No matching fragments found in this document.
FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH VOLUME SUPER TECH VOL FOR 1963 - PART 9 (repost) ************************************************** The Freezone Tech Volumes are a superset of: 1. The Old Tech Volumes 2. The New Tech Volumes 3. Confidential Material 4. BTBs 5. PLs from the OEC volumes concerning Tech 6. Anything else appropriate that we can find They do not include a. All HCOPLs (see the OEC volumes for those) b. Tape Transcripts (which are being posted separately) Because there is so much material (for 1963, we have twice as much material as the old tech volumes), and because the old and new Tech Volumes do not align as to how the years are divided between the volumes, we are doing each year as a separate volume. The contents will be posted separately as part 0 and repeated in part 1 but will not be included in the remaining parts to keep the size down. ************************************************** STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet. The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists. It misuses the copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom. They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics. By their standards, all Christians, Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion. The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity. We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against. But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews, the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists. We ask for others to help in our fight. Even if you do not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose to aid us for that reason. Thank You, The FZ Bible Association ************************************************** 103 HCOB 5 JUL 63 ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS (TV5 p. 306-9, NTV VII p. 214-219) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JULY AD13 Franchise Academies CenOCon BPI ALL ROUTINES (HCO Secs: Check out all ARC Break Assessment HCO Bulletins on all executives including registrars and on all staff auditors and Instructors) ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS These lists are valuable. Intelligently used they put an auditor or Scientology staff or executive at cause over all session ARC Breaks and Scientology upsets. The following Assessments are for use in finding by-passed charge in various auditing activities. The source of all ARC Breaks is by-passed charge. There is no other source of ARC Breaks. The type of charge that can be by-passed varies from one auditing activity to another (R3R, 3N, etc). Therefore different lists for assessment are necessary for different Routines in auditing. Another list for general auditing is also necessary. Everything that has been written about by-passed charge is valid. All by- passed charge is in some degree a missed withhold, missed by both auditor and pc. Having these lists for assessment, there is no excuse for an ARC Break to long continue in a session or for anyone to remain ARC Broken with Scientology. The following assessments find what kind of charge has been missed. It is then up to the auditor to locate it more precisely as to character and time and indicate it to the pc. The pc will feel better the moment the right type of by-passed charge is identified by assessment and indicated by the auditor. If the pc does not feel better but further ARC Breaks then the assessment is either incomplete or incorrect. Many complicated ways exist for a charge to be by-passed. There is no reason to go into these. You will find it is always by-passed charge and that it could have been located and indicated in any ARC Break. R2H is the training process for use of these lists. In R2H devoted to "In auditing" or when an ARC Break is found in a past auditing session during an R2H session the type of list that applied to that session is used. There are four ways of using these lists. The first is to assess by elimination and come up with one list line still reading on the meter and indicate it as the charge to the pc. The second is to go down a list taking each one that reads and clearing it up with the pc, finishing the whole list and then finally indicate what read the most. The third way is like the second except that the pc is required to help find what made the type of charge read and actually identify it as a particular thing. The fourth way is to assess only for biggest read or one line and have the pc help spot it. The third way is the one most commonly used at the end of a session where it is just cleaning up the session, and each question is completely cleaned on the needle in turn. The first way is most used on violent ARC Breaks. The second or the fourth ways are used in R2H. Assessment often has to be done through a dirty needle. No effort is made to clean it up before assessment. And just because the needle is dirty is no reason to call them all "in". Learn to read through a DN for both ARC Break Assessments and dating. It is rather easy to do with a Mark V meter as the characteristic of the DN shifts when one is "in". No effort has been made here to convert the words to non-Scientology language, as the sense would be lost to a Scientologist. These lists are all bare-bone and contain only the usual types of by- passed charge. They may be added to as experience with them increases. They become too unwieldy when they are too long. The only way you can get confused as to how to locate and indicate charge is by finding the wrong charge. GENERAL ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT Used in general sessions of all kinds where an ARC Break has occurred, or at session end in all routines and for R2H. The prefix sentence "In this session has???" is used when cleaning up a session at its end or during the session. "At that time had"??" is used for R2H. The actual date may be occasionally substituted for "time" to keep the pc oriented but only if necessary. LIST L-1 a withhold been missed? some emotion been rejected? some affinity been rejected? a reality been refused? a communication been cut short? a communication been ignored? an earlier rejection of emotion been restimulated? an earlier rejection of affinity been restimulated? an earlier refusal of reality been restimulated? an earlier ignored communication been restimulated? a wrong reason for an upset been given? a similar incident occurred before? something been done other than what was said? a goal been disappointed? some help been rejected? a decision been made? an engram been restimulated? an earlier incident been restimulated? there been a sudden shift of attention? something startled you? a perception been prevented? a willingness not been acknowledged? there been no auditing? (Note: If "overt" is added to this list or any BMR buttons, the scale cannot be used in an R3R or 3N session as these "mush" up engrams.) (Note: If this list is used do not also use any other end rudiments except goals, gains and pc's havingness.) ASSESSMENT SESSIONS LISTING SESSIONS PRELIMINARY STEP R3R THE ARC BREAK FOR ASSESSMENTS LIST When doing any listing step or type of auditing use the following list for ARC Break Assessment in event of an ARC Break in the session or at session end. The prefix "In this session has..." is used for a listing session, and "In that session had..." if a listing session ARC Break is recalled by the pc doing R2H. LIST L-2 an incorrect level been found? an incorrect item been found? a list not been completed? a level abandoned? an item abandoned? you not given items you thought of? a goal been restimulated? an implant been restimulated? an engram been restimulated? a withhold been missed? earlier listing been restimulated? earlier wrong levels been restimulated? earlier wrong items been restimulated? earlier listing ARC Breaks been restimulated? ROUTINE R3R ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS In all engram running sessions, and those combined with 3N in that session, use the following list. Prefix each question with "In this session have..." in event of an ARC Break or at session end. For R2H where an ARC Break is discovered in an earlier engram running session (clear back to 1950), prefix with "In that session had the auditor..." and omit "I" and "we". LIST L-3 I found an incorrect date? I found an incorrect duration? I demanded more than you could see? two or more engrams been found on the same date? you skidded to another incident? we moved to another chain? we gotten to a goals implant? we scanned through a GPM? we restimulated an earlier incident? we restimulated an earlier implant? we restimulated an earlier ARC Break on engrams? we failed to find the real beginning of the incident? we by-passed important data? we skipped an incident? two or more incidents been confused? I missed a withhold on you? we left an incident too heavily charged? we scanned through one or more series of goal implants? we abandoned a chain? we abandoned an incident? I prevented you from running an incident? I changed