SHSBC-318
renumbered 349 29 Oct 63 Routine 4
A
lecture given on 29 October 1963
[From
the modern clearsound BC cassettes - not checked against the old reels]
Well,
winter has arrived and you are all ready now with your mukluks and parkas but there'll be no dog sleds. They bark,
you know, and interrupt sessions and so forth. What's the date? Audience:
Twenty-ninth.
October.
Twenty-nine
October, AD 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Well, I was going to talk
to you today about R4, but you look a little weak. And I better talk about
it anyway.
Now,
if you only knew the truth of it, the whole mind is composed of R4. And you can
get somebody into more trouble with incorrectly done R4 and somebody into more
high levels of beingness with correctly done R4 than anything you've ever seen.
This
R4 doesn't compare to being shot, being burned alive, being dumped out of high
buildings, going through wars and things like this. It's much more effective on
a thetan.
The
truth of the matter is that every now and then somebody, relatively expert in
auditing, who is doing R4 or some old-time pc, also an auditor, who is being
run on R4 will look
up and say, "My God, how could raw meat ever do this?" And that's the
truth of it. They couldn't. And I've just been through - we're right up to the
top of the bank fooling around with my PT GPM and so forth and - I've had a lot
run out below it, but moving in on the thing for the kill, you see.
And
we were sitting there doing an analysis of having missed the present time GPM
and gotten into a muck which consisted of running items without having the GPM
with a shut-off RR, see. The RR had shut off.
And
the only thing that does this sweepingly with a crash and an exclamation point,
the only thing that dda this, the only thing that does this... I - I wish to
God that when you're looking at a stilling meter, a meter that's going still on
you, you're doing lists - not a goals list, now, that naturally runs out of its
RR, don't you see, and it runs your tone arm action out of the list. I'm not
talking about that, you see.
But
you're doing items. You're doing items. It's an item list and you're doing
items in - you see the - the needle is getting less active. Aaaaah.
Now,
if you're very, very clever, very, very, very clever as an auditor and you're
very, very observant and you're right on your toes and you know your business
all the way through, you're just grooved, man, grooved, you all of a sudden
will - will watch this phenomenon. And the funny part of it is, the next slash
is slightly less, the next RR is slightly less, the next RR is slightly less,
the next slash is slightly less, the next blowdown is less, don't you see? See,
you can get a good - you can be fooled, you see? You can get two good blowdowns
on items, then the third item - and it doesn't blows down at all, hardly. And
then the other one doesn't blow down, and so forth. See?
You
are busy, busy, busy little beaver getting items out of a GPM for which you do
not have the goal. And the pc will go, not necessarily creak - this isn't what
turns on the creaks, it's bad enough, a lot of things turn on the creaks - but
the pc feels like he's getting in a sort of a dry sandpaper. Mass is getting
very, very thick, and things are getting very heavy and so forth.
And
the next thing you know, why, he just goes stuck and he'll go completely
leaden. He'll feel just very leaden. He'll feel like he can't think and can't
act, can't operate, can't spark and oddly enough, he won't necessarily ARC
break. How do you like that?
He
just sits there woodenly. You're running in a GPM "to have fun," see,
except you're calling it "to be sad." Doesn't even have to be that
far opposite. It's just "to be funny. That's good enough. "To have
fun," and you're running it as "to be funny." That's enough.
The
next thing you know, surges getting less, meter getting less active, everything
getting less active. And you find another item and you find another item and
you've got less action and less surge and less this. And you knucklehead, you
then went ahead and found another item and you found yourself looking at a
completely stuck, still needle. No matter what you do with that needle.
Now,
of course, the thing to do, isn't it, is to immediately put in all the mid
ruds. That's the best way to then clobber the pc. Put in all the mid ruds. Of
course, that - that's something like pouring gasoline on a fire. That's just
nonsense. Nobody can suppress that hard. Can't be done. And you do your regular
bypassed charge because you can't get anything to read now and you'll get a
nice flick on "wrong goal" or "incorrectly worded goal" or
something like this.
