaper is awfully good. That's an eye strainer to end them all. It's anything, you see, that's about four-point type. Tiny, tiny, tiny type. There isn't anything that small on the E-Meter. There's no type that small. So you can't turn around and have them read something on the E-Meter. Maybe we ought to put over in the corner of the E-Meter some type that small. You see? Then everybody would find out what it was, and the test would be invalid. Or we take an insurance contract and take the small print section of it. That would be a good source of it. But you understand I'm talking about tiny printing And it's very legible but very tiny.

So there might be fifteen, twenty, thirty things wrong, you know. Might be a lot of things wrong, so during the last couple of months, having observed that auditors were not actually able to get a uniform result one way or the other, I started taking every variable out of technology that I could take out of it. And I just started stripping it down and testing what we were doing and stripping it down and testing that, and we finally got the Model Session the way you're running it right this minute. Without a single additional process, if something is wrong with the Model Session questions, you just use the question. That's quite a trick. Took all of the difficulties out of Sec Checking. You see, Sec Checking was followed by Prepchecking, was followed by Repetitive Prepchecking. Now the difficulties of Prepchecking by the Withhold System and all of the old Sec Checking difficulties are resolved — to all intents and purposes — right now with what you're using and calling Repetitive Prepchecking, you see.

And you hold it the distance away from the pc's face — the distance that he would ordinarily be seeing a meter if he were sitting back in his chair — and ask him if he can read it and have him tell you what it is. And if it's obvious that this pc can read this, we mark the top of the Case Assessment Form that his eyesight is good. Now, we don't care how it is good — whether it's good with glasses or without glasses, you understand? But if with glasses is the only way he can read this, then we will put the additional remark "Eyesight is good with glasses." And we'd just do this as a subtle tip-off that we're liable to have meter-reading trouble with this character if it isn't good. And if he can't read that tiny print the distance that meter would ordinarily be away from his eye, we put "eyesight poor," anything else we care to put, such as "requires adjustment" or "should have glasses" — anything we want to say. But that, we for sure add. And this will call to people's attention, such as a D of T or a Course Supervisor or something like that, that he has someone in his midst who, the second they start auditing, is going to be a liability. See?

Of course, tremendous background work has gone into all this which includes first a meter and then refining a meter and then refining a meter and then re — then abandoning them because no, it didn't work, and then refining a meter and refining a meter and refining a meter and we finally got the Mark IV. All of these things . . .

So, let's get rid of the bad eyesight at one fell swoop. We don't care whether we have to get a magnifying glass — and one day Reg got me a crane-neck magnifying glass that went over the face of one of these meters and I've still got it upstairs; I'll bring it down — sure magnifies a needle. I was using it for microscopic reads to check up on old goals and things like that.

But still as — a pc could walk out of a session and look wobbly. See? Got everything streamlined down. Auditors are men and women of good heart. Nobody is questioning that. There must be something wrong here someplace or another.

Glasses, anything you would care to do. But a magnifying glass, I should point out, is no universal answer, because everything might be blurry at the range of two and a half feet, which is about this range.

And now I know that the variables are out of it as far as the human mind is concerned. There are no variables. You do your Model Session without any additives, your beginning rudiments and your middle rudiments and end rudiments, and you do the Prepchecking with Zero Questions which are applicable to the case and will straighten the case out. And you move through into listing goals and finding goals, and then listing the goal that is found — you're going to have a Clear on your hands. I mean, you can't help it. But, the pc could still walk out of session looking wobbly.

We can do something about it, and in the process of making this fellow an auditor, this is already called to somebody's attention because it's sitting on his Case Assessment Form, right at the top under his name, preferably written diagonally. And if you've got a red ballpoint, put it in there. If his eyesight is bad, well, for heaven's sakes, underscore it a couple of times. Because you're setting up sessions to be very rough, ARC breaky; auditor is going to go into unusual solutions; auditor is going to depart from the standard drills. All of these kind of things are going to happen, because in anxiety to make the pc better, why, he's going to do anything And he will really never suspect that it's his own meter reading. He might suspect it, but he'd probably never confess it to anybody. See? So let's get that one out in the clear when we're running courses and that sort of thing.

So I set you up last night. I said I'm going to watch three auditors, not necessarily all Class III-type auditors, very far from the worst auditors present and I'm going to look at these auditors, and I'm going to let you look at these auditors, and we're going to see what they're doing here. And I found out what they were doing. I never would have dreamed it — never would have dreamed it. We found the one variable — the meter read. The meter read. Now all three of these people have been reading meters for an awful long time. These three people should know a great deal about meters.

And let's take a practical section and we're first teaching people about E-Meters. Let's pull out a timetable or the small print of an insurance contract or a book of matches and let's just hand it to the guy — holding it about two and a half feet away from him — and say, "Read that." This is an additional provision, don't you see? "Read that."

And it works out this way: All you've got to do to muck a session up is clean one read that is clean. That's all you've got to do to muck a session — to just throw it into a cocked hat. Louse it up, but good. Just clean one thing that's clean. You can check something that's clean, but don't go clean something that's clean. Pc will go into a cocked hat every time.

And the fellow says, "Uh — mm-mm . . ." It's an ad for Bispicks, see? And he says, "Yeah. I can read that: 'Bispicks.' "

And the other one is: Don't miss cleaning something that reacts.

And you say, "No. The small print right there at the bottom."

Those are the two crimes of meter reading Cleaning something that is clean — and failing to note something that reacts.

"Oh," he says, "you mean the staple?"

There's little to choose between which is the most serious. Frankly, there's little to choose. They're equally serious.

Then the first step that Practical Section Instructor should take is to make that student take steps to provide himself with some glasses that are trained at two and a half feet, so that he can read a meter. You see? That would be his first step. He can make him go through set-up drills, and so forth, whilst the "occultist" is making them up. you don't need any fancy glasses. They should ride on the nose. Girls tend to go in for things with diamonds scattered out along the rims and that sort of thing, but they're not really necessary.

Why is this serious? Well, basically a pc has a certain knowingness. He may be occluded — he may be all buttoned in the cotton batting and black wool — he may be packed as tight as sardines ready for shipment. He may be all of these things, and yet permeating this hard core is an instinct, an intuitiveness. See, he basically knows. You can't kid a pc and that's a very important datum. You actually cannot fool a pc.

Now, we think that's good enough. You think we've taken care of it then. No! Ladies and gentlemen, in Scientology we have not at that stage taken care of very much except maybe the next few days, because eyesight changes in Scientology like nothing else does. And it's quite upsetting to some pcs because their glass prescription is always shifting around one way or the other. All right. If we know we've got to do it, we can cope with it, can't we? But nevertheless that makes it a little bit hard to do.

And any auditor that's going forward on the course that the pc can be fooled is being very foolish himself. He's being quite misguided. A pc knows when a question is hot, even if he doesn't know the answer. And he knows when one is cool. See, he knows there's nothing there or he knows there's something there. He has a something-nothingness sensitivity. He can sense if there's something there. He can sense if there's nothing there. It requires help before he can tell what is there — or before he has a high certainty that there is nothing there. Don't you see? I mean, you're now transmitting from an intuitive feelingness to an analytical knowingness. And this intuitive feelingness is not articulate. He can't tell you. you look at the fellow and you say, "Do you have a present time problem?" and so forth; and now you're asking him to express it analytically and give you what the problem is and all of that sort of thing Well, he's not going to be able to do that very well.

So, any time Practical Section gets somebody back for a GAE, they pull out the insurance contract, the matchbox, and with the person's glasses sitting on the end of his nose, say, "Read that," holding it away at two and a half feet. See? So that's a good safety margin, because people's eyesight changes.

But let's take the reverse. He doesn't have a present time problem — we tell him he's got one. Now, it's not aberration that objects. It's just this intuitive feelingness. He knows he hasn't got a present time problem right here and now. He knows he isn't worrying about anything.

Now, this will get worse if everybody is reading meters darn well. Then processes bite harder and you're going to get faster eyesight changes. But we can still cope with it. All right. That's fine. We just want them being able to keep seeing it out there.

Now let's take the reverse. Let's take the reverse. The pc has a present time problem and you tell him he doesn't have one. Either statement, if contrary to the fact — fact merely being established by this intuitive feelingness of the pc — will cause a disagreement between you and him.

Now, the trick is that you actually cannot trust the person to read a meter at that distance who can't read that print at that distance, because the amount of shake of the needle that is a read at sensitivity 16, that he'd have to follow down in many cases, is as much as print is blurring at that distance. In other words, if everything blurs to him, then the needle could move just under the blur and because the needle is moving, it just looks like it's blurring. See, it isn't a blur; it's moving But he is so used to seeing things in a blur at that distance that it looks to him like a blur and therefore is not moving. You get the error that sorts out of this? See? Well, it's quite important to keep an eye on this as we're training people along and processing them up the line.

Now, what you're basically doing is invalidating the knowingness of a thetan. Oh, a thetan will put up with a lot of invalidation of this knowingness. He has put up with a lot of it and so on. He can be overwhelmed by that invalidation. All these things are true, but he doesn't have to like it. That is the final test. He just doesn't have to like it. He can walk down the cloister every day and pray before w or whatever they have in the monastery these days. Very hard for me, you know, to keep up with these various transient religions. And this situation — he can say, "Well, God is great or Moloch is great," or something of the sort. All right.