processes on you? (Note: Do NOT use any BMR buttons during engram running or add overts to this list as they will "mush" engrams.) ROUTINE 3N GPMs, ALL GOALS SESSIONS When a session is being run on GPMs or goals no matter with what routine, use the following ARC Break assessment when any ARC Break, great or small, occurs (or when pc becomes critical of the auditor even "playfully"). If R3R and R3N are both run in the same session, do both L - 3 and L - 4. Prefix the lines with "In this session have...", or for R2H ARC Breaks found in goals sessions "In that session had the auditor..." and omit "I" or "we". In event that the current pc was the auditor in that session and ARC Broke (applies also to List L - 3 above) use List L - 1. LIST L-4 I given you an incorrect item? I given you a wrongly worded goal? I given you a wrong goal? I left an Item charged? I skipped an Item? I skipped more than one Item? I skipped a goal? I skipped more than one goal? we restimulated an earlier wrong goal? we restimulated an earlier wrong item? we restimulated an earlier implant? I failed to give you a goal? I failed to give you an item? I misdated a goal? you run items out of different GPMs (or goals)? we run more than one series of goals? we restimulated an earlier goals series? we restimulated an earlier engram? you skidded on the time track? we gone over an engram inside this GPM? we restimulated another GPM? we missed part of the incident? I given you no auditing? I missed a withhold on you? we missed some other kind of charge? we abandoned a goal? we abandoned an item? I given you more Items than are here? I given you more goals than are here? we listed an item wrong way to? I restimulated earlier errors in running GPMs? we slipped into a later goals series? I changed processes on you? L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [Ed. The following note appears at the end in the old tech volumes but is omitted from the new ones] [The above lists have been later revised by HCO Bs 19 March 1971, List-1-C, Volume VII, page 203; 11 April 1971RA, Revised 8 March 1974, L3RD - Dianetics and Int RD Repair List, Volume VIII, page 265; and 15 December 1968R, Revised 2 June 1972, L4BR - For Assessment of All Listing Errors, Volume VIII, page 138.] ================== 104 HCOB 5 JUL 63 CCHS REWRITTEN (TV5 p. 310-13, Omitted from NTV) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JULY 1963 (REPLACED - see HCO B 1 Dec 65 Old Volume VI - 118) CenOCon Franchise CCHs REWRITTEN (Replaces HCO Bulletin of 2 November 1961, "Training CCHs" and HCO Policy Letter of 15 May 1962, "CCHs Rewritten") The following revised rundown on the CCHs is to be used by all Students in Scientology Orgs. CONTROL-COMMUNICATION-HAVINGNESS PROCESSES The following rundown of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been slightly amended. They are for use in training. CCHs are run as follows: CCH 1 to a flat point then CCH 2 to a flat point then CCH 3 to a flat point then CCH 4 to a flat point then CCH 1 to a flat point, etc. To bring the CCH training into line with current methods of teaching TRs, etc, at the end of each drill a list of Coach's questions is given. In addition Coach should take instructions from the "Commands" and "Training Stress" and frame them in the form of questions. For example, in CCH 1 Coach could ask, "Did you make every command and cycle separate?" Coach must avoid invalidating Student and not ask questions on what Coach thinks the Student has done wrong. The correct method is to ask a few questions at a time choosing and forming questions at random. On the other hand Coach should not ask a question about something that has not happened in the drill. For example, in CCH 3, if Coach has not manifested a "dope-off", Coach would not ask, "When I doped off did you take my hand and execute the command one hand at a time?" No. CCH 1. NAME: GIVE ME THAT HAND. Tone 40. COMMANDS: GIVE ME THAT HAND. Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the Coach's lap. Making physical contact with the Coach's hand if Coach resists. THANK YOU ending each cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time. Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the Coach, when it happens, and querying it by asking "What's happening?" This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Run only on the right hand. POSITION: Student and Coach seated in chairs without arms. Student's knees on outside of both Coach's knees. PURPOSE: To demonstrate to pc that control of pc's body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting pc to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over towards absolute control of his own body by pc. TRAINING STRESS: Never stop process until a flat place is reached. Freezes may be introduced at end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the Coach or to bridge from the process. This is done between two commands, holding the Coach's hand after acknowledgement. Coach's hand should be clasped with exactly correct pressure. Make every command and cycle separate. Maintain Tone 40, stress on intention from Student to Coach with each command. To leave an instant for Coach to do it by own will before Student decides to take hand or make contact with it. Stress Tone 40 precision; can be coached for some time silently with Coach looking for silent Student intention. Student indicates hand by nod of head. COACH'S QUESTIONS: CCH 1: 1. What is a Tone 40 Command? (Intention without reservation) 2. Did you give me a Tone 40 Command? 3. Was the command executed? 4. What is a change? (Any physical observed manifestation) 5. Did you notice any change? 6. What was it? 7. Did you take it up with me? 8. Did you introduce a freeze at end of cycle to ascertain information from me or to bridge from the process? HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC Washington DC, 1957. No. CCH 2. NAME: TONE 40 8C. COMMANDS: YOU LOOK AT THAT WALL. THANK YOU. YOU WALK OVER TO THAT WALL. THANK YOU. YOU TOUCH THAT WALL. THANK YOU. TURN AROUND. THANK YOU. Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the Coach, when it happens, and querying it by asking "What's happening?" This two- way comm is not Tone 40. Commands smoothly enforced physically when necessary. Tone 40, full intention. POSITION: Student and Coach ambulant, Student in physical contact with Coach as needed. PURPOSE: To demonstrate to pc that his body can be controlled and thus inviting him to control it. To orient him in his present time Environment. To increase his ability to duplicate and thusly increase his Havingness. TRAINING STRESS: Absolute Student precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present time. Student on Coach's right side. Student's body acts as block to forward motion when Coach tums. Student gives command, gives Coach a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Student does not block Coach from executing commands. Method of introduction as in CCH 1. Freezes may be introduced at the end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the Coach or to bridge from the process, this being the acknowledgement "THANK YOU" after the command "TURN AROUND". COACH'S QUESTIONS: CCH 2: 1. What is a Tone 40 Command? (Intention without reservation) 2. Did you give me a Tone 40 Command? 3. Was the command executed? 4. What is a change? (Any physical observed manifestation) 5. Did you notice any change? 6. What was it? 7. Did you take it up with me? 8. Did you introduce a freeze at end of cycle to ascertain information from me or to bridge from the process?) HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington DC, in 1957 for the 17th ACC. No. CCH 3. NAME: HAND SPACE MIMICRY. COMMANDS: Student raises 2 hands palms facing Coach's about an equal distance between the Student and Coach and says "PUT YOUR HANDS AGAINST MINE, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION." He then makes a simple motion with right hand then left. "DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?" Acknowledge answer. Student allows Coach to break solid comm line. When this is flat, the Student does this same with a half inch of space between his and the Coach's palms. The command being "PUT YOUR HANDS FACING MINE ABOUT 1/2 INCH AWAY, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION." "DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?" Acknowledge. When this is flat, Student does it with a wider space and so on until Coach is able to follow motions a yard away. POSITION: Student and Coach seated, close together facing each other, Coach's knees between Student's knees. PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid communication line). To get pc into communication by control and duplication. To find auditor. TRAINING STRESS: That Student be gentle and accurate in his motions, all motions being Tone 40, giving pc wins. To be free in 2-way communication. That process be introduced and run as a formal process. To teach student that if coach dopes off in this process Student may take Coach's wrist and help him execute the command one hand at a time. That if Coach does not answer during anaten to question "DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?", Student may wait for normal comm lag of that Coach, acknowledge and continue process. COACH'S QUESTIONS: CCH-3: 1. What is a Tone 40 motion? (Intention without reservation) 2. Did you give me a Tone 40 motion? 