No matching fragments found in this document.
FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH VOLUME SUPER TECH VOL FOR 1963 - PART 5 ************************************************** 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 ************************************************** 059 HCOB 24 APR 63 R3M2, TIPS, THE ROCKET READ OF A RELIABLE ITEM (NTV p. 118-20, previously considered confidential) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 24 APRIL 1963 Missions ROUTINE 3M2 TIPS THE ROCKET READ OF A RELIABLE ITEM The right R3 reliable item on a list rocket reads differently than the other RRs. The experienced auditor will get to know it. The right RI usually has a softer RR. It is already disintegrating. It is accompanied by a blowdown of the TA. The wrong RR is hard, crisp and a real fine demonstration RR. It is not accompanied by a blowdown of the TA. It is pretty but it isn't taking off charge. The right RI's RR is quite often detected by only seeing its accelerated start or its whip-crack end. It is longer than the wrong RI's RR, sometimes so long its end is right off the right hand of the dial. It may look therefore to the new observer like a very rapid fall with an accelerated start accompanied by a TA blowdown. Sometimes the right RI loses its charge so fast that it RRs only once on call and would have to be tiger drilled to be made to fire again. As calling it may turn on somatics on the pc, the pc suppresses a second call of it. The wrong RI's RR fires well but has no blowdown. It is shorter. To an uninitiated auditor, the TA sailing down (or up on a low TA case [1.5]) had better be called an adequate read for an RI. Then he will begin to see the accelerated start as he gets more experience on the whip-crack end and realize that right RIs in R3M are long, loose and disintegrating. And that wrong RIs, while they RR beautifully, do not disintegrate on being called and the TA remains up (or very low). None of this applies necessarily to the RRs seen in finding or checking goals. But these too may have a disintegrating RR and heavy blowdown. But a new goal must continue to RR. None of this excuses accepting an RI that does not RR. An RI must RR to be accepted. An RI with a mere fall is not acceptable. _____________ NULLING R3 RI OPPOSE LISTS If you have to null a list with X's and /'s for an RI to be found, it is almost certain that the right RI is not on the list. The right RI "explodes" when put down or called. The RI list that has to be nulled by elimination does not have the RI on it. The exception is the source list which of course is nulled in the usual way. _____________ LISTING RULES All listing rules ever released apply to RI lists (except length of RI oppose lists) in R3M, even if they are only two items long! If two items fire in the same list it's incomplete, etc., etc. Nothing has changed the rules of listing. Taking items off an incomplete list, particularly a source list, can be deadly to the pc. Directive listing does not change listing rules, except that the list may be only one item long, or 5 to 30 at the most. DON'T ECHO INVALIDATE The practice of echo invalidation is easily fallen into in R3 Directive Listing. Echo invalidation: The pc gives an item. The auditor calls it back to the pc and says it doesn't RR. If this is kept up the pc will be put into a state of SEN that is appalling. The right way to do this is as follows: Pc gives item. Auditor writes it down. Pc says that's it. Auditor calls the RI being listed from to test its charge. If it doesn't react, auditor reads back the one item given. If it RRs on one call, looks for its blowdown. If it blows down on TA, says, "That is your item." If the RI listed from reads or if the new item doesn't RR when the auditor calls it, or if it doesn't blow down the TA (or up on a 1.5 reading case), the auditor says: "Give me several more" and keeps the pc listing until an RI-type RR appears on the list or is directed onto it by auditor. Then the auditor goes through the standard steps, reads the RI being listed from to be sure it doesn't read, calls off the next to the last RRing item, says it doesn't RR (unless it does), reads the pc's item once, sees it give an RR or disintegrating RR, watches for blowdown (which may have begun already) and says, "That's your item." If things go wrong, never start echo invalidation. Keep to form, suggest the proper RI or variation the pc hasn't thought of, get several. Echo invalidation, in which pc names an item and auditor says, "That isn't it," is not just bad form but a very vicious practice that leads to a games condition. The invalidation of each item makes the pc very dizzy and very desperate. The pc, sick and confused, starts plunging in desperation for the right item and goes swiftly down tone and out of session. High pc morale is vital to blowing charge and finding RIs. Uphold the pc's morale. Don't begin echo invalidation. A reverse practice is uncontrolled listing. Uncontrolled listing: The pc is permitted to list on and on with no stops or checks on the RI being listed from. Does not apply to long source lists where one lists 50 beyond last R/S or RR for new goal. The pc, on an RI oppose list (not a source list) must be stopped every few items (usual number is 5) and the RI being listed from checked. Get the RI on the list but stop the listing when the list is complete. L. RON HUBBARD Founder ================== 060 HCOB 25 APR 63 METER READING TRS (TV5 p. 264-5, NTV VII p. 121-123) [Although no revision is noted, the NTV copy has minor changes from the one in the old tech volume. These consist of adding the names of the HCOBs referenced (which we have added in as well in brackets) and omitting Reg Sharp's name, only referring to the "Course Secretary" without naming him.] HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 25 APRIL 1963 Central Orgs Academies METER READING TRS DEFINITIONS AN INSTANT READ An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor. HCO B May 25, 1962 [E-METER INSTANT READS] AN INSTANT RUDIMENT READ On Rudiments, repetitive or fast, the instant read can occur anywhere within the last word of the question or when the thought major has been anticipated by the preclear, and must be taken up by the auditor. This is not a prior read. Preclears poorly in session, being handled by auditors with indifferent TR One, anticipate the instant read reactively as they are under their own control. Such a read occurs into the body of the last meaningful word in the question. It never occurs latent. HCO B July 21, 1962 [URGENT, INSTANT READS] A NEEDLE REACTION Rise, fall, speeded rise, speeded fall, double tick (dirty needle), theta bop or any other action. HCO B May 25, 1962 [E-METER INSTANT READS] By "major thought" is meant the complete thought being expressed in words by the auditor. Reads which occur prior to the completion of the major thought are "prior reads". Reads which occur later than its completion are "latent reads". HCO B May 25, 1962 [E-METER INSTANT READS] By "minor thought" is meant subsidiary thoughts expressed by words within the major thought. They are caused by the reactivity of individual words within the full words. They are ignored. HCO B May 25, 1962 [E-METER INSTANT READS] E-METER TR 20 PURPOSE: To familiarize student with an E-Meter. POSITION: Coach and student sit facing each other with an E-Meter in front of the student, either on a table or a chair. COMMANDS: "Reach for the meter" "Withdraw from the meter". Questions given alternately. TRAINING STRESS: Coach to see that student does command each time. Coach asks from time to time, "How are you doing?" Coach also takes up any comm lag or physical manifestation with a "What happened?" HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, September 1962, at Saint Hill. Recompiled by Reg Sharpe, Course Secretary Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, April 1963. E-METER TR 21 PURPOSE: To train student to read an E-Meter accurately, speedily and with certainty. POSITION: Coach and student sit facing each other. Student has an E-Meter (switched on) and coach holds the cans. PATTER: Coach: "Define a needle reaction." Coach: "Define an instant read." Coach: "Define a rudiment instant read." Student should