This is just for the greater good of the greater number of students. Don't you see? This fellow can always read this, and so forth. Well, that's fine. We'll still always do the drill. The person came back for some more meter work or something like that — he came back for some more this or that into the Practical Section, having been found wrong in auditing — let's assume that the first thing that was wrong that he did was not what the Auditing Supervisor said. Let's assume automatically that he couldn't see a moving needle. See? Let's just assume that. We don't care what the Auditing Supervisor said; we'll assume that. We'll take up also what the Auditing Supervisor said in the Practical Section, but we will just always add to it to this degree. We'll assume there might be something wrong with meter reading that we haven't caught yet. Got that?

He's used this as a pitch on others. He's used this as a control mechanism on others. Used it to overwhelm others. So inevitably, because of the overt he gets overwhelmed. Did you ever notice how unhappy they are when they are doing this? Well, what's this unhappiness? Why aren't they really relaxed about the thing?

Now, this merely takes care of the idea of focus. So far I've merely spoken about focus and being able to see a certain distance, and I have not talked about many other factors involved.

This feeling of internal peace that you hear about every once in a while, I've investigated occasionally and found it was mostly a light in an implant which was moving across the thetan at regular intervals or something like that. He was nervous as a cat about it. Terribly nervous for fear his internal peace was going to be distorted or destroyed. But we're not off on any antisomething-or-other pitch except just truth is truth.

We have now hit the most elementary and the most obvious level of straightening up meter reading when we're straightening up people's eyesight with glass prescriptions or magnifying glasses or something like that. See, that's the most elementary level, but quite necessary. And the next level doesn't necessarily invalidate this at all.

This fellow hasn't got a present time problem; you tell him he has one. Well now, you're auditing actually at a higher level of knowingness and awareness than human beings ever achieve. You've got his awareness and his knowingness all keyed-up here, and this intuitive feelingness of what is right and wrong is particularly present in an auditing session — far more so than out on the street or in the cloister. You've heightened this. Now you say to this heightened perception, which hasn't got a present time problem, "You've got a present time problem." Well, he's got a long way to fall.

Let us go into a much wider theory now, which is the width of present time. How wide is present time? Is present time a thousandth of a second wide? Is it zero wide? Is it two seconds wide? Or is it ten minutes wide? Now, you would be reading the future like mad and could win your fortune at Monte Carlo any time if present time was ten minutes wide. you might even be able to win some horse races. You know, get the bet down and — just before the window slams shut. And you still might be able to get your bet in under in time to get the horse in, see? But that would be bordering on what most people would call the ability to foretell the future.

Perhaps snails don't mind being stepped on because they haven't very far to squash. Do you see? But I think even a snail would mind falling off the top of the Empire State Building See, the auditing session gives him a long way to fall. See, and you talk about ARC break — I call your attention back to anatomy about downcurves. It's the steepness of the curve per unit of time. The artificial tone of the pc or the tone which he is able to attain in a session is quite ordinarily much greater than he attains in life, you see? Now you give him one of these speeded downgrades — one of these downcurves — and you let him fall twenty tones in a 20th of a millisecond, see? Well, it comes to him as a severe shock and you get an ARC break.

I mention the word ten minutes because it's not impossible, because I myself have a ten minute band on TV and movies and that sort of thing I never bothered to investigate it, but I have a subawareness of what is going to happen any time within the next ten minutes on the film. Now, this is very annoying. Spoils all the plots and so forth. Now, I first thought it was simply writer training, and I've since begun to watch some soap opera that no writer was ever near, you see, what passes for TV plays these days. Well, it happens just the same, you know? Suddenly find myself thinking about somebody being hanged, you know, then suddenly realize that this character who just walked in is about to be hanged and realize — then I realize how he is going to be hanged. You see, it's spreading down now from the ten-minute mark as the zero, and we're marking off one minute at a time. We come down somewhere within four or five seconds — that is the period in which I am actually watching the film. I'm aware of this.

All right. He's got a present time problem. He's sitting there worrying about Aunt Phybia. He's just worried stiff about Aunt Phybia and all of a sudden the auditor says to him, "You haven't got any problem with Aunt Phybia. There is no problem there." Well, he's had this treatment often and he's found out that that didn't work either. You can't go around and not-is all the problems and wind up with everybody happy. So he knows that doesn't work and he knows that's wrong But basically what he knows is he's out of agreement with the auditor. That's the first thing he knows. He's out of agreement with the auditor.

So you see, by drawing that out I can conceive of a present time ten minutes wide. See, there's nothing more — nothing esoteric about this. I'm not trying to tell you that it's some wonderful ability. As a matter of fact, I very often would like to lose it.

So let us say hopefully before the session got wheeling, he had a session. He had it mocked up he was going to have a session at least. He probably had a session at start of session, he'd maybe have a session through the first rudiment, don't you see. And, maybe the first rudiment even builds it up into more of a session, you see. Well, this guy could be likened on to somebody who is doing a high, steep fighter-plane climb, don't you see. He's going up. His awareness of his own mind, of his reactive bank, feelings — all these things are heightened.

A person who is cleared gets into the fantastic state of being able to tell at every intersection some fifty to a hundred feet before they get to the intersection, if anything is coming down the intersection and from which side and about how fast. See, it's almost as if they have a radar vision that looks around the corner, and it looks to them as though they have developed a perception which is lineal, present-time perception. And they think they're looking around corners. No, they are not looking around corners. They have a wider present time and haven't accustomed themselves to it yet, and they are looking at a fringe of knowingness which is many seconds up the line. They're looking at something like a fifteen - to twenty-second fringe of knowingness. See, they know what's going to happen in fifteen or twenty seconds, but it comes through to them as an impression. So they think they are looking around the corner at the truck which is coming down the street. But they try to do that, and that doesn't work. And this is quite baffling to them. It's reading the future is what it is. But it isn't reading the future. It's not even being in the future. It's just that PT is that wide. That's the thing.

And you get him nice and heightened and then you say, "Well, you don't have a present time problem with Aunt Phybia." And he's hauled down because he thinks he is in good agreement or rapport with the auditor. And when he finds out he is not and the degree of the finding out "not" is a horrible shock to him. And he doesn't fall the ordinary one-millionth of a tone that George falls as he is standing behind the bank window and he said, "I've got a cold" and the bank customer says, "You haven't got much of a cold. you should have seen Aunt Isabel's," see. He maybe does a little fall — about onemillionth of a tone, see. This pc does about twenty tones. Steep, steep. You've got an ARC break downcurve.

Now, somebody who is really sharp as an athlete . . . oh, I don't know, I suppose Sam Snead has a present time from the drive of the tee to the landing of the ball. I suppose that all takes place in now. And if you asked him very closely, he would get the sensation as he hit the ball of knowing exactly where it was going to land or just before he hit the ball he knows where it's going to land. And everybody says, "This is skill that is doing this," you see? Well, it is not skill that is doing this. Actually, he knows where the ball is going to land, that's all. It's — he doesn't even have to go through the idea of following at a line of flight to find out where it's going to light. See? The ball is lying there and he is hitting the ball in the same band of PT.

Well, all of this — all of this is the discovery of disagreement. This comes under the heading of that. He discovers that the auditor's in disagreement with him. He's in disagreement with the auditor and he thought he was in agreement with the auditor. And the degree that he thought he was in agreement to the auditor, crystallizes the degree that he suddenly realizes he is out of agreement with the auditor. All things are relative. And if you've got an agreement that's built as high as the Empire State Building, the first scrap of disagreement will appear as high as the Empire State Building.

Of course, the poor sods go out there and try to whip this guy Snead, you see, and nothing happens, you know? He feels a little stretchier one day and goes out and breaks the course record, you see? And then he feels a little stretchier the next day so he breaks the record he made, you see? This guy is terrific. But it looks very easy to him. And so it would look easy to you if you had control of both ends of the flight of a golf ball.

Now, that should explain to you why a pc carries on so, when ARC broken out of a session. They aren't like that in life. They aren't like that at all.

You see, people believe they can do this. Have you ever seen anybody stand on a golf green, and as the ball is rolling across the green, they go — and try to push it into the hole. See? "Missed," you know? Do you see people do that? You ever seen people follow the course of a bowling ball, something like that, and twist it back straight, and so forth, get down finally? Do you ever see people try this? Well, why do they try to do that if they know they can do that? It isn't the projection of the control they just did with their hands. They're aware of the fact that the event is not predicted and they're trying to predict and control the event. And their stretches and strains around in the thing is in despair of not having done so. Because it's always despair. It isn't really just . . .

You ought to see this fellow. In life, why, somebody walks into the store and says, "Hi, you old horse thief," you know. "You look like hell today." Doesn't change his mood any. He says, "Hello, Bob." You know, nothing to it.