3. Was the motion executed? 4. What is a change? (Any physical observed manifestation) 5. Did you notice any change? 6. What was it? 7. Did you take it up with me? 8. Did you do a simple movement? 9. Define two-way communication. (One question - the right one.) 10. Did you receive a verbal origination? 11. Did you understand it? 12. Did you acknowledge it? 13. Did you return me to session? 14. Did you double question me? 15. Did you change because I had changed? 16. Did you follow my instruction? 17. What did you do? 18. What happened? HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington DC, 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant 'Look at me' 'Who am I?' and 'Find the auditor' part of rudiments. No. CCH 4. NAME: BOOK MIMICRY. COMMANDS: THERE ARE NO SET VERBAL COMMANDS. Student makes simple motions with a book. Hands book to the Coach. Coach makes motion, duplicating Student's mirror-image-wise. Student asks pc if he is satisfied that the Coach duplicated the motion. If Coach is and Student is also fairly satisfied, Student takes back the book and goes to next command. If Coach is not sure that he duplicated any command, Student repeats it for him and gives him back the book. If Coach is sure he did and Student can see duplication is pretty wrong, Student accepts Coach's answer and continues on a gradient scale of motions either with the left or right hand till Coach can do original command correctly. This ensures no invalidation of the Coach. Tone 40, only in motions, verbal 2-way quite free. POSITION: Student and Coach seated facing each other, a comfortable distance apart. PURPOSE: To bring up pc's communication with control and duplication (control and duplication = communication). TRAINING STRESS: Stress giving Coach wins. Stress Student's necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines. Tolerance of plus or minus randomity are apparent here and the Student should probably begin on the Coach with motions that begin in the same place each time and are neither very fist nor very slow, nor very complex. Introduced by the Student seeing that Coach understands what is to be done, as here is no verbal command, formal process. COACH'S QUESTIONS: CCH 4: 1. What is a Tone 40 motion? (Intention without reservation) 2. Did you give me a Tone 40 motion? 3. Was the motion executed? 4. What is a change? (Any physical observed manifestation) 5. Did you notice any change? 6. What was it? 7. Did you take it up with me? 8. Did you do a simple movement? 9. Define two-way communication. (One question - the right one.) 10. Did you receive a verbal origination? 11. Did you understand it? 12. Did you acknowledge it? 13. Did you return me to session? 14. Did you double question me? 15. Did you change because I had changed? 16. Did you follow my instruction? 17. What did you do? 18. What happened? HISTORY: Developed by L.R.H. for the 16th ACC in Washington DC, 1957. Based on duplication. Developed by L.R.H. in London, 1952. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [This HCO B is replaced by HCO B 1 December 1965, CCHs, Volume VI, page 118. See also HCO PL 17 May 1965, CCHs, Volume VI, page 40, which says that processes may not be used as drills.] ================== 105 HCOB 9 JUL 63 A TECH SUMMARY, THE REQUIRED SKILLS OF PROC. AND WHY (TV5 p. 314-7, NTV VII p. 220-4) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JULY 1963 Central Orgs Franchise A TECHNICAL SUMMARY THE REQUIRED SKILLS OF PROCESSING AND WHY Here is where we stand and where we're going. An auditor, to make a Clear or OT, has to be able to handle confidently certain skills. Today we assume that every successful process we ever had is and was a valid process. We are at a point of summation and valuation as we are achieving excellent and steady progress even on the most unlikely cases. I consider that the period of basic mental research has ended and the period of adjustment of skills, on which I will for some time be engaged, has been entered upon. I list here the auditor skills which are requisite to handle any case. SKILLS BY CASE LEVEL Case Levels 8, 7 and 6 Objective Processes Reach and Withdraw Commands CCHs Havingness Processes Case Levels 7, 6 and 5 Model Session Repetitive Command Processes R2H Meter Reading Simple Assessment of a form Case Levels 6, 5, 4 and 3 Assessment of Levels Listing and nulling Lists R3R 3N These constitute, to use another table, the following exact skills: Handling the pc's body (as in Reach and Withdraw or 8c). Ability to execute the auditing cycle. Ability to give repetitive commands. Ability to handle a meter. Ability to run a Model Session and keep the pc in session. Ability to read a Tone Arm. Ability to accurately meter date. Ability to run R2H. Ability to locate and handle ARC Breaks. Ability to assess a simple form. Ability to find a level. Ability to list, complete and nul a list. Ability to run R3R. Ability to do 3N. Ability to do a form Line Plot for a GPM. Ability to do a Line Plot for an off-beat GPM. Ability to list for and find a goal. Ability to list for and find a top oppterm. Knowledge of the Time Track. Knowledge of the Thetan. Knowledge of the basics of Life. A General Knowledge of Scientology. (Note: The abilities of R3R, R3N and R2H are also listed separately in the above.) These, briefly, are the skills required to make an OT. They are well taught at Saint Hill. They are practiced in Central Orgs as fast as released. HCO Bulletins exist on nearly all this material, except some fine points of R3R which are known but not yet written up, and some of the R3N Line Plots not yet issued. BASIC SKILLS If you examine the above you will find that where the auditor cannot do the required skill the faults are only one or more of the following: Cannot execute the auditing cycle. Cannot execute an auditing cycle repetitively. Cannot handle a session. Cannot read a meter. Cannot study and apply Scientology data. Given the ability to execute the auditing cycle once or repetitively, handle a session, read a meter and study and apply procedures, all the above listed auditing skills are easily acquired and successfully done. Therefore in looking for the reasons for no results, one finds the failure to apply the required procedure and in tracing that, one inevitably finds one or more of these five basics amiss in the auditor. It is no longer a question of whether Scientology works, it is only a question of whether the auditor can work Scientology. If he or she can't, then the trouble lies in one or more of these basics. The trouble does not lie with the procedure or with the pc. Of course some procedures above are harder to do than others and some pcs can worry an auditor far more than others, but these are incidental and are very junior to the five basics above. The lower the case level of the auditor, the harder time he or she will have grasping the know-how and using it. For instance a squirrel is only a dramatizing Case Level 6 or 7. A student having a rough time is a Case Level 6 or 5. Somebody almost heartbreaking to teach is a Case Level 7 or 8. BUT, with alert guidance and even making mistakes, I have seen Case Levels from 3 to 8 alike getting wins and finally smoothing out on the five basics above. I've seen it myself in the past two years of training at Saint Hill. So I've discarded Case Level as an index of auditing ability, it is only an index of how-hard-to-train. The question of psychotic or neurotic does not enter. These are artificial states and have no real bearing, surprisingly enough, on Case Level. My belief in an auditor's ability to audit has far more bearing on his auditing than his or her aberrations. The only factor left is auditor judgment. This varies about and improves with wins. But processes are so arranged that it is a question only of what is the highest process that gives TA action, rather than pre-session case estimation. Trial and error is the best test. I would use it myself, for I have often found the most unlikely preclear (at first glance) capable of running high level processes and some very "capable" people (at casual inspection) unable to see a wall. So I always run the highest level that I hope pc can run, and revise on experience with the pc if necessary. FORMER TRAINING As all modern courses and Academies have stressed basic skills as above for some time, no past training has been lost. Those who learned R2-12 are much better fitted to do R3R and 3N than those who did not. We look on any auditor today to be able to do repetitive processes but remember, that was sometimes a hard-won ability and old Book and Bottle was developed to assist it. People who learned Pre-hav assessing or goals finding are definitely well progressed. Anyone who can do the CCHs successfully will always find them handy. So I count no training lost. And I am about to collect ill earlier processes that worked on psychosomatic ills and publish them, since being careful not to do healing has not protected us at all and we might as well take over the medical profession for I now find that only their trade association has been firing at us in the press. So that opens up a use for almost all training on processes ever given. If an auditor has learned the above basics he or she can easily do the long list of skills required for Clearing or OT. CLEARING We can clear to keyed-out clear or clear stably. I have considered it necessary to stress thorough clearing. We are on a longer road but a more certain and stable road when we erase the Time Track or sections of it. Clear is now Case Level 2. The main goal, however, is OT, due to the general situation. When we were attacked I decided on a policy of:. 