give with a high degree of accuracy the definitions in this bulletin. If it is not so, coach reads definition and has student repeat it. Coach: "Take a phrase from the bulletin, say it to me and observe the meter." When the student has done this coach asks the following questions: 1. "Did you get a needle reaction?" "What was it?" "Where was it?" 2. "Did you get a rudiment instant read?" "What was it?" 3. "Did you get an instant read?" "What was it?" TRAINING STRESS: Coach needs to keep control of the coaching session. He should not depart from the above questions. If student is in any doubt at any time coach asks for a definition of whatever is being handled. Example: Student: "I'm not sure if I had a reaction." Coach: "Define a needle reaction." When student has done so, coach repeats question, "Did you get a needle reaction?" and continues thus until student gives a definite answer. Any hesitancy or any failure on the part of the student to observe a read is queried with a "What happened?". Occasionally ask student, "How are you doing?" This drill needs to be coached exactly as outlined above. Student is very likely to start blowing confusion. Don't Q & A with it. No flunks, no evaluation or invalidation. HISTORY: Developed by Reg Sharpe from the materials of L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, April 1963, to improve E-Meter reading rapidly and without student being invalidated by another student who does not know how to read a meter. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 061 HCOB 28 APR 63 ROUTINE 3, AN ACTUAL LINE PLOT (NTV p. 124-129, previously considered confidential) [This version incorporates a correction instructed in HCOB 4 MAY 63, which will be found later in this volume] HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 28 APRIL 1963 Central Orgs Missions ROUTINE 3 AN ACTUAL LINE PLOT (Replaces HCOB 17 Apr. 63, R3M2, REDO GOALS FOUND ON THIS PATTERN, A COMPLETE GPM PATTERN which was given a limited distribution and is cancelled.) This is the first relatively complete and accurate Line Plot published. The earlier line plots (except for the limited issue of HCOB 17 Apr. 63) published were synthetic. I went back 305 trillion for this plot. The pattern is accurate where given, and it is marked where more RIs may exist. I have never guaranteed that there were not more RIs in a GPM. PATTERN OF A GPM TO HAVE A GAME [Ed. In the HCOB, there is a diagonal line from each terminal down to the oppterm on the following line. This is omitted for clarity] Give me the final accomplishment of your goal. Opposition Terminals Terminals ----------- A GAME | --------------------> NO GAME ----------- AN ABSOLUTE GAME ---------------> NO ABSOLUTE GAME A PERFECT GAME -----------------> NO PERFECT GAME A SUPERIOR GAME ----------------> NO SUPERIOR GAME AN INCOMPARABLE GAME -----------> NO INCOMPARABLE GAME A FASCINATING GAME -------------> NO FASCINATING GAME A HIGHLY ACCEPTABLE GAME -------> NO HIGHLY ACCEPTABLE GAME A RECOMMENDED GAME -------------> NO RECOMMENDED GAME AN ENGROSSING GAME -------------> NO ENGROSSING GAME A VITAL GAME -------------------> NO VITAL GAME AN EAGER GAME ------------------> NO EAGER GAME AN ENTHUSIASTIC GAME -----------> NO ENTHUSIASTIC GAME AN ENJOYED GAME ----------------> NO ENJOYED GAME A DEDICATED GAME ---------------> NO A DEDICATED GAME A WANTED GAME ------------------> NO A WANTED GAME A COVETED GAME -----------------> NO A COVETED GAME A HOPED FOR GAME ---------------> NO HOPED FOR GAME A PROPOSED GAME ----------------> NO PROPOSED GAME A DECIDED GAME -----------------> NO DECIDED GAME A DEMANDED GAME ----------------> NO DEMANDED GAME A BORING GAME ------------------> NO BORING GAME A DEJECTED GAME ----------------> NO DEJECTED GAME A DEGRADING GAME ---------------> NO DEGRADING GAME AN IDIOTIC GAME ----------------> NO IDIOTIC GAME A LOSING GAME ------------------> NO LOSING GAME A BAD GAME ---------------------> NO BAD GAME AN UNWANTED GAME ---------------> NO UNWANTED GAME AN IGNORED GAME ----------------> NO IGNORED GAME A PLAYED GAME ------------------> NO PLAYED GAME AN ABANDONED GAME --------------> NO ABANDONED GAME ----------- GAMING | --------------------> NO GAMING ----------- GAMERS -------------------------> NO GAMERS GAME-INGNESS -------------------> NO GAME-INGNESS GAME-ISHNESS -------------------> NO GAME-ISHNESS GAME-IVITY ---------------------> NO GAME-IVITY ---------------- TO HAVE A GAME | ---------------> NO TO HAVE A GAME ---------------- ? ABSOLUTE TO HAVE A GAME ------> NO ABSOLUTE TO HAVE A GAME (?) PERFECT TO HAVE A GAME ---------> NO PERFECT TO HAVE A GAME SUPERIOR TO HAVE A GAME --------> NO SUPERIOR TO HAVE A GAME INCOMPARABLE TO HAVE A GAME ----> NO INCOMPARABLE TO HAVE A GAME FACINATING TO HAVE A GAME ------> NO FACINATING TO HAVE A GAME HIGHLY COMMENDABLE TO ----------> NO HIGHLY COMMENDABLE TO HAVE A GAME HAVE A GAME RECOMMENDED TO HAVE A GAME -----> NO RECOMMENDED TO HAVE A GAME ENGROSSING TO HAVE A GAME ------> NO ENGROSSING TO HAVE A GAME VITAL TO HAVE A GAME -----------> NO VITAL TO HAVE A GAME EAGERNESS TO HAVE A GAME -------> NO EAGER TO HAVE A GAME ENTHUSIASTIC TO HAVE A GAME ----> NO ENTHUSIASTIC TO HAVE A GAME ENJOYABLE TO HAVE A GAME -------> NO ENJOY TO HAVE A GAME DEDICATED TO HAVE A GAME -------> NO DEDICATED TO HAVE A GAME WANTING TO HAVE A GAME ---------> NO WANTING TO HAVE A GAME COVETING TO HAVE A GAME --------> NO COVETING TO HAVE A GAME HOPING FOR TO HAVE A GAME ------> NO HOPING FOR TO HAVE A GAME PROPOSING TO HAVE A GAME -------> NO PROPOSING TO HAVE A GAME DECIDING TO HAVE A GAME --------> NO DECIDING TO HAVE A GAME DEMANDING TO HAVE A GAME -------> NO DEMANDING TO HAVE A GAME BORE TO HAVE A GAME ------------> NO BORE TO HAVE A GAME DEJECTED TO HAVE A GAME --------> NO DEJECTED TO HAVE A GAME DEGRADED TO HAVE A GAME --------> NO DEGRADED TO HAVE A GAME IDIOTIC TO HAVE A GAME ---------> NO IDIOTIC TO HAVE A GAME LOSING TO HAVE A GAME ----------> NO LOSING TO HAVE A GAME BAD TO HAVE A GAME -------------> NO BAD TO HAVE A GAME UNWANTED TO HAVE A GAME --------> NO UNWANTED TO HAVE A GAME IGNORING TO HAVE A GAME --------> NO IGNORING TO HAVE A GAME PLAY TO HAVE A GAME ------------> NO PLAY TO HAVE A GAME AN ABANDONED TO HAVE A GAME ----> NO ABANDONED TO HAVE A GAME ------------------ TO HAVE A GAMING | -------------> NO TO HAVE A GAMING ------------------ TO HAVE A GAMERS ---------------> NO TO HAVE A GAMERS TO HAVE A GAMINGNESS -----------> NO TO HAVE A GAMINGNESS TO HAVE A GAME-ISHNESS ---------> NO TO HAVE A GAME-ISHNESS TO HAVE A GAME-IVITY -----------> NO TO HAE A GAME-IVITY HAVE A GAME --------------------> NO TO HAVE A GAME (It is not completely known that there is not a Have a Game band here) HAVE A GAMING ------------------> NO HAVE A GAMING HAVE A GAMERS ------------------> NO HAVE A GAMERS HAVE A GAMINGNESS --------------> NO HAVE A GAMINGNESS HAVE A GAME-ISHNESS ------------> NO HAVE A GAME-ISHNESS HAVE A GAME-IVITY --------------> NO HAVE A GAME-IVITY ---------------- BEINGS WHO ARE | ---------------> A BEING WHO WOULD NEVER HAVE A GAME HAVING A GAME | ---------------- HAVING A GAME ------------------> A BEING WHO WOULD HATE TO HAVE A GAME ACTIVE HAVING A GAME -----------> A BEING WHO WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE A GAME THE NECESSITY OF HAVING A GAME--> A BEING WHO SAW NO NECESSITY IN HAVING A GAME ANY ACTIONS IN HAVING A GAME ---> NO ACTIONS FOR HAVING A GAME A BELIEF IN HAVING A GAME ------> A BEING WHO DID NOT BELIEVE IN HAVING A GAME PROPONENTS OF HAVING A GAME ----> A PROPONENT OF NOT HAVING A GAME THE FANTASTIC IMPORTANCE -------> THE UNIMPORTANCE OF HAVING A GAME OF HAVING A GAME OBESSIONS FOR HAVING A GAME ----> NO OBSESSIONS FOR HAVING A GAME INTEREST IN HAVING A GAME ------> NO INTEREST IN HAVING A GAME CONCERNS OF HAVING A GAME ------> NO CONCERNS OF HAVING A GAME UPSETS IN HAVING A GAME --------> AN UPSET GAME-HAVER EXHAUSTION IN HAVING A GAME ----> AN EXHAUSTED GAME-HAVER FORCED HAVING A GAME -----------> A BEING WHO WAS FORCED TO HAVE A GAME THE BOREDOM OF HAVING A GAME ---> A BORED GAME-HAVER THE EFFORTS OF HAVING A GAME ---> AN OVERWORKED GAME-HAVER THE UNREWARDING CHARACTER ------> AN UNREWARDED GAME-HAVER OF HAVING A GAME THE COMPLICATIONS OF HAVING ----> A COMPLICATED GAME-HAVER