Well, if you were going to knock a ball into the — into the cup on the green, you certainly wouldn't go on — oooahhh — grunting and straining and doing all sorts of things. You'd just go ptt, and it'd go right in the cup, bang! You sort of brush a beam at it, you know? Well, how about at the moment you hit it it's already in the cup? Well, that's controlling both ends of the span of PT and this is your great athlete.

In a session the auditor suddenly says, "You're a horse thief." Doesn't go, man. If the session ARC, you see, was as high as the Empire State Building, why, this disagreement erects a duplicate structure of ARC break, see.

Great athletes, by the way, are always exterior. And you show them the Axioms of Scientology — "Oh, that's what I've been doing! Oh, yes! Good! Yeah, fine! Oh. Oh, that's what that's all about! Mm-hm. Well, of course, anybody'd know that. Yeah. That's right." And they go right on down the list of the Axioms — brrrrrrr! Quite remarkable. But what I'm calling your attention to is, their PT is wide.

It's pretty wild, and it's just all out of importance. The importance of it to the pc is fantastically great! It's as though he has suddenly been hanged for murder. And listening to a pc who had just been thoroughly ARC broken, you would be sure he was being unjustly accused of having too many bodies on his hands and being dragged off to the local galley — gallows, you see. You'd be absolutely sure that this was what was happening If you listened to his tone, if you listened to the emotion involved with the thing, if you could measure out how bad he feels about it and so on. These things in the work-a-day world of hanging horse thieves would be tantamount to being betrayed by his whole family, turned in by his most trusted servant, you see and hanged for a crime, barbarously, that he did not commit. You'd think this was the circumstances.

Now, frankly, they don't think of their PT as containing motion. They think of it as containing control. Motion doesn't happen randomly in their PT. When they're doing something, they're controlling all the motion in that PT because they are in that PT and they have the width of that PT in which to decide. It's almost as if at the end of two seconds they could undecide what they decided at the beginning of two seconds. So therefore, they have terrific judgment. They don't have to test-decide anything, because they know which decision is right because they saw it happen. You get how silly and involved this can finally become? All right.

Let's say that we were auditing in Japanese and you didn't speak Japanese, but the auditor who was auditing was auditing in Japanese — and you were to hear this ARC break come out — and you'd think, why — my God, that auditor must have broken out a knife or a samurai sword or something and taken several passes at the pc's head. But even that wouldn't have caused that much upset if you just listen to the emotional content of all this — he must have at least cut off one of his hands. There's something going on here, you know. You'd think.

Those people are capable of perceiving motion. They can also perceive stillness as a total isness.

You hear it in English — you understand it better, you see. you understand that it's all evolved out of the fact that the pc was told he had a present time problem reading on the meter and there hasn't been a present time . . . He — as a matter of fact he is sort of happy all afternoon. It's been the first afternoon, let us say, that he hasn't had pressing present time problems for a long time, you see. Let's just steepen the thing up, you see. And this auditor has simply said to him — nothing more than this: "Do you have a present time problem? That reads. What is it?" That's all the auditor has said. The auditor's not done another blooming thing. You've had it from that point on — if that meter really didn't read. There was no read on the meter at that point whatsoever.

And then we get down to the guy who has a present time one one-thousandth of a second wide. And he is in nothing but anxiety — continuous anxiety. He's always regretting what he just decided because it's already too late. He's always in trouble. But it's an anxiety he feels. That would be a crazy man's present time, see? It's all wrong all the time. There's no telling what will happen. He doesn't even know if the bed will continue to sit on the floor, don't you see, because he can't perceive the bed sitting on the floor. See, there's no test line.

The pc, at a heightened level of his awareness of his own condition, instinctively realizes that he doesn't have one. So you're foisting off an untruth. Well, here he is swimming in the direction of truth for the first time in the last couple of hundred trillennia, and he knows the cage has suddenly been unlocked and here he goes, and all of a sudden here's this fantastic falsity which has entered into his environment and he reacts accordingly.

Actually, as you look at those TV sets up there, you recognize that those TV sets are continuing to be there. Don't you get that idea?

Cleaning a read that is clean or failing to clean a read that is reacting — produce almost equal magnitude.

Audience: Mm-hm.

The first is the most mysterious because the pc can't find out what's wrong because the withhold is nothing See, he can't find out what's wrong. Actually, it's just withholding nothingness. What is wrong is nothing. That's what is wrong. A nothingness is wrong. It isn't nothing is wrong. The language hardly even handles the sense of it.

They're continuing to be there. You look at me; you know I'm continuing to sit here in the chair. How do you get the idea of continuance? You don't get the idea of continuance by comparing the fact that I was here and therefore I will be here. That isn't what you figure out at all. No. All at one glance you see me across a span of time, so you know I'm continuing

All right. So what do we get here as the greatest order of error? I want to give this to you the way that you will find it very easy to hand it on to anybody you're instructing or anything like that. It's very simple. A very simple statement can be made, which is as follows: You can have one lousy TR 4 in a session, can't you? — without busting it all up. Pc said, "I'm sleepy," and the auditor said, "Mm-mm." The pc said, "No. I said I was sleepy!" "Oh, oh," the auditor says, "Oh, oh." Wakes up himself, you know. "Oh, oh, okay. Yeah, fine."

Now, how about the fellow who can only see me across a span of one one-thousandth of a second? He'd be mighty anxious. He'd be mighty anxious. "Is he going to exist or isn't he going to exist? Is he going to sit down there?" And he'd wind up telling you, "you can't tell what I'm going to do next." He'd tell you, "You make me nervous. I don't know what you're going to do next." Well, how come he's so uncertain about it? Well, that's because you're not there while you are being there in the same PT, you see? It's a little bit hard to talk about because language isn't nicely matched up to this phenomena. It's unexamined phenomena. All right.

That doesn't downcurve the pc particularly. You can get away with it. Oh, it's not good — but you can get away with it. you don't bust your session up one side and down the other side.

The less PT a person has, the more difficulty they have with the perception of motion and stillnesses. The more present time they have, the easier it is to perceive motion and stillness. Elementary.

You can drop a TR 1 — even occasionally a 0 or a 2 and a 3, and still get away with it. you can forget to check a question and it won't cause the whole session to cave in. In other words, you can do at least one of any of these things.

Therefore, just to give you an odd example of this, an individual could be run on "Look around here and tell me what you're absolutely sure will be here in one second." Of course, all of you look around and you say, "Well, everything in the room will be here in one second," see? But then we start grading that up: Five seconds. Twenty seconds. Half a minute. A minute. Five minutes. Ten minutes. And all of a sudden, about this, we're hitting — we're hitting such an — a wider fringe, the span is too great, and we have to look for a specific object and figure out a continuance for that object. But nevertheless this drill, phrased in any way that it could be put together — such as "How long are you absolutely sure that door will be there?" and take your answer — you would drill the person's perception into a broadening of present time.

See, you can forget a rudiment without absolutely smashing up the chinawork for blocks around. Pc's liable to say, "Hey, you forgot a rudiment." No, a pc doesn't act as though he had just been disemboweled.

There happens to be a process. (I don't say that these processes are the answer because they are not. I'm just giving you data.) you say, "Look around this room and find something that's having an effect on an effect," or "Look around this room and find something that's having an effect on something else."

No, the one that you can't do — see, you can do one of anything else — but you can't do one clean a clean read. And you can't do one neglect of a read.

The latter one, particularly, when tested, will be found occasionally to turn on for a pc, for fifteen or twenty minutes or maybe the next hour or two, a fantastically widened PT. You can sometimes get the same phenomena that a Clear gets of knowing about the cars coming, knowing whether lights are going to turn, when they're going to turn. His prediction goes way up.

Now, I'm sure that as you start going along the line flawlessly in auditing with meter reads, you will soon recognize the validity of what I'm telling you.

"Look around here and find an effect that's having an effect on something," or "Look around here and find something that's having an effect on something else" — your commonest wording.

The one thing you can't do and still have a session come out right is a flubbed meter read. Whether it was clean and you cleaned it — or it was reacting and you didn't clean it. you have one flubbed meter read and you're going to watch everything go to hell in a balloon in that session.

So these processes do exist which widen PT. They're specifically addressed to it. Nothing much to do with somebody's goals. Nothing much to do with anything else. But if you look it over, you'll find out that they're not so much processes as they are drills. They're practices. They're just practices.

Now, when you're used to missing them you get an entirely erroneous idea of what a session looks like and how a pc behaves. You get an entirely erroneous idea.

So, widening of PT any way that you possibly could do it would improve a person's recognition of motion and stillness of a needle, or of course, change of rate of motion. Now, some auditors can — have no real difficulty in telling whether a needle was in motion or a needle was still, but do definitely have difficulty in establishing a change of rate of motion. The sudden tiny acceleration — the very slight acceleration which occurs in the middle of a fast rise: At what moment did that rise faster than the rest of the rise? Or, an accelerated fall: At what moment did that fall fall faster than that fall?

Auditing isn't the same thing at all. It's a sort of a half-out-of-session: "I don't mind ARC breaks; it doesn't matter to me what he does; I can somehow or another carry it along anyhow on my own hook; and after the session even if he does flub, I can probably audit it out myself."