1. Hold the line on the Legal Front and 2. Accelerate research to OT as our best means of handling the situation. Both these policies are being successful in the extreme and I hope you agree with them. By courtesy, one GPM run gives a first goal clear. No further test is done. One chain of engrams completed is an R3R one-chain clear. This is easier than you might think. Theta clear at this time is a Case Level 2 that is exterior. OT is a Case Level 1 complete with skills rehabilitated. The route to these states is very well established and is contained in the first list above. HOURS OF PROCESSING Cases require as many hours as they are located on the Case Level Scale. The lower they are the more hours they require. The higher they are the less they require. As some index, I have had about 800 hours lately including all techniques from R2-12 forward, much of it purely research auditing on myself as a pc, developing procedures and getting line plots. Barely 250 hours of this was effective auditing. And I am definitely on the easy last half to OT. In a period of about half that, Mary Sue achieved 10 goal clear and has just completed her first assessed R3R chain. This included all the R3 goals work, the research of R2-12 on her as a pc, as well as R3N and R3R. Effective Auditing, given the data now known, amounted to about 150 hours or less. A guess to OT, given a skilled auditor and training on all modern data as above, and an able pc, would be less than 500 hours to a one chain R3R clear. This expectancy is being fulfilled on the Saint Hill Course for those now in Z Unit. To this would have to be added any processing time necessary to get the pc up to R3R. I consider that OT lies on the sunny side of 1,000 hours of processing now for cases that can be audited. DIFFICULTY OF CLEARING No case is really easy. A higher state attained is an uphill fight. So don't underestimate the difficulty of clearing. We went too long on the Time Track before developing and working at Scientology. BUT we can do it. And it is a lot more than worthwhile - it is vital that we do do it. If we miss now, we may be finished. For there is no help elsewhere and there never has been this technology or any successful mental technology. And just now nobody cares but us. When we've succeeded all the way everybody will want on. But not yet. My own job is very far from an end. The job of getting the purely technology developed and organized is practically over, unless you consider a recording of the full technology as part of the job. I've only recorded essentials and am just writing the last bulletins on those. But ahead is a vast panorama of research on other dynamics and enormous amounts of other technology. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 106 HCOPL 9 JUL 63 HPA/HCA CERTIFICATE CHECKSHEET (OEC V4 p 342-3) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 JULY 1963 CenOCon HPA/HCA CERTIFICATE CHECK SHEET The attached check-sheet is to be put into effect for all new HPA/HCA students and for all those students presently attending Academies. I do not want to have any more certification delays. An HPA/HCA student should not be regarded as graduated and should not be released from the Academy until his check sheet as attached is fully completed. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.rd Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ----------- HPA/HCA CERTIFICATE CHECK SHEET ROUTE IN ORDER: 1. DIRECTOR OF TRAINING ORIGINATES ON DAY STUDENT ENTERS CLASS WORK. PRINT NAME AS STUDENT WANTS IT ON CERTIFICATE _____________ Signature of Director of Training __________ (date) _______ 2. HCO BOARD OF REVIEW/CERTIFICATIONS A. Certificate sent to be made up______(date). Number_____ B. Recorded in log book and sent to WW for LRH to sign.____(date) C. Received back and filed in Val Doc _____(date). Signature___________ 3. ACCOUNTS Is course paid for or other satisfactory arrangement made for payment? Yes____ No____ Signature Accts____________ (date)____ 4. MEMBERSHIPS Does student have International Membership in force? Yes____ No____ Expiration Date ______ Signature Memberships________ (date)_____ 5. DIRECTOR OF TRAINING Student has completed class work _____(date) Signature Director of Training ____________ 6. DIRECTOR OF PROCESSING Oral Exam given_____(date), Written Exam given_____(date) Signature Director of Processing ______ (Attach Oral Exam Check Sheet, Auditor Reports and student's Answer Sheets) 7. HCO BOARD OF REVIEW A. Oral and Written Exams reviewed and graded _____(date) Flunked Oral_____(date) Flunked Written_____(date) Passed Oral _____(date) Passed Written _____(date) If either or both flunked, Check Sheet is returned to Director of TrainiIlg and exam papers sent to Academy Admin to file in Student's Folder. If both exams passed, student may then make certificate application, and exam papers are sent to Academy Admin to file in Student's Folder. B. Certificate Application completed___Not completed___(date)____ If Certificate Application is not completed, Check Sheet is returned to Director of Training and Certificate Application form sent to Academy Admin to file in Student's Folder. If Certificate Application form completed, it is attached to Check Sheet and:- 8. HCO BOARD OF REIVIEW/CERTIFICATIONS A. Memberships rechecked if past expiration date in 4 above. If no present membership graduate is told to get one immediately. B. Certificate dated ( ), sealed and issued to graduate____(date) C. Recorded in log book _____ Address/CF informed _______ HCO WW informed _______ Signature of HCO Bd Review/Certifications____________ 9. ACADEMY ADMINISTRATOR files Check Sheet and Certificate Application form in Student's Folder and transfers folder to Auditor's file. 10. If graduate not going on staff, HCO FRANCHISE SECRETARY WW notified of name and address of graduate for inclusion of HCO WW Field mailings. Alternatively graduate applies for HCO Franchise immediately on graduation, if situated outside a promulgated Central Org Control Area. If situated within a Central Org Control Area, graduate placed on Interim DO arrangements. ================== 109 HCOB 11 JUL 63 AUDITING RUNDOWN - MISSED W/H - TO BE RUN IN X1 UNIT (TV5 p. 318, not in NTV VII) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JULY 1963 Sthil SHSBC AUDITING RUNDOWN MISSED WITHHOLDS TO BE RUN IN X 1 UNIT 1. Complete a list on the following question: "In this lifetime what have you done that you have withheld from someone?" 2. On each withhold listed ask: (a) "When was it?" (b) "Where was it?" (c) "Who failed to find out about it?" (d) "Who nearly found out about it?" (e) "Who still doesn't know about it?" Each answer must be written down and the sheet of answers showing to which withhold they relate must be turned in with the auditing report. The answer sheet will be made available to all instructors on the Course. The above suggestion was made by Bernie Pesco, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course student, and accepted for use. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.bh Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [This HCO B is superseded by HCO B 23 July 1963, Auditing Rundown - Missed Withholds - To be Run in X 1 Unit.] ================== 110 HCOB 14 JUL 63 ROUTINE 3N, LINE PLOTS (NTV VII p. 225-9, previously considered confidential) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JULY AD 13 Central Orgs Missions ROUTINE 3N LINE PLOTS Attach to this HCOB, HCOB 17 April AD 13 A COMPLETE GPM PATTERN. Correct HCOB 17 April 1963 as follows: Omit introductory paragraphs and Points of Interest. Substitute the text of this HCO Bulletin. In the pattern, change "Beings (People) (Those) who never goal" to BEINGS WHO NEVER GOAL. Change "A Being (someone) who never goals." to A BEING WHO IS NEVER GOALING. Omit "(Someone)" wherever it appears in the pattern. Change "Fervent Believers in Goaling" to ANY FERVENT BELIEVERS IN GOALING. Change "No Goalishness" to NO BEING GOALISHNESS for the BE form of goal. Change " Some Bad Condition Dependent on next goal" to THE NEXT GOAL PLUS NO or NOT PLUS THIS GOAL. In the example- "To Create" change oppterm "Creationishness" to CREATINGISHNESS and make other pattern changes as indicated above. TEXT FOR HCO BULLETIN THE AIRCRAFT DOOR GOALS This goal pattern (HCO Bulletin of 17 April 1963 as changed) was in use in an aircraft-type set between 315 trillion years ago and 216 trillion years ago and less, and is the pattern which precedes the Helatrobus Implants in this galaxy. It remains to be seen if all preclears have it. The goals were given with one or more goals in a series, usually one, and that goal was To Create. The preclear possibly has this goal several times during this period. It was given in the mocked-up fuselage of an aircraft with the thetan fixed before an aircraft door. (There are also two or more aircraft fuselages used in the Helatrobus Implants, but the preclear moved through them, was not fixed in them.) The date is the way to tell the pattern. The Helatrobus Implants existed only between 52 trillion and 38 trillion years ago, the total life span of the Helatrobus government. If the goal is found to lie earlier, between 315 trillion and 216 trillion or later, up to 52 trillion years ago, then it is probably this pattern. The goal items were laid in with explosions. THE GORILLA GOALS This same pattern, but given in an amusement park with a single tunnel, a roller coaster and a Ferris wheel, was used between about 319 trillion years ago to about 256 trillion trillion years ago, a long span. The symbol of a Gorilla was always present in the place the goal was given. Sometimes a large gorilla, black, was seen elsewhere than the park. A mechanical or a live gorilla was always seen in the park. This activity was conducted by the Hoipolloi, a group of operators in meat body societies. They were typical carnival people. They let out concessions for these implant "Amusement Parks." A pink-striped white shirt with sleeve garters was the uniform of the Hoipolloi. Such a figure often rode on the roller coaster cars. Monkeys were also used on the cars. Elephants sometimes formed part of the equipment. The Hoipolloi or Gorilla goals were laid in with fantastic motion. Blasts of raw electricity and explosions were both used to lay the items in. The series is always five goals. These are very simple goals, no long words. To End, To be Dead, To be Asleep, To be Solid, To Create, To Find, To be Visible, To be Sexual (not To have Sex as some pcs give it), To be Invisible, To Postulate and a very few more were used, always five goals in a series. The series usually started with To be Dead, but To End, To Sleep and To be Asleep must also be investigated as the first goal of each series. The pattern in HCOB 17 Apr. AD 13 is correct for all of these goals, as changed in this HCO Bulletin. THE BEAR GOALS From about 256 trillion trillion years ago to about 370 trillion trillion years ago the GPMs are the Bear Goals. These use the same pattern, similar amusement park arrangements, the same type of goals as the Gorilla Goals. The only real difference is that instead of a mechanical gorilla a mechanical or live bear was used, and the motion was even more violent. There is, however, a change of pattern in the Bear Goals in that TWO RIs were added. These come as a pair just below "The Vast Value of Goaling." They are oppterm "Any worries about being or goaling" opposed by terminal "A worried goaler." Aside from this addition, the pattern is the same as the Gorilla Goals. Mostly raw electric sprays are used in the Bear Goals to drive in the items. The Bear Goals were handled by a group called, I think, "The Brothers of the Bear" and were the ancestors of the Hoipolloi. THE BLACK THETAN GOALS From about 390 trillion trillion years to 370 trillion trillion years ago, the Black Thetan goals were given. These were given in a glade surrounded by the stone heads of "black thetans" who spat white energy at the trapped thetan. The trapped thetan was motionless. The pattern is the earliest "To" form of GPM now known. There were six RIs per goal, consisting of: Accomplished Not Accomplished Action (ing) Never Action (ing) Goal Not Goal There were from 15 to 18 goals in the series, all of a simple nature such as To End, To be Dead, To be Asleep, etc. The full series will be published at a later date but is easily reconstructed, always following the same pattern of six. THE INVISIBLE PICTURE GOALS From somewhere around 110,000 trillion trillion years ago or earlier to 390 trillion trillion years ago, the most difficult GPMs on the track were given. These contain four RIs per set, positive-negative in dichotomy, (example: Wake, Never Wake, Sleep, Never Sleep), the four given five times for every one picture shown. This makes 20 firings per picture. But the first picture is invisible and the thetan afterwards is not expected to find then the first twenty firings of RIs (four in a row, repeated five times). This makes a "vacuum" for a picture and groups the bank. This type of implant is probably the source of vacuums in the reactive mind. The remaining pictures vary during different periods of the sequence, but consist usually of a scene of a cave, a railway, an airplane, a view of a sun and planets. The first "picture" making the total number of five is invisible and is no picture. The pictures have a moving object in each (except the invisible one) which backs up halfway through the series. The trick is to get the RIs out of the invisible picture, particularly the basic first four. The RIs also fire right left, then left right so that the "Never" RI the next time has swapped sides. They go positive, negative, then, with swapped sides, positive negative. They are simple aberrative words. Start, Never Start, End, Never End are always the first firings, followed by Begin, Never Begin, Stop, Never Stop for the second whole series of firings. The same four run through all five pictures. Then the next four go through all five, etc. There are many words used. Early in the series 3-dimensional sets were used, late in the series only 2- dimensional pictures were employed. ______________ There may be earlier GPM-type implants but the Goal idea does not go back earlier evidently than 390 trillion trillion years-in the "Black Thetan" Implants. Earlier material is only positive, negative and dichotomies according to present data. But the earlier ones are more aberrative to the pc. ______________ PROGRAMING The trick is to run a full series through on any of these as found, no matter how late it is in the period, then find the first time the series was given the pc and run the complete series. Then get the next earlier type of series and do the same thing. Your pc may not have been in the areas where these patterns were used and may have different types of implants. If so, make sure first that the implant you have found does not contain one of these patterns before going to the hard labor of trying to make one up with the pc. LATER DAY IMPLANTS Between 38 trillion years ago and present time a lot of off-beat implants can be found. They sometimes have only pictures, sometimes only items, sometimes items and pictures both. They are usually short, often have no goal in them, only positive-negative commands, and are not hard to work out. The pc can usually get them easily if they're on his assessed R3R chain. ______________ WARNING In a complex GPM pattern almost anything can be made to fire until the exact RI is found. Then no RR is left. Wrong RIs leave white mass and eventually crumple up the engram. Missed RIs leave black strips or patches. Partially discharged RIs leave gray patches. Restimulated but not run RIs turn everything black in the picture. Scan a pc through RIs you don't suspect and it all goes black. Get a wrong date or wrong duration and the pc has no visio or pictures that don't belong there. ______________ SUMMARY This is a rapid resume of principal GPMs on the track. Where the pattern applies it must be done exactly as given. (Note: All trillions used are US trillions which are 1,000 million.) L. RON HUBBARD Founder ================== 111 HCOB 17 JUL 63 ERRORS IN RUNNING 3N (Not in either set of tech volumes, previously considered confidential, probably omitted from the NTV because of being reclassified as a BTB) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF JULY 17, 1963 Central Orgs Tech Directors Franchise for info ERRORS IN RUNNING 3N The following dispatch sent to Ron by Guy Eltringham, D of P Los Angeles, points out errors observed in running 3N, and may be of value to other Orgs: - Re: Probable Field and Org alter-is on the running of 3-N. On my return here I found the following errors (among others) being committed in the running of 3N by the HGC auditors (and even worse in the staff co-audit); I fear they may be occurring elsewhere. 