Русская версия

Search document title:
Content search 2 (exact):
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Formulating Integrity Processing Questions (IPS-18) - BTB721221v74 | Сравнить

SCANS FOR THIS DATE- 721221 - Board Technical Bulletin - Formulating Integrity Processing Questions [BTB03-003]
CONTENTS FORMULATING INTEGRITY PROCESSING QUESTIONS Cохранить документ себе Скачать
BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN
21 DECEMBER 1972
Reissued 1 July 1974 as BTB
Cancels
HCO Bulletin of 21 December 1972
Same title
Remimeo Integrity Processing Series 18

FORMULATING INTEGRITY PROCESSING QUESTIONS

Withholds add up to overts, secrecies, individuation; they add up to games conditions and a lot more things than just O/W.

Although we call them withholds we’re really asking a person to straighten out his interpersonal relationships with other terminals and groups.

Our normal Integrity Processing is addressed to the individual versus the society or his family or group because it’s what people would consider reprehensible that makes a withhold. That is the basic center line of Integrity Processing, transgressions against the mores of the group.

You can have a special mores between the individual and different groups, between the son and the mother, between the husband and the wife, between the staff member and the organization, or between the Auditor and the Preclear (to which the Auditor Integrity Processing Form is directed).

It’s a moral code that you are processing one way or the other. You’re straightening out somebody on the “now I’m supposed to’s” against which they have transgressed. And having so transgressed they now are individuated. If their individuation is too obsessive they snap in and become the terminal and can assume the characteristics of that person.

In dealing with this you go straight to the person’s handling of masses and changes of spaces or into his most confused motional areas (not e-motional).

A person has been a recluse and stayed inside a house ever since he was 20. You don’t start running houses in his Integrity Processing. You find what area he was in before he was 20. Staying in the house is a solution to something. We find an area of considerable activity that lies prior to the difficulty and then run Integrity Processing on that area.

We find there was one boarding school he absolutely detests. That’s what we handle. Every question would have to do with that boarding school. There are students and boys and instructors and coaches and headmasters and buildings and athletic equipment, etc. Write them all down (you don’t ask the Pc) then work out all the types of crimes he might have been able to commit against those items. In this way you compile a whole Integrity Processing Form to suit the situation.

Most often one takes the most appropriate issued form and simply adds a few questions to cover the special situation. You can always add some questions but don’t omit any. When you want to handle a specific area or activity it can be more satisfactory to compile a special form covering all the things you think of that he could have done in that area that he is never going to tell anybody.

This is particularly so when the area has its own special tight mores he has cut up against and so has individuated himself from that area, cannot as-is any part of the track and of course gets trapped in that particular zone and activity.

Forget is a version of Not Know. So any sensory perceptic shut-off is an effort not to know and you have a target.

So you can do little special Integrity Processing Forms to go along with a special zone of activity and eventually you’ll get a “What do you know!” There is no use telling him what he has been doing wrong. He is too in the thing to see it. You can see it because you’re outside it.

You just put “Have you ever done anything to _____?” to a whole list and you’ve got a formulized method of getting together an Integrity Processing Form.

A cognition is totally dependent upon a freedom to know. Overts and withholds are dedicated to Not Knowingness. It takes the guidance of the Integrity Processing Form list of questions to handle this.

The formula then is to just make a list of all the items you can think of that have anything to do with the target and write up a list of possible overts against them or questions that call for overts. Has he done anything to _____? Has he interfered with anything about _____? etc. Don’t include questions that call for motivators or justifications.

The first rule is – any area or zone of life with which a person is having difficulty in life, or has had difficulty, is a fruitful area for Integrity Processing. You’ll find out every time he’s got withholds in that zone or area.

The second rule is to break the problem down to its most fundamental expression. Then write down those nouns associated with it and those basic doingnesses associated with this fundamental expression. Then just phrase up your processing questions on the basis of “Have you ever _____?” and any other verb you want to put in. “Have you ever done _____?” “…… prevented _____?” etc. You don’t have to get too fancy as the needle will fall when you get close to it.

That area where an individual is having difficulty he is stupid. Stupidity is Not Knowingness. Not Knowingness occurs through overts. But the overt has to be hidden so it must be an overt which is withheld. These withholds then add up to stupidity, so of course he has trouble. There isn’t anything complicated about it at all.

Compiled from LRH briefings
and materials by
Lt. Comdr. Brian Livingston
Reissued as BTB by
Flag Mission 1234
I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd: Molly Harlow
Authorized by AVU
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:SW:AL:MH:BL:mh.rd

[This BTB is in similar form released as HCOB 1 Mar 77 III Formulating Confessional Questions]