Now, we're not talking about good or bad meter reading. We're talking about the absolute minimum meter reading and that is meter reading. See? It's not a freak to be able to tell an accelerated fall or an accelerated rise. you have to be able to because they are reads. So even that skill — being wider than merely still and in motion — has to be under the hand of the auditor. He has to be able to tell that it's rising faster than it was rising. See, the — for one division it rose a tiny bit faster than it did in the three divisions before and the three divisions afterwards. That's the accelerated rise. You've got to be able to detect that because it's a read. He also has to be able to tell that it didn't do that, because that is a clean. And now we're getting down to very, very narrow limits of needle perception.

One has answers for these things, see. But there's not much ARC involved with it and there certainly isn't very much heightened awareness of the bank and ease of blowing and that sort of thing. The things that are supposed to be in the session aren't there.

Now, the first is purely the problem of eyesight: Can the fellow see lines and circles and so forth at a distance of two and a half feet on very tiny print? That's purely eyesight. Now we're getting into — with this next echelon — the relative ability amongst people to perceive motion when it exists, lack of motion when it exists and change of rate of motion when it exists. A slowed rise, a speeded rise, a slowed fall, a speeded fall — he's got to be able to tell those. And all of this depends on the width of present time.

Yeah, you go along and you get so you actually can become hardened into something called auditing that misses reads and cleans things that are clean and there are protests go along on this line and "Auditing is basically a sort of a protest," isn't it? I mean it's a "Good pc'ing is not letting the auditor get too close to you so that he can louse you up." I mean, isn't that by definition? So naturally you really don't see fast auditing.

Now, what perception can a person have? What can he do with his perception? How can a person improve his perception? Well, as a matter of fact, there's a fellow named Bates in the United States that developed a whole system and wrote a book about it. So much so that I think he got to be known as "perfect-sight-without-glasses Bates." Now he wrote this book, Perfect Sight Without Glasses. Terrific number of drills contained in this thing. Well, they've departed beyond this particular book and they have all kinds of drills whereby a person follows with his right eye one line and the left eye another line and that sort of thing. And they have machines you look into and it exercises the eyes and the fellow perceives, and that sort of thing. Very often this will alter the characteristics of a person's sight. I'm not saying this is any panacea. I'm not recommending this in any way, shape or form. I myself have tried some of these things and they've gotten no place. But I have seen sight improved by this — in other words, perception improved by this.

Now, auditing is as fast — in almost direct proportion — as a pc is in-session. Because the more he is in-session, the more easily he can blow things. And the less he's in-session, the less easily he blows things. So the length of time it takes to audit anything is bounded on all sides by the degree that the pc is in-session.

But we're out and beyond perception. We're into consecutive awareness when we're reading meters. There are three moments that we have to perceive in order to find out if a needle is still. Of course, at first glance you say to yourself, "Well, yuueearree [there's] only one moment that you have to perceive to find out if a needle is still, and that is simply look at it, and in that moment it isn't moving, so therefore, the needle is still." That's not good enough because you have nothing to compare it with. you have to have the moment before, the moment it is still, and the moment afterwards to make sure that it is still still. How wide are these moments? These moments may only be a thousandth of a second wide. So a still needle is read by "it wasn't moving, it isn't moving, it won't move; therefore it isn't moving and therefore it is still."

Let's clean up five Prepcheck questions. Pc's beautifully in-session; meter's reading gorgeously; the auditor has flubbed nothing; the auditor flubs nothing; everything goes along swimmingly and gorgeously, five Prepcheck Zeros. You begin to wonder what you're going to do with the rest of your time in session. See, they're all beautifully cleaned up and your session's only thirty-five minutes deep. And yet a lot of material came up on this. See? Guy feels a lot better. What are you going to do with the rest of the session?

Now, a moving needle requires at least two observations and it is therefore easier to read than a still needle. A moving needle is always easier to read than a still needle. If you don't believe this, go out in the forest sometimes and try to find a deer that is standing behind a thicket watching you. Just try and find him. And, by George, you may be out there looking at him and in his direction for a half an hour and you'll never discover that he's there, because he's still. And you don't discover he's there until he takes off. You pitch a bully-beef can in that direction of that thicket thoughtlessly and he takes off. And you all of a sudden are aware of the fact that a deer has been standing there watching you — probably all the time you've been there. Startles you half to death. Well, how is it that you didn't perceive him when he was still but do perceive him when he was moving? "Oh, well," you say, "the relative thing, and it attracts the eye, and motion attracts the thing; and then there's more things to perceive, such as noise and . . ." you can figure it out and you can figure yourself half to death!

All right. Pc not much in-session. Five Zero Prepcheck questions — five Zeros. Week — week. At the end of the week you kind of have to scant them because you can't do all that, you see. That would be the difference. Don't you see? There's how the old factor of "five to one" came about. It may be altitude to some degree. It may be the presence to some degree. It may be this and it may be that, but it's certainly — it's my meter reading that gave you the five to one. I don't miss on these things. I don't know why, but it just never occurred to me to. So, of course then it never occurred to me that you ever might.

The thing is only, basically, that motion requires only two observations and stillness requires three. The motion takes part of the responsibility of directing attention, don't you see? Whereas stillness takes no responsibility for directing attention. You see, the motion almost pulls the eyeball along with it. Do you ever get that idea?

No. Last night, Wednesday — Black Wednesday — it became very obvious. It became exceedingly obvious that there were, in the best session we saw — the best session we saw, there were read misses. See? Uncertainty — which was so great that it was actually transmitting: uncertainty. Worst one we saw there was actually miscalls, many of them. And you saw a pc moving on out of session.

All right. Now, let's be a little less esoteric than that. But a motion is detected simply by observing that something was in place A and then observing that it was in place B. And you observe these two consecutive actions, you know it moved. That is all you have to know about it: that it was in place A and now it's in place B and therefore has moved.

Now, what is most interesting is that a pc is there to get audited and may — you may not have realized what a persistent cuss a thetan is. you may think of a thetan as somebody who can be overwhelmed and who can be crushed and who can be this and who can be that. To a limited degree that is true — to a limited degree it is true. He can get in such a position that he cannot outflow or communicate to the degree that he might. But do you know, he never stops trying That is the fantastic thing about a thetan. He never really stops trying! He's got some idea that he is going to wipe out the civilization of the continent of South America and by this time he's deleted down to being one of these crazy-looking dogs they have in Mexico. But do you know that little dog sits around and every once in a while he'll — wipe out the civilization of South America, you know? South American comes by and the little dog does what he can. He really never stops trying.

Now, how narrow together can place A and B be before you detect that motion is occurring? You can gulp over that one. That's one of these questions almost: "How long is a piece of string?" But on an E-Meter we can answer it. It's something on the order of a tenth of the width of the tip of the needle, to the right or to the left, is a motion. Now, that's pretty darn microscopic. In view of the fact that the needle is sloped out and gets wider rapidly as it comes down, that tenth could be interpreted in all different and wide and peculiar ways, but I'm talking about the tip — the top tip. A tenth.

What is fantastic in child — this is particularly notable in child handling — you think this little kid is "little," so forth. Well, it's utterly fantastic. As long as that kid feels that he is going to get anything borne in upon him from some quarter or another, he'll keep revenging himself on that quarter. This is what you call a bad child.

Now, most Mark IVs jiggle before you put in the cans. They all jitter. They all do. That's nothing because the stabilizing factor is contained in getting the circuit completed. That stabilizes them at once. This is nothing to worry about. Only start worrying about your Mark IV when you've got the can jack plugged in and the pc on the cans and it's jiggling. Now you can get worried because there is something wrong with your meter. Usually it's a grain of dust or something has gotten into the tone arm swing, but we've put a new tone arm carbon-brush arrangement in there, and they don't do too much of this now.

I've worked this out so often and observed it so often that I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the complete accuracy of it. Nursemaid shows up. She's going to push one of the children's head in, you see. Honest, from that time on she really never has a — he really never has a calm moment. It goes from actual insolence on the part of the child and outright disobedience — to spreading rumors and scandal and covert disobedience — to apparent obedience that always seems to spill the shoe polish all over the nursemaid's bedspread. And it just goes on downhill, to being terribly ill and impossible to care for and keeping everybody up day and night, see.

But most people are not aware of this. This meter is jiggling right this minute. You see this meter jiggle?

But this little kid is still trying. See? You can follow this impulse, "Get even with the nurse," you see? — right on down through a full cycle.

Audience: Yes. Hm-hm.

And although the manifestations of trying are enormously different and are hardly distinguishable as a gradient scale sometimes, you can carefully trace them all down and get all to the base of it and you'll find out, good God, this kid is still trying.

Hm.

This person is coughing at the dinner table. If you trace this thing down meticulously as though you would trace down a tiny cough — because, you see, this cough the person is coughing, at best you could only trace down one tiny little portion of this cough. Don't you see. But if you want to know when it turned on and they started using it in this lifetime, it will be the end product of getting even with Father. See? Father: the harsh disciplinarian, the this, the that, the other thing. And the little kid sat at the table, got down to the point where the only action that could be taken was spasms and fits of coughing at the dinner table, because coughing was very annoying to Father. This is your pc's cough, see.