1. Confusions in the blue Line Plot. (HCO Technical Form of May 26, AD13) (a) In block two - goal being directly added into blue Line Plot which already has "TO" written in - producing e.g. ABSOLUTABLE TO TO Forget, NIX ABSOLUTABLE TO TO Forget etc. (Very common, and apparently getting some sort of RR's on them when "found" (in great numbers)). Also To To Forgetting etc., in the 149 - 160 band. (b) In block five - inserting the "ing" form of the goal in the blank while an "ing" is sitting on the line already - producing e.g. Those Who Are Forgeting ing, Someone Who Isn't Ever Forgetting ing. (there is no extra "ing") (c) In block six - incorporating the "er" into the "oppterm" side - producing - The Exhaustion Of Forgetering, The Stupidity of Forgetering. (There isn't any "er" on the oppterm side) (d) In block five and block six - attempting to form the "ing" form of the goal by adding "ing" to the goal minus to (which as fas as I can see would only occur at item 163 - 164). Thus producing many items with a section reading such as "Go Awaying", not "Going Away" and "Be In Heavening", not "Being In Heaven". Even though the earlier Line Plot (red) has the "ing" form of these goals indicated in the block. 2. Re-running GPMs after they had been run through to bottom oppterm rather than finding next goal and going on (one poor sob had partly run GPMs (first 3) and then "To Be In Heaven" (run as next goal in series). I say partly, because of chocked RRs. One of them re-run twice and one re-run once. And a goal oppose (long!!) done done on "To Remember" after "To go away" had been run - which action apparently sticks batches of the other goals on the list. All this done with the sickened-up line plots as shown above. 3. Despite clarity of approriate Bulletins; run "To Be In Heaven" with and assertion that it is the 4th goal of the series. ________________ I'd recomment a clarification on the Blue Plot and a warning to be published on at least the 2nd point. (Auditors tend to look at the goal as re-runable after that goal has been gone all the way through once). GUY ELRINGHAM D OF P Los Angeles (Note by LRH: The proper RI, A Forgetting Forgetter, is also often gotten wrong. And one auditor found an Item "The Ing Form Of The Goal". LRH) Issued by: PETER HEMERY HCO Secretary WW for L. RON HUBBARD Authorised by: L. RON HUBBARD LRH: dr Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 112 HCOB 21 JUL 63 CO-AUDIT ARC BREAK PROCESS (TV5 p. 319-20, NTV VII p. 230-231) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1963 Central Orgs Franchise for info CO-AUDIT ARC BREAK PROCESS A despatch from Dennis Stephens, DScn, Acting Assoc Sec Sydney, is informative in handling a co-audit on the ARC Break Process. The Commands of the ARC Break Process are not entirely fixed at this time but are more or less as follows, each command being called a "leg". What Attitude has been rejected? What Reality has been refused? What Communication has been ignored? In private sessions each leg of this process is run flat (more or less) before the next is run and so on and on, around and around, some effort being made to give each leg an equal time. The rules of ARC (to raise one that is low, raise the other two) apply so that no great stress is given an inability on one leg, but all are treated equally. The process fits in at Case Level 5, is a bit higher than R2H. L. RON HUBBARD The despatch follows: Dear Ron, The new ARC 1963 Process is producing good results here in Sydney. We have recently introduced it onto our public co-audit. Certain problems introduced themselves in the application of this process to a group of unskilled auditors who were not trained in the use of E-Meters, etc. The process as given was to be run a leg at a time, each leg to quiet TA or 3 equal comm lags, or a cognition. Now to run it against the TA on public co-audit meant each student had a meter (which they haven't) and the idea was rejected as impractical. Similarly training them in spotting cognitions and comm lags was also rejected as being time consuming. The other possibility was the supervisors go around continuously and take TA reads. Now this system is not good because the supervisor coming up and taking reads disturbs the pc and so disturbs the TA and so defeats its own purpose. The other possibility was an elaborate series of wiring where each pc is switched in to a Master Board and the supervisor, by switches, plugs each pc onto the meter at his desk. We haven't got such equipment and can barely afford its installation. Anyway that was discarded too. How to run it? Well, I tried the following system out and it works like a dream. Other orgs might find it useful too. The pc runs the first leg until he has no more answers, he then goes to second leg until he has no more answers, and similarly with the 3rd leg. He then returns to the first leg, etc, etc. If the pc should ever (heaven forbid! and it's never happened yet) have "no more answers" for each and every leg he either has a thumping ARC Break or needs a "prod" from the meter. So the supervisor would just meter check one of the legs and steer the pc's attention to the answer and he's off on another chain! The system works OK because the pc is going round and round the same series of commands and always gets another chance to look at each question. Run in this manner the process becomes virtually unlimited. This system of running the process is particularly applicable where raw people are concerned, with not even a comm course under their belt and fresh from PE course. Anyway it works very well. Very best, DENNIS L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.jh Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 113 HCOB 22 JUL 63 I YOU CAN BE RIGHT (TV5 p. 321-3, NTV VII p. 232-6) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1963 MA Franchise BPI YOU CAN BE RIGHT Rightness and wrongness form a common source of argument and struggle. The concept of rightness reaches very high and very low on the Tone Scale. And the effort to be right is the last conscious striving of an individual on the way out. I-am-right-and-they-are-wrong is the lowest concept that can be formulated by an unaware case. What is right and what is wrong are not necessarily definable for everyone. These vary according to existing moral codes and disciplines and, before Scientology, despite their use in law as a test of "sanity", had no basis in fact but only in opinion. In Dianetics and Scientology a more precise definition arose. And the definition became as well the true definition of an overt act. An overt act is not just injuring someone or something: an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (See the Eight Dynamics.) Thus a wrong action is wrong to the degree that it harms the greatest number of dynamics. And a right action is right to the degree that it benefits the greatest number of dynamics. Many people think that an action is an overt simply because it is destructive. To them all destructive actions or omissions are overt acts. This is not true. For an act of commission or omission to be an overt act it must harm the greater number of dynamics. A failure to destroy can be, therefore, an overt act. Assistance to something that would harm a greater number of dynamics can also be an overt act. An overt act is something that harms broadly. A beneficial act is something that helps broadly. It can be a beneficial act to harm something that would be harmful to the greater number of dynamics. Harming everything and helping everything alike can be overt acts. Helping certain things and harming certain things alike can be beneficial acts. The idea of not harming anything and helping everything are alike rather mad. It is doubtful if you would think helping enslavers was a beneficial action and equally doubtful if you would consider the destruction of a disease an overt act. In the matter of being right or being wrong, a lot of muddy thinking can develop. There are no absolute rights or absolute wrongs. And being right does not consist of being unwilling to harm and being wrong does not consist only of not harming. There is an irrationality about "being right" which not only throws out the validity of the legal test of sanity but also explains why some people do very wrong things and insist they are doing right. The answer lies in an impulse, inborn in everyone, to try to be right. This is an insistence which rapidly becomes divorced from right action. And it is accompanied by an effort to make others wrong, as we see in hypercritical cases. A being who is apparently unconscious is still being right and making others wrong. It is the last criticism. We have seen a "defensive person" explaining away the most flagrant wrongnesses. This is "justification" as well. Most explanations of conduct, no matter how far-fetched, seem perfectly right to the person making them since he or she is only asserting self-rightness and other-wrongness. We have long said that that which is not admired tends to persist. If no one admires a person for being right, then that person's "brand of being right" will persist, no matter how mad it sounds. Scientists who are aberrated cannot seem to get many theories. They do not because they are more interested in insisting on their own odd rightnesses than they are in finding truth. Thus we get strange "scientific truths" from men who should know better, including