A GAME THE DEMANDS OF HAVING A GAME ---> A DEMANDING GAME-HAVER DETERMINATIONS AGAINST ---------> A DETERMINED GAME-HAVER HAVING A GAME THE LIABILITIES OF HAVING ------> AN UNCARING GAME-HAVER A GAME OPPOSITION TO HAVING A GAME ----> A GAME-HAVER FORBIDDEN HAVING OF A GAME -----> HAVING OF A GAME AN ABSENCE OF HAVING A GAME ----> SOMEBODY WITH THE GOAL TO HAVE A GAME THE NON-EXISTENCE OF -----------> SOMEBODY OR SOMETHING WITH THE HAVING A GAME GOAL TO HAVE A GAME INACTIVITY ---------------------> THE GOAL TO HAVE A GAME BEINGS WHO ONLY WORK -----------> TO HAVE A GAME ______________________________ This pattern, by test, has been found to exist generally in GPMs, pc to pc and goal to goal on the same pc. All the above RIs are given as actually found except some of the RIs in the goal as an oppterm area (Eagerness to Have a Game upwards to goal as an oppterm, some 18 RIs) which were plotted from another bank. The remainder, aside from those 18, are exactly as found. The bank is too early to adventure into lightly, so do not try to find or run this goal on your pc. It is early enough to be ordinarily unrestimulative on inspection. The actual goal is common to most pcs. POINTS OF INTEREST The opposition terminals gradually increase as the goal is lived, to become the goal. The terminals decrease as lived until goal is repugnant. Each terminal and each oppterm contains a form of the goal. There are neither terminals nor oppterms that contain entirely different words than the goals. If you make an error in following this pattern or fail to get the right RI your pc's RR will get shorter and vanish on the next 3 or 4 RIs. This will hold good for all goals and all GPMs. Any corrections and patterns for other goal forms will be released as fast as I find them. I do not guarantee there are not more RIs in a GPM. USE This pattern will serve to locate the RIs of any goal using Directive Listing. The form of the word may be different but not its sense. The form of the negative may be any negative but is almost always NO, particularly in the upper half of the terminals. L. RON HUBBARD Founder ================== 062 HCOB 29 APR 63 ROUTINE 3, DIRECTIVE LISTING, LISTING LIABILITIES (NTV p. 130-134, previously considered confidential) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL 1963 Central Orgs Missions URGENT ROUTINE 3 DIRECTIVE LISTING LISTING LIABILITIES Nothing has changed to alter the mechanics or laws of listing. Now that the pattern of the GPM is exactly known, the pc can be told what RI to put on the list. This requires only 5 or 6 variations from the pattern RI. BUT the values contained in just listing are lost. UNDERLISTING These things happen when underlisting is done even though the right RIs are found: 1. Half the charge is left in the GPM; 2. The pc's directed RI does not RR; 3. The pc is prevented from cogniting on the RI found because it is still charged; 4. The pc's body weight increases; 5. The GPM run through once is stiff, the pc is queasy about it; 6. The pc's body is subjected to unusual stresses; 7. The auditor is led to fake RRs or believe the pattern is wrong; 8. The pc doesn't get Clear. All these things can be prevented by: A. Listing every list to a clean needle; B. Considering the RI being listed from is reacting even if when called for test it reads latently or only roughs the flowing character of the needle; C. Don't buy an RI unless the pc understands it and if he doesn't understand it, make him list charge off; D. Making the pc answer the listing question, not plunge for the "right pattern RI." _____________ A CONVINCING TEST On most pcs the right RI won't RR until the charge from other listable items has been taken off. You can make this test. Take the pc's next RI to be listed for. Let's say it's "perfect catfish." The question is "Who or what would no all catfish oppose?" Get all possible combinations of the right RI (perfect catfish) from the pattern, (catfish perfected, perfection catfish, etc.), make the pc put them on the list. Now test by calling "no all catfish." You'll see a roughed up needle even if no instant tick appeared. And probably no real RR, only a fall, will be seen on testing "perfect catfish." Now make the pc really answer the listing question without regard to the pattern RI "perfect catfish" but just what he thinks "no all catfish" would oppose. You will see several RRs probably and maybe an R/S or two on a list of only 30 items. You will observe the pc's needle go smooth. Call "no all catfish" again to the pc. You will see that there is no slightest roughening of the smooth flow of the needle. Now have the pc put all combinations of "perfect catfish" back on the list. One will RR beautifully. Call it off to the pc (no other nulling done, no BMRs). It will RR again and the TA will blow down TO CLEAR READ. Now examine your list. You will see that the right RI placed at the top of the list had a poor or absent RR or only fell when put down. If you had accepted it at the top of the list you would not have gotten a nice RR BECAUSE ALL THE RRing AND R/Sing ITEMS YOU SAW AFTER IT WOULD HAVE REMAINED IN THE PC'S BANK! You should make this test on your R3 pc. Then you'll understand all about it because you will have seen it. _____________ NINETY PERCENT OF THE GPM RIs WHEN FOUND AND CALLED TO THE PC SHOULD BRING THE TONE ARM OF THE METER TO CLEAR READ. (Note: the pc may be in the valence of the opposite sex in any GPM during its running. Therefore the pc's Clear read will be for the opposite sex in that GPM). _____________ The lesson here is this: ONE AUDITS THE PC WITH ROUTINE 3, ONE DOES NOT JUST RUN A BANK. Routine 3 is an auditing tool. One uses it to audit the pc. If audited, the pc gets better and feels better. If just "run through a bank" a pc will benefit but won't clear. REMOVING CHARGE Truly skilled use of Routine 3 removes all the charge. Auditing is for the pc. True, it is wholly the number of RIs you get. But what about those other RRing and R/Sing items. They're the pc's too. The cross-section of a real R3 reliable item looks like this; if the spherical cluster were split in half: [Ed. Drawing consisting of a very large circle labled "RI". Completely surrounding in a ring are small circles (17 of them) each labled "RR". Surrounding those, in a second ring are small circles labled "RS", and finally there is a third outer ring of small circles labled "DR".] All charge comes from the RRing RI. The remainder borrow their charge from it. The RI looks like a steel sphere covered with a heavy layer of black smoke. This black smoke is actually RRing lock items in the inner area and R/Sing (2-12) Items in the outer area. If you get the RI discharged nearly everything blows. But a few of the RRing first ring and one or two of the outer R/Sing items will still hang on. The pc is trying to list through the outer rings to the center core RI. This anatomy is not graphic. It is actual. A GPM consists of less than two hundred RIs, about 6,000 RRing lock items and about 15,000 R/Ses. (The figures 6,000 and 15,000 are approximate.) Listing by Directive Listing against the pattern of a GPM you get most of these RRing or R/Sing secondary items. But you don't get them all even on a cleanly RRing pc. To get them all, and on most pcs even to get a good RR on the RI, you have to list off charge as well as List by Pattern. If you get the primary RI these secondary items never need to be opposed. They just blow. If you do oppose one or a slightly incorrect RI your TA will go high and stay high. _____________ Many plans for doing this could exist. I would prefer this one and have used it with success. It would even apply to a pc who RRed well on pattern running 1. Tell the pc what to put on the list, get the most ordinary variations of it. See that one falls well. None are called back to the pc. 2. Tell the pc, "Now let's get the secondary items off. Just answer the question any way you want: "Who or what _______ ?" 3. Let the pc rattle off a lot, the auditor meanwhile just looking at the meter, watching the falls, R/Ses and RRs, but looking for the moment the needle begins to flow smoothly (none of this is written down and it should take only a couple of minutes); 4. Stop the pc from further "random listing" and have the pc put some variations of the pattern RI on the list, working hard with the pc to get the wording exactly correct. 