Male voice: Big jiggle.

Because of the GPM and the stronger forces that are at work, these facts tend to be obscured because it's quite difficult to run them down and doesn't pay too much cash award to run them down. Because after you've got rid of this source of the cough then you pick it up in some other lifetime. They were annoying somebody else then, the cough turns back on. And then, like a fellow I backed out of his head one time, I — he finally found out he was coughing and the body wasn't coughing at all. That's right. He was coughing — standing there ten, fifteen feet back of his head coughing like mad. Always, ever since he started coughing, he'd always blamed his body for coughing But the point is, he was trying to make some point good. He was trying to reach in some direction and a thetan just never stops trying, that's all. you set him up a target to reach at and he'll try. It's fabulous.

Well, the read that you're supposed to read is about one tenth of that jiggle. You having a hard time reading the jiggle?

Now, when you conduct a perfect session and then suddenly set up a wild, random wrongness somewhere in the session, you catch the pc off-balance and the pc goes to — into action reactively. He actually is powerless to stop himself from going into action. He'll say things, he will be cross about things because you had the reactive bank all stretched out, and let's say it was made out of rubber bands, you know. And it was all stretched out and it was all fine and he was busy spotting, you know, various points of it, and this is the anatomy of it, and he's got a chance to straighten out this thing, and he's doing fine. And then all of a sudden somebody lets go of all the other end of the rubber bands. He finds himself in this mess. And he gets overwhelmed at that point and he starts dramatizing whatever's handy. And actually he's just got thousands — hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of these instances of unfinished cycles of "still trying," and they will go into action. They'll go against the auditor.

Male voice: oh, I can see the jiggle, but one tenth of it — uh-uh.

The final denouement — he'll say he didn't get any result. That would be one method of getting back at the auditor for doing this. He didn't get any result. It's actually worse than this: he gets negative results. He can actually dream up a negative result. He can get very subtle and very involved about this. What you do is convince the auditor — he can get down to this point — you can convince the auditor the auditor has gotten results and then you fix it up so somebody else knows now you haven't. But this somehow or another gets back to the auditor and we get a terrific confusion going here of one kind or another.

Yeah, one tenth of it. Ha-ha. That gets rather small, doesn't it? Well, to be absolutely safe, that's what you should be able to do.

These are all dramatized things. These are all efforts to get back at to fill in the breach — the dramatization of all of these things.

Female voice: Hm.

A pc is in control of the bank. Suddenly, the auditor's force and power with which this bank is being held up for inspection — see, it's auditor plus pc is greater than the bank — auditor makes one mistake on the meter, we have deleted the auditor from the session. The bank caves in on the pc and the pc dramatizes. It's very elementary.

I've seen a goal that read no more than that jiggle, and was the right goal, read every time. yet nobody could locate it. I thought they were all nuts. It was obvious the goal was reading. Nobody else could see it move.

It's always good news when you have only one error to locate. You can't always locate what's wrong You can go on fumbling around. Supposing twelve things were wrong. See? Oh man, you could hunt and punch for those for a long time. No, the only thing that's wrong in Scientology today is meter reading — that's all. There isn't anything else wrong.

Width of present time could then be broadened to a point of where you could perceive motion or stillness by various drills of perception.

Look, if you guys in just a few days can learn to do repetitive rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking and more or less master a new Model Session and do all that sort of thing, and — we well know that your TRs — and we've isolated what Q and A is — we know all that can be straightened out. Well, these things, then, pose no difficulty. They're actually a no-difficulty status. No difficulty involved in any of that.

Now, your next level, let's take up, is brevity of perception. What section of the present time you are in do you require to perceive an inaction or an action? And as soon as we have said that, we actually open the door to the solution to this problem. Broadening your present time is most easily done by clearing you. And any other processing leveled in that direction of broadening your present time is frankly a waste of time, because it's all going to come out right when you're Clear.

Well, where is the difficulty? Where is it? Where is it that drives the auditor to use an unusual solution to patch up something that's happened wrong? See. He's got to have eighteen new middle rudiments to put the pc right. Well, how come he needs eighteen new middle rudiments to put the pc right, see? Well, the pc must have been driven wrong somewhere.

But the proposition that you must be Clear before you can audit anybody is totally unworkable and never will work. There are several reasons for this, having to do with practicality. And one of the reasons you perhaps are not too aware of, and that is to say, cleared raw meat with no reality on what has happened is enormously inferior to somebody that has the data and goes Clear. They get a subjective reality on what it's like trying to wrestle with the problems of it. They understand this. Their comprehension and understanding of the problems and so forth, are infinitely greater. They're left with a capability of understanding people, even though Clear. Whereas you clear raw meat and you're liable to find somebody now very impatient with people — wonders why he's associating with them or something of the sort. Gets all involved. I've had some interesting letters on this subject, by the way.

Well, I know by careful inspection you don't need any more beginning rudiments than you got. you can delete the Havingness. As a matter of fact, too often it throws the pc's attention out of session. Pc's feeling bad, you can build his havingness up with O/W. That's havingness. Sure keeps the pc's attention on his bank. you don't want a pc extroverted at the beginning of session. How would you like to sit there and for half an hour persuade the pc — you'd never do this — but, persuade the pc to examine some locks or pictures. You know, persuade him that he should be interested in what's going on in his head. Think of that. Think of that. can you imagine yourself as the auditor sitting there saying to this person, "Well, actually you're — you should look at those pictures. You say you have a pain in your chin. Well, you should look in front of your face, there." And the pc said, "Oh, no. I'd much rather look at these walls."

It's easy to follow some person's worries when they're jammed in their heads and aren't thinking very straight. That's easy to follow, if you can follow it, when they start figure-figuring It's dead easy, you know? A guy is dead in his head, and the pattern of his thought is now going to repeat itself. You're going to have a way to figure this out. you may not get it the first pattern, but you'll get it the second pattern. You'll figure out finally what he means.

Well, you could go on like that for quite a while. Once in a while you will find this kind of a condition. But running Havingness at the beginning of session tends in the direction of setting up that condition. Pc's all prepared to be interested in his bank and himself and his reactive mind and you say, "Be interested in the wall," don't you see? So to that degree, to that degree — it is not a serious error, not for a long ways. But there is something in favor of dropping it even though the pc's havingness might be down. See, on the average, on the average — down havingness will wreak less havoc than taking the pc's attention off of what his attention is on.

Well, this isn't true — you get a Clear who is doing a figure-figure and you've really got something on your hands. Trying to understand a Clear when he's figure-figuring is one of the more difficult things that you will be called upon to do here and there. Because you will inevitably make, sooner or later, a raw-meat Clear, and then he's going to ask you the damnedest questions. You've had answers to these things all along. And, of course, he's much smarter at asking questions now. It's rather interesting. They've asked me all kinds of — I've been asked very, very complicated questions on the subject of why people behave as they do. Or how you — how I could possibly stand to associate with people or . . . You know, all kinds of oddball questions.

Now, if the pc feels bad, it's because of the overt-motivator sequence. That's right. That's the only reason the pc feels bad anyhow. It's the only reason he got a GPM — is basically, he's got this all in the woof and warp of the bank already. So, here he is. He feels bad and that sort of thing, and you run O/W, his attention will get on his bank and he'll get interested and he'll go into session.

It just shows you that the poor guy has suddenly been launched into the stratosphere and is being expected to fly without having found out that he's in an airplane. He has no comparative data, don't you see? He'll be fine. I mean, he'll do well in life and that sort of thing — not that I'm trying to run down the state. But as far as the idea of the mind and people and this universe, there is no substitute for a guy being as spun-in as you are and then going Clear, because you go Clear on it with all the data.

Your problem with a pc, of course, falls under the headings of every problem an auditor has ever had with a pc. Communication, control — keeping the pc's attention on what you're doing, getting your auditing questions answered: all of these things. Oddly enough, to a marked degree, you have mastered these things. And sometimes have had them deteriorate and you have been overpersuaded into unusual solutions and actions and doing something else and Q-and-Aing and getting very anxious about the pc. you get thrown. Do you see? Why? Well, the pc apparently is out of session. This is one of the most baffling manifestations. You've carefully put the pc in-session by the best way you could and you'll find the pc is out of session somehow.

And listen, if you can understand what's going on now, you'll understand it real well; you'll get it nicely sorted out. There's a lot of virtue to be said for this. So, completely aside from any other understanding here, you get much more comprehending people this way. That's why clearing everybody without training any auditors is not a solution.

What drives the pc out of session although you're trying to put him in-session? Well, let's take Havingness out of the beginning rudiments, which we have done — just to prevent any possibility of this ever doing this. So we get good shooting all along that line. Let's patch this up anyway we can by any mechanism we can. And it's all patched up — you don't have to do anything unusual about it. But we find this pc is out of session. He was terribly interested in his ulcers a minute ago and he's not interested in his ulcers at all now. Well, what happened? You missed a meter read. That's the answer to it.