the late Einstein. Truth is built by those who have the breadth and balance to see also where they're wrong. You have heard some very absurd arguments out among the crowd. Realize that the speaker was more interested in asserting his or her own rightness than in being right. A thetan tries to be right and fights being wrong. This is without regard to being right about something or to do actual right. It is an insistence which has no concern with a rightness of conduct. One tries to be right always, right down to the last spark. How then, is one ever wrong? It is this way: One does a wrong action, accidentally or through oversight. The wrongness of the action or inaction is then in conflict with one's necessity to be right. So one then may continue and repeat the wrong action to prove it is right. This is a fundamental of aberration. All wrong actions are the result of an error followed by an insistence on having been right. Instead of righting the error (which would involve being wrong) one insists the error was a right action and so repeats it. As a being goes down scale it is harder and harder to admit having been wrong. Nay, such an admission could well be disastrous to any remaining ability or sanity. For rightness is the stuff of which survival is made. And as one approaches the last ebb of survival one can only insist on having been right, for to believe for a moment one has been wrong is to court oblivion. The last defense of any being is "I was right". That applies to anyone. When that defense crumbles, the lights go out. So we are faced with the unlovely picture of asserted rightness in the face of flagrant wrongness. And any success in making the being realize their wrongness results in an immediate degradation, unconsciousness, or at best a loss of personality. Pavlov, Freud, psychiatry alike never grasped the delicacy of these facts and so evaluated and punished the criminal and insane into further criminality and insanity. All justice today contains in it this hidden error - that the last defense is a belief in personal rightness regardless of charges and evidence alike, and that the effort to make another wrong results only in degradation. But all this would be a hopeless impasse leading to highly chaotic social conditions were it not for one saving fact: All repeated and "incurable" wrongnesses stem from the exercise of a last defense: "trying to be right". Therefore the compulsive wrongness can be cured no matter how mad it may seem or how thoroughly its rightness is insisted upon. Getting the offender to admit his or her wrongness is to court further degradation and even unconsciousness or the destruction of a being. Therefore the purpose of punishment is defeated and punishment has minimal workability. But by getting the offender off the compulsive repetition of the wrongness, one then cures it. But how? By rehabilitating the ability to be right! This has limitless application - in training, in social skills, in marriage, in law, in life. Example: A wife is always burning dinner. Despite scolding, threats of divorce, anything, the compulsion continues. One can wipe this wrongness out by getting her to explain what is right about her cooking. This may well evoke a raging tirade in some extreme cases, but if one flattens the question, that all dies away and she happily ceases to burn dinners. Carried to classic proportions but not entirely necessary to end the compulsion, a moment in the past will be recovered when she accidentally burned a dinner and could not face up to having done a wrong action. To be right she thereafter had to burn dinners. Go into a prison and find one sane prisoner who says he did wrong. You won't find one. Only the broken wrecks will say so out of terror of being hurt. But even they don't believe they did wrong. A judge on a bench, sentencing criminals, would be given pause to realize that not one malefactor sentenced really thought he had done wrong and will never believe it in fact, though he may seek to avert wrath by saying so. The do-gooder crashes into this continually and is given his loses by it. But marriage, law and crime do not constitute all the spheres of living where this applies. These facts embrace all of life. The student who can't learn, the worker who can't work, the boss who can't boss are all caught on one side of the right-wrong question. They are being completely one-sided. They are being "last-ditch-right". And opposing them, those who would teach them are fixed on the other side "admit-you-are-wrong". And out of this we get not only no-change but actual degradation where it "wins". But there are no wins in this imbalance, only loses for both. Thetans on the way down don't believe they are wrong because they don't dare believe it. And so they do not change. Many a preclear in processing is only trying to prove himself right and the auditor wrong, particularly the lower case levels, and so we sometimes get no-change sessions. And those who won't be audited at all are totally fixed on asserted rightness and are so close to gone that any question of their past rightness would, they feel, destroy them. I get my share of this when a being, close to extinction, and holding contrary views, grasps for a moment the rightness of Scientology and then in sudden defense asserts his own "rightnesses", sometimes close to terror. It would be a grave error to go on letting an abuser of Scientology abuse. The route is to get him or her to explain how right he or she is without explaining how wrong Scientology is, for to do the last is to let them commit a serious overt. "What is right about your mind" would produce more case change and win more friends than any amount of evaluation or punishment to make them wrong. You can be right. How? By getting another to explain how he or she is right - until he or she, being less defensive now, can take a less compulsive point of view. You don't have to agree with what they think. You only have to acknowledge what they say. And suddenly they can be right. A lot of things can be done by understanding and using this mechanism. It will take, however, some study of this article before it can be gracefully applied - for all of us are reactive to some degree on this subject. And those who sought to enslave us did not neglect to install a right-wrong pair of items on the far back track. But these won't really get in your way. As Scientologists, we are faced by a frightened society who think they would be wrong if we were found to be right. We need a weapon to correct this. We have one here. And you can be right, you know. I was probably the first to believe you were, mechanism or no mechanism. The road to rightness is the road to survival. And every person is somewhere on that scale. You can make yourself right, amongst other ways, by making others right enough to afford to change their minds. Then a lot more of us will arrive. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.jh.cden Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (Note: This is the first in a series of HCO Bulletins designed for publication in Continental Magazines. I am developing a whole presentation of Scientology at this level for general use in life. Follow this HCO Bulletin with the next in magazines.) ================== 114 HCOB 22 JUL 63 III ORG TECHNICAL, HGC PROCESSES AND TRAINING (TV5 p. 324-7, NTV VII p. 237-41) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1963 Issue II Central Orgs Tech Depts ORG TECHNICAL HGC PROCESSES AND TRAINING (HCO Secs: Check out on all technical staff Star Rating.) It is of the utmost importance that HGC Technical continues to be maintained as the world's best auditing. The whole repute of Scientology on a continent ultimately depends on the quality of technical delivered by Central Organizations. In times of shifting technology this may be considered difficult. However, nothing in the book maintains that an HGC must only deliver "the latest". The book only says the best. Staff morale, the unit, broad dissemination depend basically upon technical quality. If you will look into even the oldest HGC files you will find profiles with fine gains. This does not mean, then, that today's research line has to be installed at once to get gains on pcs. Of course to attain clear or OT today's research line is vital. But the problem is not upper echelon processing in HGCs, it is lower level cases. If you go not on the basis of "make clears and OTs" but solely on the basis of "get maximum Tone Arm Action on the pc" you will have very happy pcs and eventual OTs. To get Tone Arm Action it is necessary to 1. Have pcs who are getting wins and 2. Have staff auditors doing processes they can do successfully. HGC Gains then depend on: A. Getting Tone Arm Action on every pc; and B. Training Auditors to handle the five basics well. Programming for HGC pcs depends on the pc and the auditor available. PROGRAMMING PCS The stable datum for programming a pc is: RULE: RUN THE HIGHEST LEVEL PROCESS ON THE PC THAT CAN BE RUN THAT PRODUCES GOOD TONE ARM ACTION. The stable don't for