5. As soon as these pattern of the GPM type items being listed cease to disturb the needle and one or more have RRed, stop. 6. Read the RI being listed from to the pc to be sure it doesn't react or roughen the needle (if it does, repeat step 5); 7. Read the last RRing pattern items to the pc. One only, without any other nulling or ruds or Tiger Drill, will RR and blow down the TA; 8. Tell the pc "Your item is ______ . That rocket reads." This is only done the first time through a bank and not when simply passing through a GPM the third time to align it and pass the charge down. The pc run this way will be bright and sparkling the whole way, lots of cognitions. Suppress, Protest and Decide have to be cleaned on the list or the session if things don't go well but only when all other Routine 3 means of handling things have become very impeded. Don't use any rudiments or Tiger Drill or nulling or BMRs in Routine 3 unless totally driven to it, and only then after all R3 means have been exhausted. Far from wasting session time, you will find this gets more RIs in a session because the pc's confront comes up. It saves time. SUMMARY You can run a whole GPM on Directive Listing and the pattern of a GPM without removing a single secondary item. But the penalties of doing only that are given at the beginning of this HCO Bulletin. Audit the pc with Routine 3. Don't just run Routine 3 on a pc. PS: Don't overlist either! L. RON HUBBARD Founder ================== 063 HCOB 29 APR 63 MODERNIZED TRAINING DRILLS USING PERMISSIVE COACHING (TV5 p. 266-72, not in NTV) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL 1963 (CANCELLED - see HCO B 21 Jan 70 in TV7) Central Orgs Academies MODERNIZED TRAINING DRILLS USING PERMISSIVE COACHING Much of the difficulty experienced in teaching the TRs and getting students proficient in the TRs is due to bad coaching. This bulletin is issued to overcome this difficulty. It is in fact an amendment of HCO Bulletin of April 17, 1961, which as itself remains valid. The essence of this bulletin is that the drills do not permit the coach to "flunk" a student, instead an exact patter is laid down for the coach and instructors should ensure that the coach keeps to the patter. TR 0 has been subdivided into 4 parts. One new drill is introduced - "The Coaches' Drill". The TRs are important because: 1. The auditing skill of any student remains only as good as he can do his TRs. 2. Flubs in TRs are the basis of all confusion in subsequent efforts to audit. 3. If the TRs are not well learned early in the HPA/HCA BScn/HCS Courses, THE BALANCE OF THE COURSE WILL FAIL AND INSTRUCTORS AT UPPER LEVELS WILL BE TEACHING NOT THEIR SUBJECTS BUT TRS. 4. Almost all confusions on Meter, Model Sessions and SOP Goals stem directly from inability to do the TRs. 5. A student who has not mastered his TRs will not master anything further. 6. SOP Goals will not function in the presence of bad TRs. The preclear is already being overwhelmed by process velocity and cannot bear up to TR flubs without ARC breaks. Academies were tough on TRs up to 1958 and have since tended to soften. Comm Courses are not a tea party. These TRs given here should be put in use at once in all auditor training, in Academy and HGC and in the future should never be relaxed. Seven weeks on a Comm Course until he does the TRs perfectly lets the student receive at least one week's training in the eight. A poor Comm Course in one week can wipe out the whole eight weeks. NUMBER: TR 0. Revised 1961 and 1963. NAME: Confronting Preclear. COMMANDS: None. POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart - about three feet. Student has an E-Meter. PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to hold a position three feet in front of a preclear, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there. TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. It will be found the student tends to confront WITH a body part, rather than just confront, or to use a system of confronting rather than just BE there. The drill is misnamed if Confront means to DO something to the pc. The whole action is to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear without apologizing or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending self. After a student has become able to just sit there for two hours "bull baiting" can begin. Anything added to being there is queried by the coach with a "What happened?" Twitches, blinks, sighs, fidgets, anything except just being there is promptly queried with the reason why, if necessary. TR 0 has been divided into four parts. Each part is drilled for about 15 minutes in turn and then begun over again and again. TR 0(A) This is exactly as given above except that "bull baiting" is omitted. Whenever student speaks, fidgets, giggles, is embarrassed or goes anaten coach says, "That's it, what happened?" Coach listens carefully to what student has to say, acknowledges and says, "Start." In fact, coach will do the foregoing whenever he sees any physical action or change, however small, manifested by the student. It is also desirable from time to time that the coach says, "That's it, how are you doing?", listens carefully to what student says, acknowledges and then says start. No flunks, no invalidation or validation other than giving a win from time to time as merited. TR 0(B) Exactly as TR 0 (A) with the addition that student is required by coach to answer the following questions which are given alternately: "What can you see about me that you like?" "What can you see about me that you don't like?" Coach acknowledges each answer without invalidation, validation or evaluation. Coach asks "What happened?" whenever there is any physical manifestation on the part of the student or whenever there is an overlong comm lag. Coach also asks from time to time "How are you doing?" TR 0 (C) In this part bull baiting is introduced, otherwise it is exactly as TR 0 (A). Patter as a confronted subject: The coach may say anything or do anything except leave the chair. The students' "buttons" can be found and tromped on hard. Any words not coaching words may receive no response from the student. If the student responds, the coach is instantly a coach (see patter above). Instructors should have coaches let students have some wins (coach does not mention these) and then, by gradient stress, get the coaches to start in on the student to invite flunks. This is "bull baiting". The student is queried each time he or she reacts, no matter how minutely, to being baited. TR 0(D) This drill has been designed to put the finishing touches to a TR 0. It needs to be done very thoroughly and with plenty of interest on the part of the coach. It is run as follows: 1. Coach says to student, "Define a good auditing attitude." He accepts student's definition. 2. Coach says, "Show me a good auditing attitude." 3. After a few minutes coach asks the following questions: (a) "Did you show me a good auditing attitude?" (b) "What did you do?" (c) "What happened?" 4. Actions 2 and 3 are repeated two or three times, then start over again at 1. 5. When the "Good auditing attitude" is being done well substitute "an interested attitude" or "a professional attitude" or "an understanding attitude". All these "attitudes" should be drilled thoroughly. Further, coach should take any attitude the student presents, e.g. if student uses in his definition the words "It's being there" coach makes a mental note to use it later. Example: "Define a 'being there' attitude." "Show me a 'being there' attitude." The whole of TR 0 should be taught rough-rough-rough and not left until the student can do it. Training is considered satisfactory at this level only if the student can BE three feet in front of a person without flinching, concentrating or confronting with, regardless of what the confronted person says or does. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be "interesting". Revised by L. Ron Hubbard April 1961 on finding that SOP Goals required for its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe. NUMBER: TR 1. Revised 1961 and 1963. NAME: Dear Alice. PURPOSE: To train the student to deliver a command newly and in a new unit of time to a preclear without flinching or trying to overwhelm or using a via. COMMANDS: A phrase (with the "he saids" omitted) is picked out of the book "Alice in Wonderland" and read to the coach. POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart. Student has an E-Meter. TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may have. (A) When student has delivered a phrase coach asks student the following: 1. "Did you own the phrase?" 2. "Did you deliver it in a new unit of time?" 3. "Where did the communication start from?" 4. "Where did the communication land?" If student is in difficulty or confused by the drill, coach reads the purpose of the drill and the training stress and has student clear the purpose and the training stress. (B) After a short while the following is introduced. Coach tells student, "Create the space of the coaching session by locating 4 points in front of you and four points behind you." This is done on a gradient scale until student is doing the drill comfortably. Coach just asks, "Did you do that?" Then "A" above is reintroduced and the coach asking from time to time, "Did you create the space?" If student has difficulty coach goes back to getting student to locate the four points in front and the four points behind. This drill is passed only when the student can put across a command naturally, without strain or artificiality or elocutionary bobs and gestures, and when the student can do it easily and relaxedly. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard 1961 to increase auditing ability. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard. NUMBER: TR 2. Revised 1961 and 1963. NAME: Acknowledgments. PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgment is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgment is a full stop. Also that an acknowledgment lets a pc know that he has answered an auditing command. COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from "Alice in Wonderland" omitting "He saids" and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a comfortable distance apart. Student with an E-Meter. TRAINING STRESS: To teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so preclear knows it was heard. To ask student from time to time what was said. To curb over and under acknowledgment. To teach him that an acknowledgment is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or an encouragement to the preclear to go on. To teach further that one can fail to get an acknowledgment across or can fail to stop a pc with an acknowledgment or can take a pc's head off with an acknowledgment. Patter: The coach says, "Start," reads a line and says after student has acknowledged: 1. "What did I say?" 2. "Did you understand it?" 3. "Did your acknowledgment let me know I had originated something?" 4. "Did it end cycle?" 5. "Where did the acknowledgment start from?" 6. "Where did the acknowledgment land?" 7. "Did you own the space?" In questions 5 and 6 student must indicate as in TR 1. Ask "What happened?" as required in previous TRs. Coach checks carefully, "Are you really satisfied that you are giving good acknowledgments?" He reads the purpose of the TR and the Training Stress for the student to check over. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach new students that an acknowledgment ends a communication cycle and a period of time, that a new command begins a new period of time. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard. NUMBER: TR 3. Revised 1961 and 1963. NAME: Duplicative Question. PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with other questions, and to acknowledge it. To teach that one never asks a second question until he has received an answer to the one asked. COMMANDS: "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart. Student has an E-Meter. TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgment of its answer in one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into variations of command. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before. The student must learn to give and receive an answer and to acknowledge it in one unit of time. The student should not fail to get an answer to the question asked, or fail to repeat the exact question. Coach instructs student to run the command "Do birds fly?" or "Do fish swim?" etc. Student is required to acknowledge in such a way that the coach knows he has answered the command and if he doesn't answer the command to repeat the command, letting the coach know it is a repeat. Coach just answers the command to start. Patter is as follows: S. "Do birds fly?" C. "Yes." S. "Good." C. "Did I answer the command?" S. "Yes." C. "Did you feel that you had let me know that I had answered the command?" S. "No" or "Yes." C. "OK, start again." This patter is repeated over and over until student has a certainty that he is doing the drill. Then coach starts giving commands which are not answers. These communications must all be directed at the student, i.e., something to do with the pc's attitude, appearance, private life (real or imaginary). Example of patter: S. "Do birds fly?" C. "Your breath stinks." S. "I'll repeat the question. Do birds fly?" C. "That's it. Did I answer the question?" S. "No." C. "Did you let me know I hadn't?" S. "By not acknowledging, repeating the command." C. "OK, start." And so on. Coach continues until student is easily doing the drill and with great certainty. Coach can use such originations always directly concerned with the student personally and if he finds a button he continues until the student is tolerating it quite happily. If student breaks up or becomes misemotional coach merely asks "What happened?" No flunks. No evaluation, invalidation or validation. Ask "What happened?" as required. When the question is not answered, the student must say gently, "I'll repeat the auditing question," and do so until he gets an answer. Anything except commands, acknowledgment and, as needed, the repeat statement is queried. Unnecessary use of the repeat statement is queried. A poor command is queried. A poor acknowledgment is queried. Student misemotion or confusion is queried. Student failure to utter the next command without a long comm lag is queried. A choppy or premature acknowledgment is queried. Lack of an acknowledgment (or with a distinct comm lag) is queried. "Start", "Flunk", "Good" and "That's it" may not be used to fluster or trap the student. Any other statement under the sun may be. The coach may try to leave his chair in this TR. If he succeeds it is queried. The coach should not use introverted statements such as "I just had a cognition." "Coach divertive" statements should all concern the student, and should be designed to throw the student off and cause the student to lose session control or track of what the student is doing. The student's job is to keep a session going in spite of anything, using only command, the repeat statement or the acknowledgment. The student may use his or her hands to prevent a "blow" (leaving) of the coach. If the student does anything else than the above, it is queried. By queried is meant coach asks student "What happened?" HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to overcome variations and sudden changes in sessions. Revised 1961 and 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard. The old TR had a comm bridge as part of its training but this is now part of and is taught in Model Session and is no longer needed at this level. Auditors have been frail in getting their questions answered. This TR was redesigned to improve that frailty. NUMBER: TR 4. Revised 1961 and 1963. NAME: Preclear Originations. PURPOSE: To teach a student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear throughout an origination. COMMANDS: The student runs "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" on coach. Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared list given by Instructor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction of coach. POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other at a comfortable distance apart. TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear originations and do three things: (1) Understand it; (2) Acknowledge it; and (3) Return preclear to session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of comprehension, he corrects the coach into better handling. Patter: All originations concern the coach, his ideas, reactions or difficulties, none concern the auditor. Otherwise the patter is the same as in earlier TRs. The student's patter is governed by: 1. Clarifying and understanding the origin. 2. Acknowledging the origin. 3. Giving the repeat statement "I'll repeat the auditing command," and then giving it. Anything else is queried. The auditor must be taught to prevent ARC breaks and differentiate between a vital problem that concerns the pc and a mere effort to blow session. (TR 3 Revised.) If the student does more than (1) Understand, (2) Acknowledge, (3) Return pc to session, he is in error. Coach may throw in remarks personal to student as on TR 3. Student's failure to differentiate between these (by trying to handle them) and remarks aimed only at the student is queried. Student's failure to persist is always queried in any TR but here more so. Coach should not always read from list to originate, and not always look at student when about to comment. By Originate is meant a statement or remark referring to the state of the coach or fancied case. By Comment is meant a statement or remark aimed only at student or room. Originations are handled, Comments are disregarded by the student. TR 4 and anti-Q & A is what bothers auditors the most. Q & Aing is a fault which causes ARC breaks and therefore throws the pc out of session. The reason is that when you Q & A the pc is not permitted to let go of an origination and is therefore left with a Missed Withhold. Q & A = Missed Withholds = ARC Breaks. Coach starts by asking student to define TR 4. If student doesn't know it then coach gives the definition as follows: TR 4 is to hear an origination, to understand it, to acknowledge it and return pc to session. Similarly coach asks for a definition of Q & A, which is: Double questioning, changing because pc changed, following pc's instruction. Coach then tells student to run the process "Do birds fly?" or "Do fish swim?" Coach frequently introduces an origination. When student has dealt with origination or has tried to deal with it, coach asks searchingly the following questions: 1. "Were you tongue-tied? startled? thrown off session?" 2. "Did you hear origination?" 3. "Did you understand it?" 4. "Did you acknowledge it?" 5. "Did you return me to session?" 6. "Did you double question me?" 7. "Did you change because I had changed?" 8. "Did you follow my instruction?" 9. "What did you do?" 10. "What happened?" Question 10 can be asked randomly throughout the drill whenever coach sees or hears something that indicates student is in trouble of any sort. Coach is permitted to "lead student up the garden path" for a little while before asking the above question. This drill needs to be done very thoroughly. If coach notices that student is using a method or pattern, coach can add in the question "Are you using a method or pattern in this drill?" The drill is continued over and over until student is doing it comfortably and happily. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1961 to teach an auditor more about handling origins and preventing ARC breaks. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard. Coaches' Drill Coach and student (who is in this case the student coach) seated as in the normal TR drills. Coach has the copy of the drill in front of him. He tells student to coach a TR. Whenever student departs from the script coach says, "That's it. The correct question there should be _______." "The correct action there should be _______." This is continued until student coach is thoroughly conversant with the script. Coach keeps student on the drill and at the end of each cycle asks student, "Did you notice any physical changes on my part?" "What were they?" "Did you ask me 'What happened?' each time?" Drill is continued with each TR in turn until student is administering all the TRs efficiently, interestedly and competently. Ask "What happened?" as required. HISTORY: Developed by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard in April 1963 at Saint Hill to teach students how to coach the TRs. Training Note It is better to go through these TRs several times getting tougher each time than to hang up on one TR forever or to be so tough at start student goes into a decline. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 064 HCOB 30 APR 63 ROUTINE 3 (NTV VII p. 135, previously considered confidential) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 30 APRIL AD 13 Central Orgs Missions ROUTINE 3 (Correction to HCOB 23 Apr. 63 HANDLING THE GPM) On page 2, 3rd and 4th steps at the bottom, read instead: Instead of "3. Do not oppose," etc.: 3. Oppose all RIs including the goal as an RI at the bottom of the GPM. Instead of "4. Leave the lowest (1st bottom)," etc.: 4. List with a written list "Who or what or what goal would 'To _____ (goal of the GPM just run) oppose." List 50 items beyond the last RR or RS. Leave this list not nulled, but be sure it is completely listed. Correction of HCOB 23 Apr. 63, HANDLING THE GPM, page 3, 13th step - read as follows: Instead of "13. Reach eventually the first goal," etc.: 13. Reach eventually the first goal ever found on the pc but not handled. Null the goal oppose list left unnulled in step 4. Find the next lower goal on it. L. RON HUBBARD Founder ================== 065 HCOPL 30 APR 63 THE SAINT HILL STAFF CO-AUDIT (OEC V5 p 225) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 APRIL 1963 Sthil THE SAINT HILL STAFF CO-AUDIT All Co-auditing on Saint Hill staff is under the general charge of the Course Secretary and under the direct handling and supervision of the Co-Audit Supervisor. Any session given to any staff member must become a matter of a proper auditor's report and all auditor's reports must be turned in to the Co-audit Supervisor within 12 hours from session end. All permanent records and Case Folders are retained by the Co-audit Supervisor and must be made available to auditors before the start of sessions. All auditing assignments are made by the Co-audit Supervisor after consultation with the Course Secretary. Any disagreement with assignments as to time, auditor or preclear, should be made directly to the Co-audit Supervisor and if not satisfactorily settled may be appealed to the Course Secretary whose decision shall be final. Disagreements with technical directions should be taken up with the Co-audit Supervisor before the session to which the directions apply and if not satisfactorily settled may be appealed to the Course Secretary. This makes it important that folders be examined by auditors well before session time. Departures from technical directions given may not be undertaken at the beginning of or during a session. If there is no time to appeal, do as directed and appeal afterwards before the next session to be given. Adhere to current auditing practice and technology. Ignorance of it is no excuse, and no allowances will be made. Do your best in any session and find out about any questionable points as soon as possible. Auditors will receive in so far as possible as many hours as they give. No all audit - no auditing, or the reverse, all receiving and no giving will be tolerated. Any staff member if auditing or being audited by Saint Hill staff, or auditing as a staff member on such things as assists, are members of the Co-audit. There are no exceptions, special arrangements or "withdrawals from the Co-audit". If a Scientologist staff member is on staff he or she is part of the Co-audit. If a Scientologist staff member is not on the Co-audit he or she is not on staff. Exemption to this rule may be obtained only by permission in writing from both the Co-audit Supervisor, and the Course Secretary to be exempted. By Scientology staff member is meant any staff member ever awarded any certificate or Course completion at any time in Dianetics or Scientology. A family member of the Co-audit is one who is related by blood or marriage to a Saint Hill Scientology staff member and who has been awarded at any time a certificate or Course completion in Dianetics or Scientology. Such a person may join the staff Co-audit but may not do so temporarily or for only some of the sessions. Permission for such membership in the Co-audit is proposed to the Co-audit Supervisor and must be passed on by the Course Secretary. No fees are paid by members of the Co-audit for auditing or being audited regardless of the time or length of sessions. Fees are paid for auditing only for assists or auditing non-Scientology staff and only when arranged in advance by the Course Secretary, and only for the period stated in the arrangement. Clear bracelets at the expense of the organization will be awarded members of the Co-audit cleared on the Co-audit when clearing requirements are met. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.cden Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 066 HCOB 4 MAY 63 ROUTINE 3, AN ACTUAL LINE PLOT NO. 2 (NTV VII p. 137-8, previously considered confidential) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1963 Central Orgs Missions URGENT ROUTINE 3 AN ACTUAL LINE PLOT NO. 2 (Additions to HCOB 28 Apr. 63, AN ACTUAL LINE PLOT) ADD ITEMS* On the 3rd page in this HCOB, 28 Apr. 63 just below the Reliable Item BEINGS WHO ARE HAVING A GAME, add the Oppterm RI, HAVING A GAME. Below the terminal RI, A BEING WHO WOULD HATE TO HAVE A GAME add the terminal RI, A BEING WHO WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE A GAME. The above two were missed in copying the line plot. Add the level GLEE below ENTHUSIASTIC in both upper and lower "dwindlings." _____________ This actual line plot was completely run except for the levels Absolute to Vital in the lower dwindling which were put in from another GPM. FUTURE CORRECTIONS Since running this actual Goals Problem Mass TO HAVE A GAME, in running out other GPMs a great deal of additional data has emerged both as to the character of a GPM, its source and how to run one, as I am working very hard on technical. The job is very nearly complete as to research, though it has been pretty grim facing up to this totally unknown area of the reactive mind. I acted as a pc on it because I didn't know if a body would live through it. It does-but care is needed in handling a GPM while in a body and great accuracy is required or the pc will gather mass and feel strain on heart and lung machinery. I am now assembling and cross-checking all levels of RIs and sequences of goals. Practically all the material is in sight but the speedy need of it is very difficult to meet. I have done, with Mary Sue's help, about a decade of research since December last with Mary Sue as the auditor and myself as a pc. My RR is practically indestructible and my confront is good on this. Therefore, and only therefore could the job be done. Other pcs' RRs are too weak for research and their confront is not up to it. Therefore I had to guinea pig it. This doesn't make me any hero but it has been fortunate for us that I could do this as nobody currently under processing has come close to the actual pattern and without it we would be stopped. I did not realize the vitalness of the data or the weakness of RRs until March. Because it was I who went through it, I completely underestimated the ability of the average pc to confront it and find RIs. Thus a whole technology of running has had to be developed (Directive and Random Listing) to cope with these factors of poor RRs and low confront. So this burden was added on to research and therefore my data release has fallen behind. I have been struck by the importance attached to this material. Cables and telexes have been coming in demanding the data. I am putting out the material as fast as I can and it should all be released shortly. What auditors do not realize is that any finding of RIs at any level in a GPM releases charge. If RIs are bypassed the pc, however, is uncomfortable or ARC breaky. If this story of finding this pattern and the GPMs is incredible, the actual story of the GPMs is even more so. The data entirely changes our line of attack on public dissemination, more toward the Dianetic approach but still within the framework of Scientology and the human spirit. There are a very few more RIs in a GPM than shown in TO HAVE A GAME. The upper dwindling (top oppterm down) is apparently always ABLY or INGABLY, never any other word form. The lower dwindling (goal down) is apparently always ABLE or INGABLE. This is not shown in the Line Plot of 28 Apr. 63 as it was learned from other GPMs the following week. The lowest oppterm is not correct. For reasons to be covered later this oppterm should be something else. The whole of the terminal side should always be NIX _________ not NO _________ More ancient cultures have more emphatic negatives. L. RON HUBBARD Founder ================== 067 HCOB 5 MAY 63 ROUTINE 3, R3 STABLE DATA (NTV VII p. 139-40, previously considered confidential) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 5 MAY 1963 ROUTINE 3 R3 STABLE DATA On the first GPM run on a pc you get a further departure from the pattern than in subsequent GPMs. The pc's confront is barred off by charge. The thing to do is run the first GPM as you can, then get the "closer to PT" GPMs by listing "What goal would oppose (GPM's goal just run)?" Don't go "backtrack," come "closer to PT" for the next GPM. You almost never get the "PT GPM" the first time as the pc's first goal. The upper dwindling oppterms (top oppterm down) are all adverbial. Apparently All words are ABLY or INGABLY. The lower dwindling oppterms (goal down) are all adjectivial. Apparently all words are ABLE or INGABLE. The correct forms of the words apparently do not vary for any goal's RIs. There is no difference of pattern goal to goal or pc to pc. Only significance of goals change pc to pc. The terminals are all NIX where they have negative starts, not NO . More cultured tongues have degrees of negative and NIX is closer than NO . If NO is used some mass will pile up on the terminal side. NIX used instead of NO dispels this mass. Never rerun a partially run GPM. Always complete a GPM to the bottom including the goal oppose list at the end before rerunning or correcting a GPM. Go back two RIs if you must. But never more. Correct a GPM's RIs only after the GPM has been gone through once. If a partially run GPM is rerun or corrected before completion, it will stiffen up. Always run a GPM top to bottom, never bottom to top. Always get the pc to the "topmost" GPM as soon as possible before going for "early track" GPMs. Run RIs off the case as fast as possible. Don't linger around fooling with a top oppterm combination more than a few hours. If you can't get it go into the bank at the goal as an oppterm. It shatters a pc to fool about hunting the top oppterm for 20 or 30 hours. Get RIs run and charge off the case. THE BOTTOM OPPTERM The bottom (lowest) oppterm is always a trick combination of the next goal below and the goal being run. Sometimes a NOT or NIX is added between them. It's an idiotic simplicity. The two goals are just joined to make sense. Example: Goal being run: To never fish. Next lower goal: to catch catfish. The bottom oppterm of the GPM "to never fish" is therefore "to never fish to catch catfish." I almost sprained the brain trying to find this one. It connects each GPM one to the next. It's a keystone. If the pc is a few RIs down from the top, or in the body of a GPM, or a few RIs from the bottom, you can't get another goal to fire. To get another goal to fire, you have to complete all the way to the bottom, the one you are running. Two goals or more can be firing at one time. L. RON HUBBARD Founder ================== 068 HCOB 8 MAY 63 THE NATURE OF FORMATION OF THE GPM (NTV VII p. 141-4, previously considered confidential) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MAY 1963 Central Orgs Missions ROUTINE 3 THE NATURE OF FORMATION OF THE GPM All goals contacted on the preclear early in his processing and made to rocket read are implants. An implant is an electronic means of overwhelming the thetan with a significance. In the case of implanted Goals Problem Masses, use was made of the mechanics of the actual pattern of living to impress and entrap a thetan and force obedience to behavior patterns. The goal selected was not based on any goal of the