Now, when we look at the problem of time, we see that you have to have a little more time to conceive a stillness than you do — have to have a motion, because we've got to see three things, three moments of time in a stillness, and only two moments of time in a motion. And people, by the way, are more intolerant therefore and thereby of stillnesses. Whatever other value this philosophic observation has, they're much more intolerant, because it takes more time to see one; takes more time to observe one. They always think of stillnesses as absorbing tremendous quantity of time. They get very, very tired.

It must sound peculiar to you. I tell you all you've got to do is run two or three Havingness Prepcheck or just — pardon me, Rudiments Havingness, you know, Model Session Havingness sessions — Havingness in the body of the session, which is gorgeous. Just run two or three of those and your pc's needle smooths out. And yet there are auditors here who have run eight, ten or twenty of them and have had a rougher needle at the end of the time than they did at the beginning See? I don't know if that was true or not, but the observation I have made could have been contingent upon several errors. And it could have been this error and that error and another error and some other error. And these various errors, all combined, could bring about the situation where the guy's needle gets dirty. See? We could be hunting for the needle in the haystack, in other words.

They see an oak tree out there motionless in the pasture and for a little while they'll "ooh" and "ah" over this marvelous oak tree. But they may go out and sit in the pasture themselves and look at this oak tree and then just suddenly be overwhelmed by the terrible standing-thereness of it, foreverness of it, see? Th-uth-zz-zz, you know? Whereas they look at something traveling rather rapidly, like a colt, and the idea never comes to their mind. Has nothing to do with the gra - the development of the colt. Has the idea that the colt is in motion, so therefore he — his continuance does not have to be as great as something that is standing still. See? Three moments as opposed to two moments.

In every auditor we could be looking very carefully around to what is this auditor doing wrong? Is it TR 0, 1, 2, 3, 4? Is it his Model Session? Is it his — the way he snaps gum in the middle of the session? What is it? What is it? We could — it's this, it's that, it's the other thing. No, we don't have to look around like that.

So the period of time required to observe can be shortened until a person can observe in the tiniest, narrowest present time — three moments of time or two moments of time. Let's say this poor sod's present time — let's really cut it down, see — is a millionth of a second, see? Well, we're out beyond the realm of being able to observe anything at all. See? So he's had it. We're not training him as an auditor. He's leaning on a tree in some cemetery feeling sad for himself, you know? He isn't even picking up a body, this one isn't.

The auditor is driven into looking bad by the fact he isn't getting results. And he starts looking bad. He starts getting anxious. He sees that his orderly and disciplined approach is apparently producing no good result, so he'll start doing other things to reach the pc, to produce an effect of some kind or another. His Axiom 10 is being thrown out the window and he starts breaking down his own discipline. He is — he hasn't anything to grab onto. His reality is poor.

No, let's take a tenth of a second as somebody's PT. Oh, well, let's be better. Let's take a twentieth of a second — twentieth of a second. Now, that takes us down to almost anybody. See? And now let's be able to carve a twentieth of a second up into three pieces. And of course, we get three periods, see, of each one — what is it? — a sixtieth of a second in duration. So we then have to be able to observe an instant in time which is no longer than a sixtieth of a second. And we can observe three instants in time in the guy's PT. Therefore, he sees that the needle is still. He observes it's there, it was there, it is there, it will be there, all at one fell swoop and recognize that he has no motion involved with it.

All right, the Instructor comes along and tries to patch up this auditor. And he stands back and he gives him a terrific analysis of the thing He watches him and he says, "Well, your TR 4 is quite weak. Your TR 0 could be improved, and you do always seem to make an awful clatter there writing up your auditor's report, so we can improve that. And you really haven't got this drill down exactly right as to when you ask on the meter and when you ask the pc — you haven't got that drill quite right. We'll straighten out that."

So, you might then say the moment of tolerance of observation is a sixtieth of a second. You must be able to perceive an isness only a sixtieth of a second long You see, this is not trying to expand somebody's PT before he's Clear, you see; this is cutting it down to where a below-average PT can perceive it. And now let's educate him by practice and drill into actually perceiving what he can already perceive. He can perceive a sixtieth of a second.

And we straighten out all these things meticulously and the Instructor works, you know, and his perspiration soaks into the grass — kills vast areas of grass off. And this auditor is finally all straightened out now and everything is fine and so forth. The auditor goes back into session and the pc ARC breaks and it all goes to hell. And the auditor, in his anxiety to help the pc and Axiom 10 and so forth, he starts doing unusual things and adds twelve more beginning rudiments and changes the wording of all the end rudiments and finally decides he'd better finish the session with, "Give me that hand," you see — a Prepcheck session. It seems to work for him, you see?

I don't know if you ever looked at the shutter of a camera that is set for a sixtieth of a second, but it's very perceivable. You take a shutter of a camera and set it for a twentieth of a second or something like that, why, you can almost see images in the room through the thing. You look through the back of the thing, and it goes click and it's — oh, it's dead slow. The diaphragm opens and closes again and it's — it's terrific, see?

The Instructor gets a lose and it's reported to me, you see. And you say, "Well, it's just something or other isn't working and we're not quite sure what it is." And I decide once and for all what was doing it. That's what's doing it. Very hidden. Very mysterious.

All right. You set that camera for a five-hundredth of a second and you have to ask yourself for a moment: Did it open and close? You're more told by the fact that it clicked aurally, see, than the fact that you perceived the light. Nevertheless, you hold a camera at a five-hundredth of a second up to a light and most people will be able to perceive, at least — even if it were wide open as a lens — they'd perceive something about the size of a sixpence or something like this. They perceive a smaller diameter than the diameter of the lens. Actually, it's in direct ratio: The amount of PT that they can observe easily, see, is reflected in the narrowing diameter that they could perceive of that diaphragm. We won't bother to get into this too technically like that, but some people will see it as a pinpoint. See? And other people will see it at a five-hundredth of a second; they will see the whole lens. It just varies from person to person. I only make these remarks and add this into the setup because it gives you an index of actually indexing people's present time, which you might find of some use sometime or another — choosing pilots or something like that.

The auditor in the first place wasn't actually getting the pc all this upset with his TR 4 or something like that. That wasn't really what was upsetting the pc. The auditor was missing meter reads. The auditor was insistently saying, "Well, it says right here," (as you saw last night on TV), "It says right here you have a present time problem so you — you've got a present time problem. That's all there is to it, see. you — what do you mean you haven't got a problem? Goddamnit, there it is!"

Now, if we take a sixtieth of a second as a tolerance point — let's be twice as good and let's make it about a hundred and twenty-fifth of a second. Let's be able to perceive an isness in a hundred and twenty-fifth of a second. And you'll find out without broadening PT that most people will be able to be drilled into this.

This sort of an approach... And so the pc got all frayed around the edges and the session went to pieces and the auditor lost his drill. And so the Auditing Supervisor gave him a GAE and the Instructor looked it over and he says, "Well, this could look lots better," and straightened him all up and he goes back into session again and he does the same cotton-picking error. See? He just cleans up a clean read, you know.

Now, it goes something like this: They can perceive an isness in a second. You show them the lantern slide of a chair for one second on a screen and nearly everybody present, except somebody who is stone blind, will say to you, "That was a chair," but won't be able to give you much of the detail of the chair in that one second. But we keep showing them the chair and we keep showing them the chair and showing them the chair, and finally — it isn't that they stack up a number of observations; we could show them different observations of the chair — and they eventually would see the chair better. And they would see it better to the extent of telling you how the seat was finished — whether it was in cloth or embroidery or leatherette or something of this sort. They'd tell you how many rungs it had, how many verticals in the back of the thing and if there was anything else in the picture. And they eventually perceive everything that is there. In other words, they wrap themselves around the isness of the thing.

Everything was going swimmingly in the session. They'd gotten down to, "Have you ever raped anybody?" You see? And there was a rape, you know. The guy had a rape on the thing. And the auditor says, "All right. I'll check that on the meter." It's clean as a whistle, see? "Have you ever raped anybody?" Nothing. And the auditor says, "All right, what's that?" And the pc says, "What nothingness am I supposed to regurgitate here?" His reality breaks on the situation. First of all, he credits the thing, and so forth and so on and so on.

All right. We take another picture — let us say a table — and we show this to them for a half of a second, and a half a second, and a half a second — we show them the same picture half a second, or different views in a half a second — and they finally are able to pick up all of that. In other words, they can see in that half a second. We take another slide, entirely disrelated to it, and you'll now find out these people who have learned to see in a half a second will get all the detail — if they have drilled adequately on it — will get all of the detail necessary, or that's in the thing, in that half-a-second look, see?

By this time he's got an ARC break and there is a read on the question "rape." It'd clean up instantly if the auditor simply had presence of mind enough to say, "Is there an ARC break here? That. That."

All right. So we slow it up now to a quarter of a second. And we show them a picture at a quarter of a second. If before they were drilled at one second you had shown them the picture at a quarter of a second, to a lot of people it would have looked like a blank. But now we're working on a gradient scale. We've shown a second, we've shown a half a second; now we've got it down to a quarter of a second, so we show them the views of something or other at a quarter of a second till they can see at a quarter of a second without questioning.

"Oh well — huh, yeah."