programming a pc is: RULE: DON'T RUN A PROCESS A PC FEELS HE OR SHE CANNOT DO OR THE AUDITOR CANNOT DO. You don't need to predetermine (and sometimes downgrade) a pc's level in order to process him or her. Programming has nothing to do with tests or hope or critical opinion. Programming is a trial and error proposition based on: C. What highest process gives the pc TA Action? D. What process has the pc been interested in? E. What process can the auditor do confidently? PC INTEREST is a nearer certainty of needle reads on the meter and Tone Arm Action than many other methods of assessment. Any pc who has had earlier auditing can tell you what was or was not interesting. A discussion of this with the pc will establish which type of process it was. Don't necessarily just go on doing that process. But use it to classify what type of process the pc will most likely have wins doing - i.e. objective processes, repetitive processes, engram running, etc. A lot of pcs are audited at levels they have no idea they can do. They will do them, but a simple discussion about processes they have been interested in doing will reveal to them and the auditor where they are most likely to get TA Action with no strain. GAINS Gains on a pc can be measured in terms of charge discharged, not necessarily in goals run out or some specific action done. You can run out goals with no TA Action, run out engrams with no TA Action and yet the pc does not change. The goals set by the pc at session beginning change on a changing pc. In reviewing cases watch those goals on the auditor's report. If they deteriorate the auditor has messed it up, leaving by-passed charge. If they remain the same session after session there was no real TA Action. If the goals change session by session there's lots of TA Action, too. You can just get lots of TA Action, whatever you run, and eventually see a cleared pc. No matter what is run, lack of TA Action will clear no one. Wrong time is the exclusive source of no TA Action. Therefore as a pc's time concept is improved or his dates corrected you will see more TA Action. But many things contribute to wrong time, including bad meter dating and time disorienting implants. The question is not what corrects the pc's time so much as: is the pc getting the Tone Arm Action that shows Time is being corrected. Well done auditing cycles alone correct a flawed Time Concept. So you have PC INTEREST, and TONE ARM ACTION that tell you the programming is right and if the pc is going Clear and OT. Buck these things and the pc won't go anywhere no matter what is run. PRECAUTIONS Wrong dates, wrong goals, wrong Items, by-passing charge, never flattening a process, running a pc beyond regaining an ability or cogniting the process flat account for most upset in auditing. There is no valid reason for a pc getting upset now that ARC Break assessments exist, providing that the auditor is auditing as per the next section. AUDITOR SKILL Basic Auditor Skill consists of five things. If an auditor can do these five, little further trouble will be found. Any staff training program, any Academy basic goal any HGC Auditing that produces results depend on these five basics. If you review staff auditors or examine students on these basics by themselves, all auditing would rest on solid ground and get gains. Where any one of the following are out in an auditor there is going to be trouble all along the line. No fancy new process will cure what is wrong in a session if these things are not present. The Basic Auditing Skills are: 1. ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE AUDITING CYCLE. 2. ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE AUDITING CYCLE REPETITIVELY. 3. ABILITY TO HANDLE A SESSION. 4. ABILITY TO READ A METER: 5. ABILITY TO STUDY AND APPLY SCIENTOLOGY DATA. It takes very little to establish the presence or absence of these abilities in an HGC Auditor or a Student. Each one can be reviewed easily. View an auditor's ability to audit in the light of the above only. Put him on TV for a half-hour rudiments and havingness actual session of any Model Session he or she is trained to use, and watch 1 to 4 above. Then give him or her an unstudied short HCO Bulletin and see how long it takes for the auditor to pass a verbal exam on it. A comparison of this data with a number of the staff auditor's HGC case reports will show direct co-ordination. To the degree that few results were obtained the auditor missed on 1 to 5 above. To the degree that good results were obtained the auditor could pass 1 to 5 above. Inspection of half a dozen different cases the auditor has done is necessary to see a complete co- ordination. There is your training stress for staff training programs. Only when the above skills are polished up do you dare to go into involved processes with the auditor. For a more complicated process further throws out any existing errors in the above five abilities and makes hash out of the lot. During such a period, one can fall back on auditor confidence. What process is the auditor confident he or she will get wins with? Well let him or her run it on the current pc. And meanwhile, with training, smooth the auditor out and get him or her genned in on higher level or more recent processes. Without an auditor, a case will not progress. And a case will progress more with a confident auditor who can do something of what he or she is doing than with an auditor who is shaky. For the shakiness will magnify any faults in the five skills that the auditor has. Auditors do by and large a pretty fine job. It takes a while to gen in a new skill. I can do it in one or two sessions so it's not causing me any strain. Mary Sue can get one straight in about four sessions. So nobody expects a new skill to appear magically perfect in no time at all. But the length of time it will take to groove in on a new skill depends on the five abilities above. The main auditor faults will be found in auditors who are trying so hard themselves to be right that thee and me must be proven wrong. That shows up most strongly in No. 5 above. The degree of disagreement an auditor has with data measures the degree of unworkability that auditor will enter into processing and this is the same degree that that auditor thinks he or she has to preserve his or her survival by making others wrong. This also enters into the other four abilities by a covert effort to make the pc wrong. This is rare. But it is best measured by an inability to accept data, and so can be tested by No. 5 above. Processing on rightness and wrongness remedies this. Other processing remedies it. And just practice remedies it. This factor is easily disclosed as unhandled in some training courses where a blowing student sometimes gives long dissertations on "What they don't agree with in Scientology." That what they say doesn't exist in Scientology does not deter them from believing it does, for their last spark of survival demands that only they be right and all others wrong. Such a state of mind doesn't make a good auditor since both Scientology and the pc must be made wrong. Squirrels are only Case Levels 7 or 6 dramatizing alter-is on Scientology instead of their track. Even they can be made to audit by long training even in the absence of processing. They aren't just trying to make others wrong. Essentially that is the characteristic of a Case Level 8, Unaware. There aren't many of these around. Auditing and training can handle them, even if it takes a long time. Such people would almost die literally if they found they had ever been wrong and they get quite ill with aplomb just to prove you are wrong; it goes that far. Case Level or sanity have little to do with anything when it comes to training auditors. Insanity is a goal "To be Insane", not an index of potential auditing ability. And only Case Level 8 does a complete shatter of a session as an auditor. Take these factors into first account in an HGC. Don't keep a staff upset by shifting processes continually. Processing is pretty stable which is why I can give you this expectancy for a new high level performance in HGC. Groove the staff auditor in for wins and TA Action. And all will be well. Groove them in by processes only and all will be chaos. And in the Academy stress this data and teach the five abilities above beyond all other data and you'll have auditors. If the HGC could expect from an Academy graduates who had the five abilities listed above, everyone would get more comfortable. An HGC need not have to run a school of its own to provide itself with auditors. SUMMARY The data I have given you in this HCO Bulletin is not subject to change or modification. HGC pcs will only win if they are run so as to obtain good TA Action. The HGC will have trouble achieving that only to the degree that its staff has not achieved the five abilities above. We are building on very solid ground. All actions we now undertake in the HGC and Academy should contribute to successful auditing, for out of that alone can clearing be achieved. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== _