thetan but was an entirely arbitrary selection, both as to goal and pattern, by those conducting the implanting. Implanting was an activity carried out to prevent retribution from executed persons, to dispose of captured armies and block their return home as thetans, to dispose of "excess population," to "fit" a thetan for a colonization project, to dissuade revolutionaries, simply to implant, and many other reasons. Lacking actual technology, time, real purpose and common decency, the electronic implant was the standard short-term means of handling the problems of life. To us this activity is highly discreditable, even criminal. That implanting was undertaken and done is witnessed by the weird uses of electricity by the psychiatrist who has no therapeutic excuse for doing so and does not even know that he undertakes a very low-order dramatization of whole track actions. That whole populations have been disposed of by beings needs no further evidence than Hitler's pogroms against the Jews wherein he involved huge vitally needed war resources and elaborate scientific skills to exterminate 6,000,000 human beings who had committed no real crimes against him. Implants are not necessarily the work of pranksters or madmen but the solemn scientific combined effort of careful, dedicated politicians, learned men and psycholo-gists and technicians, who work under the orders of short sighted states. How they excuse this activity would probably make an interesting study in itself. That the intention is not for the good of anyone is witnessed by the fact that many of the goals so implanted dictate criminal activities. Implants result in all varieties of illness, apathy, degradation, neurosis and insanity and are the principal cause of these in man. IMPLANTED GOALS The pattern and similarity of goals and GPMs should make one aware of their actual nature as implants. That implanted goals and GPMs exist does not mean that the pc's own goals and GPMs do not exist. However, to get to the pc's own goals and GPMs one must run the implanted ones. Indeed, so long as implants do exist and have to be run, it is almost fortunate for they give the pc the increase in confronting and case gain confidence needed to handle the whole track and the auditor the experience in listing necessary to handle the whole track. There is no real difference between the technology needed to handle an implant GPM and the whole track. Finding purposes and listing are common to both. Both have a basic pattern, though the implant pattern does not vary pc to pc, goal to goal. You won't find a real whole track goal on a pc until the implanted goals are handled, and even if you did it would snap into an implanted goal. The difference between a whole track RI and an implant RI consists of somatic and visio. Implant somatics are pressure, heat, electrical and generalized pain. There is no changing visio, usually just the implant station and its false pictures intended to confuse. A whole track RI has visio, motion and sharp identifiable somatics, as from spear wounds, crashes, etc. For twelve years I have looked for technology to "get around" implants and not run them. Instead I found one could not get around them and found the technology to get through them. Everyone has these implants that is here on this planet. Do we know as much as the implanters? Yes. We know more about life and its laws and this universe than those who implanted. Does this debar clearing? No, it makes clearing easier as it gives a pattern of goals and RIs that can be followed. Is the gain as great in running out implants? The only immediate gain you will get on Homo sapiens is running out implants. These implants are the immediate source of those troubles he is most concerned about. The gains in running them are impressive. When can one run the whole track and the pc's own GPMs? When the implants are run. Does running an implant assist whole track running? The implants have grouped the whole track in a pc. Random listing during the running of implants straightens out a lot of whole track. Does running an implant harm the body? No, not if expertly done. There is a lot of physical discomfort in running an implant GPM and mass may pile up on the pc but the completion of the job sees this "damage" also swept away. Does running an implant change the pc's patterns of behavior? The only trouble-some patterns of behavior the pc has reactively are from these implants. The resurgence and relief is enormous. Does this change the definition of Clear? No. It clarifies it. Clear could mean "a thetan cleared of enforced and unwanted behavior patterns and discomforts." THE MOOD OF THE PC The finding that the GPMs you are contacting are implants accounts for (a) the violence of R3 ARC breaks and (b) the suspicion with which Scientology is. sometimes regarded. Down deep a thetan on this planet knows he or she was given false purposes and sent here under a cloud. This is attested by the enthusiasm with which a pc will erase "his goal." Let an auditor err and force or confuse the pc and the pc instantly reverts to the moods experienced during the actual implant, which are, amongst others, anger, fear, apathy, compounded by feelings of degradation and betrayal. The pc instantly feels he is again being implanted. The R3 methods of handling an ARC break keep this to a minimum. Whole groups of people suddenly become convinced that a Central Org or Scientologists are up to some evil. They have confused a Scientologist who is undoing an implant with the crews who implanted. A = A = A. This paranoid reaction to Scientology stems from this one mechanism, the implanted character of people. HEARTBREAK One's first reaction to this news may be one of heartbreak, feeling betrayed, etc. I felt the same way when I found it out. Then I realized the emotion came out of the implants themselves. One is supposed to feel disheartened and betrayed when he or she realizes it. That keeps it from being undone and leaves the being trapped. The reaction is just part of the trap. But before I realized this, I only waited a day or two to be sure. I have always persevered in my honesty with you and have given you a vital research datum as fast as I knew it, regardless of its palatability. This is one of those times. At first I thought this puts clearing too far up in hours. And I didn't know how you'd take it. Then, I rapidly summed up the pluses and minuses of the situation and came up with this datum: Implant or no implant, WE NOW KNOW THE FIRST GOAL TO BE RUN ON EVERY CASE and we know its pattern. Some fifty hours after starting, a Class III or IV Auditor, knowing the goal and its pattern, can make a first goal Clear. In other words anyone signing up, for instance in an HGC, can be a first goal Clear in two intensives. The randomity of looking for the first goal and its RIs has vanished. The pc's confront comes up, up, up. What, at the worst, has happened is that it will take longer to run a pc to OT as one has to handle these implanted banks before handling the actual whole track. BUT, the door is open to steady unquestionable gain in that direction without maybes. And the state of OT attainable by auditing is probably much more powerful than we have imagined. BANK CONFUSIONS An implant is meant to be tricky and confusing. We have outsmarted it by finding the patterns of these. But do not expect to find the banks not confusing to the pc even still. Let the pc grasp any confusing situation before forcing the pc into going on. The "bank closest to PT" is actually the furthest from PT. The bank was implanted from top oppterm down. Basic, then, is the "PT goal." A pc can't run from "bottom" to "top" as that's backwards. If you get the basic (closest to "PT") goal very well erased, the others tend to soften up. This is our old "get the basic on the chain." Basic is the top oppterm of the closest to PT goal. The O/W sequence is present. The one who has the hardest run of it in a bank has done the most implanting. But, motivators or not, these implants must be run. The overts can be handled later. Well that's the announcement. When you come out of any decline it puts you into, get busy and get through. You were supposed to feel disheartened. L. RON HUBBARD Founder ================== _