And having done that, we move down to an eighth of a second and we repeat the same drill in an eighth of a second. You've got a magic lantern, is what you've got, or a projection machine of some kind or another, which has a photo diaphragm which can be adjusted from one second — well, it's got to have a time device on it so it can be left open — but it's adjusted from one second to a hundred and twenty-fifth of a second. We get everybody that's involved in the drill accustomed to seeing things at an eighth of a second there and at the eighth-of-a-second flash — they can get everything out of an eighth-of-a-second flash that they would get out of it.

And then asked the rape question again and he'd find it again would be clean. But if the auditor were particularly abstruse and obtuse, the second time he asked the rape question and got no read, he would see a read.

Now we move down, of course, to a fifteenth of a second — that being a handy halving used by a camera — and at a fifteenth of a second . . . That, by the way, is the speed of a Brownie box camera. Have you ever looked into a Brownie box camera and seen the lens travel across in a fifteenth of a second? You'll be able to perceive everything that is perceivable in the picture in that fifteenth of a second.

We don't know sometimes — they read a phantom needle. Maybe they're reading them — a needle they got mocked up because they themselves have got a rape on the case, see. We don't know what this is, but they will see a read here. And then they go and thrust it down the pc's throat and the whole situation goes to pieces. And the auditor walks out of that session and says, "Well, standard drills don't work." See?

Now let's take it at a thirtieth of a second. And let's perceive everything at a thirtieth of a second. And now we're up to a sixtieth of a second, and that's the first admissible point for absolute reliable reading. A sixtieth of a second. We get everybody in so they can see it and then we move them on up to a seventy-fifth, or some such thing, and then speed it up until we eventually get them to a hundred and twenty-fifth of a second.

The wrongness is the imaginary read — the erroneous reading of the needle. See? And out of this — this having the one thing you can't do wrong — we get a pursuance of a tremendous number of things going wrong And then, of course, anybody can sit around and see these things going wrong After all, the auditor picking up his E-Meter and hitting the pc over his head with it — that anybody could observe that that was going wrong in a session. So, you see? So they say, "Well, this auditor has an antagonistic attitude toward pcs, you see. And we'll give him some auditing and we'll do a 6A and we'll clean up all this antagonism he has toward pcs."

In other words, if there's anything on the picture at all, the person's eye and viewingness and alertness on the thing can be trained up to see at a hundred and twenty-fifth of a second if it is there or if it isn't there.

We send him back into session and this time he just stands there and kicks the pc's shins one after the other — in rotation — one, two. We don't see what has preceded this. What's preceded this is an erroneous meter read.

What I'm giving you actually, is naval recognition training, World War II. There were a lot of these ideas kicking around California and other places and the navy and the army got up into certain problems they couldn't immediately solve, so they picked up educators here and there and they finally developed things like this recognition training.

Now, that's the one thing that is difficult to supervise. You don't have a Supervisor stand in back of everybody all the time seeing how they did. And at this particular stage of the game you haven't got enough coaches or Supervisors who can read a needle accurately every time to tip you off. you understand? So your situation — your situation there, it just goes unobserved — whole thing goes unobserved.

I went a little bit further with it. We had outfits of one kind or another. You can teach kids the alphabet. You can teach people when they — that can't read, and you can teach them to read very rapidly. You can teach little kids to — arithmetic with great speed, as well as to recognize what kind of an airplane it is, given the briefest glimpse of it — all of these things. That was the intention with which the stuff was used.

Now, we can find lots of reasons the session went wrong: The auditor came a little bit late to session; the pc was annoyed with the way the meter was set up, clang-crash-bing-pow, you know and the cans dropping on the floor; there's noise in the same room — there's another session going on so we can attribute it to that. The pc feels a little bit fluttery and upset and the auditor forgets the first part of his Model Session and says, "All right. In this session have you been critical of me — I mean start of session!" You see, something like that — he makes some minor boob. Well, we say that would obviously wreck a session. And we have been built into a belief that a session could be wrecked by things which actually wouldn't wreck a session. They could be patched up. They could be straightened up. No, a session is wrecked by the invisible thing. This was a hidden thing.

They've brought it up into reading now. Now it's in reading, and they issue you books in the United States now that have timed slides on the side of them. you set this thing and you've got to be able to see a single word or see a group of words and they give you different shutter speeds with which you can perceive these, and it's speed reading. And as an attesting to it, actually a United States senator was able to read — he had trained himself up to read, I think it was Oliver Twist, in fifteen minutes or something like that — at least he was standing there — but because he's a United States senator I don't believe that. you wouldn't either. Anyway, the fellow had actually condensed his recognition line.

The auditor was sitting right there and he said, "Do you have a present time problem?" And he said, "That reads. What is it?"

That's the use that's being put to today. So they're still using this principle. That came off of aircraft recognition.

And the pc said — pc tries, see? "I don't know . . . I guess it's with my own pc. Yes, I'm having trouble with my own pc. Yes. That's it."

I never used it myself. I trained men on it and that sort of thing. I had an entirely different attitude toward aircraft recognition. I was in South Pacific at the beginning of the war. The extant philosophy at the beginning of the war was "If it flies you shoot it down because there are none of ours up there anyplace," and you sort of got into that habit. I got into a nasty habit with regard to aircraft: is — it flies, shoot it, you know? And in fact it's a good sport. He's shooting at you, shoot at him. What's the difference?

All right. And the auditor said, "All right. Thank you. Do you have a present time problem?"

And I was never under the delusion that the Army Air Forces were on our side. I never was. I never made that mistake. We used to talk it over occasionally, and we always came to the same opinion — that we were not fighting the same war. Anyway, they had an IFF, Identification Friend and Foe radar, and your radar screen would hit the aircraft and if it was equipped with IFF or if the IFF was working, it flashed back a signal and it told you that it was a friend. You just shot at everything else. So I never used this system. But I did train a lot of people up in it and used it in various ways, and have myself been trained on this system itself and I know it's quite remarkable.

"No. No. That's all. That's all."

The first time I ever saw — I think it was a Japanese bomber — slide of a Japanese bomber at a hundred and twenty-fifth of a second, let me tell you, I didn't even think there was a blackboard there that the thing was shining on. Hundred and twenty-fifth of a second, you know? And I sort of saw it wink. I wasn't even prepared, you know, to greet this thing at all. I didn't even know what was going to happen, you know? And blink! And I was in there with a bunch of advanced students. The Instructor says to the students, "What was it?" And they say, "A Mitsubishi yump-shomph-womph-womph something or other bomber" you know? I just looked out the window. I didn't see any. And I finally dug what they were up to. And I saw a group of sailors pass from a second of scratching their heads to find out whether it was an airplane or a fly or what it was that had been flashed on the screen during that second, to being able to hit it on the button in a seventy-fifth of a second with the greatest of ease.

"All right. Thank you. I'll check that out on the meter. Do you have a present time problem?" See?

Just that training gives you a method by which you can bring a person to observe stillness or motion in the tolerable instant of time. Now, we're not now talking about rigging up anything very fancy. This isn't a very fancy rig. This is any old projection machine fitted with a camera shutter that will take speeds of time of one second and down to a hundred and twenty-fifth, so it's not even a good camera shutter. Most of them will take you down to a five-hundredth and a lot of them to a thousandth, you see? You don't need it that fancy. But it has to be a fairly big shutter, and it has to be installed in such a way that it doesn't interrupt putting in slides. If you were just to take some pictures — pictures of pretty girls, (anything), or pictures of handsome and strong men (anything) — and just flick these on with some distinguishing feature, or if you were just to take numbers written on a piece of paper, see, that went into the slide just so it projected clearly on the screen, and you did this same drill of just shortening the length of time necessary to perceive it . . .

There's no more read than a rabbit on this meter, see. Nothing. And he says, "That reads," he says, "What is it?"

Of course, it's best to have a large assortment of drills that goes in one after the other, because people very quickly will learn rotation, and they fool you in various ways, so that you throw in these slides variably, you see? Anything that they could recognize. It wouldn't matter what it was. A series of numbers. Anything, see? Blondes and brunettes. It doesn't matter what it was, as long as it was there to be recognized and you could tell whether or not the fellow had seen it. you could gradually work up his ability to perceive in briefer and briefer intervals of time until, of course, he could perceive in the three intervals, one sixtieth of a second each, necessary to tell him if that meter was acceptably still. Now, you'd have it. That would give you perfect meter reading.

And the pc says, "Do I have a present time problem. Well, now I have got one. It's the problem of having a present time problem."

Now, this is an interesting approach — an approach through a lot of training methods, visual training aids and that sort of thing, which were developed a long time ago but which were very successful. It gives you more than this. You could get into a situation here where you fit this thing up with an E-Meter element, and you actually see a still needle, and you actually see a moving needle. And seeing a moving needle for one hundred and twenty-fifth of a second would be asking the person to perceive moments of time consisting of a three hundred and seventy-fifth of a second. To perceive that it was still, it'd have to be a three hundred and seventy-fifth of a second that the person could perceive an instant; and to see that it was moving, he'd have to be able to perceive a two hundred and fiftieth of a second instant. That's far beyond the tolerance absolutely necessary for a person to read an E-Meter. But if you're going to train people, train them good, you know?

See? Here he goes. It's the missed withhold of nothingness. And the pc goes right down the spout. So you say, "Well, do you have a present time problem?" It falls off the pin because it's falling on ARC break, see? You get an ARC break fall.

Anybody could make this kind of a rig and experiment around with it until he found out how to shorten people's necessary period of observation.

And the auditor says, "Well, that's clear. You agree that's clean?"

The psychologist, who has made many mistakes — and by the way, apologized to us the other day. The big chief in South Africa apologized abjectly to me for daring to use my name in vain, and our solicitor turned the letter back and said that it would have to be publicly published, and so on. He was saying some dirty words concerning me. He was inferring I was a psychologist, I think.

Pc now knows he has an ARC break and he feels very nervous, feels very upset one way or the other. Isn't responding well. So the pc says, "Oh, yeah, yeah. I agree it's clean. Yeah."

Anyway, a psychologist has observed this interesting error, that the eye has a shutter speed of about a twentieth or a twenty-fifth of a second. This is a stupid lie. The eye has no shutter speed. You gaze into some girl's eyes, and if you're not terrifically stricken along other emotional lines, you maybe perceive that there is no Compur shutter installed back of the iris. I know it seems sacrilegious to gaze into some girl's eyes just to understand whether or not there's a Compur shutter back there, but nevertheless, you have to do some things for science.

"All right. Now, let's get into this Prepcheck. All right. In this lifetime, have you ever been mad to a pc? That's clean."

But the point is, is there is no interval. But there's a thetan back of the eyeball, see, back of the channel line, who has a width of PT and who tends to fixate on what he considers an observable moment. And then he — if it takes place shorter than that, it isn't observable. Well, he very rapidly — because you're narrowing time — can follow it easily. See, he can train himself down into narrower glimpses and it appears very comfortable to him finally because he's actually looking at segments of his own PT. And he finds his own PT fairly comfortable — relatively speaking — and so therefore he can comfortably observe briefer moments than that.

"That's clean? Me? (All right, if he says so.)"

I mention this thing about the eye being a twentieth or twenty-fifth of a second, or something like that, because somebody will bring it up and tell you how it is sooner or later and doesn't happen to be factual. There is no shutter.

"Have you ever taken any money and never given any auditing in return? That's clean."

What the eye perceives as motion and what it perceives as stillness is almost as variable as there are people. This is not any constant.

"It is? Golly, you know, maybe I cleaned that off in that other session . . . I must have — somewhere . . ."

To teach people never to miss a read consists solely and entirely of being able, for those people, to establish what is still, without any question in their mind, and what is moving, without any question in their minds, and what is moving faster or moving slower than it was. That's all they have to establish and be satisfied with in their mind and read a meter.

Got no meter reads practically for the next — rest of the session until another ARC break occurs, somewhere here. Now the meter starts reading all cross-eyed and crazy, see? Finish up the session. Everything's a dog's breakfast. The pc feels bad and the auditor doesn't know what's wrong. And everybody is attributing it to something else.

Meanwhile, you have none of these training aids, none of them. They are things of the future. So you are the children, the forgotten children of yesteryear, who grew up in the dark ages when we didn't have these things and somehow learned anyway.

But nobody was standing there pointing out the fact that the very first time he tried to clean something that was clean, and maybe he committed the felony of doing it again, he set up a situation of a missed withhold — the roughest missed withhold there is — the withhold of zero. The nothingness. There it went. There went his session. And he never does spot this as a missed withhold and the pc doesn't spot it as a missed withhold or call it such and of course it never cleans up. So you've got 3 May HCOB in full bloom. Right in the session and your meter stops reading, eventually. It goes on down on a gradient and stops reading.

But I call your attention to the fact that this can be taught, can be acquired and you can acquire it directly on a meter. Just by watching a meter, observing what is moving and what is still, you will eventually come to read it anyhow.

Now, if this happens session after session after session, you get an automatic sessioning on the part of the pc. you get a pc trained to self-audit while faced with an auditor. The pc never waits for the meter read one way or the other. He unloads to you his withholds. See, he gives you this, he gives you that. He said, "Well, I've been very careful since the last session — so on and so on. Yes, I have a present time problem with so-and-so and so-and — I also had another problem with so-and-so and so-and-so and I had another problem with so-and-so and so-and-so and I got another problem with so-and-so and so-and-so. And that's about all the problems which I have, and so forth, and those are my problems. Okay. There aren't any more."

And remember this: that one read, wrong, to clean a clean or to ignore a reacting, moving needle in a session, are intolerable at the level of one per session. You can't even have one per session. It's zero per session.

The auditor will say, "I'll check that on the meter. Do you have a present time problem?" Gets no read and says, "That's clean." And goes on from there.

So that is the direction I want to see you go and that is the direction I know you can go.

But the pc, if you'll notice, oddly enough, is beating the gun on practically every question — hardly waits for them to be asked. Here's your gopher sitting on top of the thing right up there in PT. He's keeping his own rudiments in — keeping his own rudiments in. You're nulling on a list — he keeps his own rudiments in.

And we got the hump — we got the hump crossed and that is very good news. Now all you've got to do is read that needle.

Perfectly all right for a pc to say, "Hey, I just invalidated that item." The auditor should do nothing like auditors sometimes — when a pc volunteers something, why, they do the mid ruds on nulling. Man, that's a way to shut your pc up in a hurry. But you'll find out the pc who's really been mauled around with bad meter reading who keeps them in obsessively, he'll say, "Just a minute. I want to get this Invalidation off and that Careful off, and I got that and that's all straightened out now. Okay. Carry on." And the pc actually is running the session.

Thank you very much.

And that automatic attitude, self-auditing attitude, while in session, is borne directly and only from bad meter calls. Self-auditing of that particular type, right there in session, occurs only when the meter has been called upwards and backwards. Nobody is trying to say that self-auditing is no good and doesn't work and that sort of thing. There isn't anybody . . . There isn't a soul here who hasn't done some self-auditing, even if on such a mild basis as: burns his finger and there's nobody around and he stands there and touches the side of the cook stove a few times until the finger burn goes out. Auditors are always doing that sort of thing. We're talking about the thing where the guy can't have an auditor. Well, he can't have an auditor because he can't trust meter reads anymore.

Good night.

Now, you find a pc that has the word "difficulty" charged and the word "problem" charged — as minor thoughts, these are terrifically charged — then use bad TR 1 on him so the whole thought doesn't register and you only get the minor-thought charge. Then try to clean the word "difficulty" while asking, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" which doesn't clean the word "difficulty." Do you find — do you see what I'm talking about? And you'll see a session fall right straight into the wastebasket, because there are no answers.

You see, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" is not going to clean up the read on the word "difficulty." You understand, I'm saying this guy has a charged thing called "difficulty." He's got a button called "difficulty." So where you — wherever you have a sentence, if you — in the absence of good TR 1 — wherever you have a sentence where the word "difficulty" occurs, even in life, why, there's an instant read at the end of "difficulty."

All right. Now, we try to clean up this rudiment with the poor TR 1, because the word "difficulty" is reacting. You're going to be in a mess in no time at all. Do you see what I mean? Because you're trying to clean something that isn't there. Well, it isn't that subtle. It's not that subtle. You don't have to worry too much about the TR 1 and the end words.

Those catastrophes will happen to you too. you should know they exist so you can straighten them out. No, the catastrophes all occur unwittingly. The auditor doesn't think anything is happening because he's not aware of having made a mistake and the pc just goes into a total fog. The ARC breaks bloom in all directions. The pc ceases to read on the meter or starts reading backwards. Every time the auditor says anything to him, he has an ARC break, so he reads. Something wild is going on from one end to the other, and of course, we get no auditing done. Worse than that, we get negative auditing done. If you keep this up on meter reading, you'll drop graphs.

If you want to know — really drop a graph, get an intermittent fault in the E-Meter. You know, you part one of the wires so for every ten minutes, it's out for ten minutes. Do it for twenty-five hours and look at the graph, before and after, of the pc. It'll drop.

In other words, the technique and routines and drills of auditing are not great enough or powerful enough to overcome the liability of missed reads or cleaning clean reads.

And in a session, the number of reads that you can miss is exactly none. This is something that has to be done perfectly.

It's a tolerance of zero. There is no tolerance of any kind whatsoever. You just never miss a read.

That doesn't say you can't say occasionally that one is equivocal or something of this sort. you can, and read it again. No. It's — don't — don't misread. One misread will throw a session into a cocked hat. you can ruin a whole session with one misread. What do you think happens in a session where you miss five? Interesting question, isn't it? It's a question of, sort of "My God. How are you still alive?" Even as auditors, "How are you still alive? How hasn't some pc shot you?" It's pretty wild, you see?

Now, definition of a dangerous auditor is: an auditor who might miss one read in a session.

You see what you're shooting for? Now that you know what you're shooting for, make your form look good. Do your drills right and so forth. Don't let down on that.

But what you're shooting for in absolute perfection, is meter reading. Unless you can get that down to a point where you miss none, ever, you will be a dangerous auditor.

Thank you.