And
there might be a much stronger one lying in your case analysis form such as
"Are we" because this is the most serious thing that can happen in
auditing - you can add a line in there that says something to this effect –
something to this effect: "Are we running items out of a GPM we don't have
the name of?" Some such wording, see?
You
haven't got the name of the GPM, you see. You haven't got the goal for the GPM
and you're running items on it. Well, that will lock up a case gorgeously. Now
there's only one cure for this. One cure. There aren't any other cures and this
is not necessarily a difficult cure, but there is only one, one, one. And that
is: Find the right wording for that GPM. Find the right goal for that GPM, see?
See,
a GPM is a thing. It's a great, big, massy island of mass, black and uncouth
and filled full of items which are all opposed to each other and it's all
packed in like mad. And if you had one of these things in here - it - because a
thetan is mocking it up, you see, it doesn't necessarily have a lot of weight.
But
as you get one in the middle bank, why, it's about 65 feet long, about five,
six feet thick, maybe 20, 25 feet wide. And it is a thing, in other words.
It's
a rather uncouth looking thing. Big slab and irregular edges. And if you had a
tractor someplace and pulled one of these things out into the front yard, you
see, it's just mass.
And it's just mass. But the significance of that mass is its goal - is the
goal. "To something" or "not to something," and it's much
easier to run implant GPMs than it is actual GPMs because implant GPMs have
predictable wordings.
An
implant GPM is "to spit" or "to be spat" or something like
this, you see? It's always "to be" or "to not" is about as
complicated as an implant gets.
"To
not be," see? "To be cold." "To not be cold." Seldom
the nots. The nots are very infrequent in implant GPMs. It's more likely
"to be warm" versus "to be cold," see? And "to
run" - that isn't an implant GPM but that would be the sense of one. See,
nice and simple.
It
isn't the end wordings that's simple. It's that "be" that is simple,
see? It's either a "be" or it's missing, see. It's "to
move," see, or "to be moved." See, thats the total - the total.
There is no more variety, see? There's no more variation in these things.
They're quite predictable.
Somebody
that's listing for implant GPMs, say, "To have a very good time" and
so forth. Kick his shins. There are no such implant GPMs. Couldn't be. See,
that's – carried forward by the limitations of those squawk boxes, you see, and
those things had to put out a meaning and they had to put it out briefly, and
electricians are expensive and people who implant are chichi, see.
They
always follow these very, very simple patterns. But an actual GPM is a horse of
another hue. Now, an implant GPM doesn't have one of these big islands with it.
It's more like an alley. Actually, it has black mass connected with it, but
it's more like a little alley. It's a couple of - well, it's a couple of rows
of parking meters or something like this. Sometimes they're all centralized in
one location with the snaps and bangs up on the poles and the squawk box -
speaker box right on the platform they put the thetan on. These vary, but they
make a little bit of a mass, see?
They
do make a mass. And a thetan who's relatively uneducated, and even one who is
pretty well educated, sometimes looks at an implant GPM and - because he's in
the middle of it, don't you see? All cats are black, you know, and you can't
see out of the middle of a small dark room any better than you can see out of
the middle of a big dark room, you know?
That's
the same - same piece of business. You can't see, in other words, so you don't
know what you're looking at because you're sitting in the middle of it.
And
an implant GPM looks like it had a little alley about three, four feet wide,
but longer. But longer. It looks much longer. They're normally about
seventy-five feet or eighty-five feet or even a hundred feet long, you see?
Sometimes longer than that.
Thetan
stuck on a pole was pulled down between these things, you see? And once in a
while you think the pc's running an actual GPM and he says, "What is this
parking meter?"
Well,
this is not necessarily meaningful because the implant GPM might be part of the
RI which you're running out of the actual GPM. You see, the actual GPM is
enormously senior to an implant GPM. Implant GPM has the power to aberrate of
key-in. It has no native power in itself to aberrate all by its little old
lonesome, because it isn't that strong. It doesn't amount to much.
Oh,
well, you getting stuck in the middle of them with the pings and the bangs
going from left to right and your jaws are hurting and your eyes feel all
inflamed, and so forth. There's nothing to be sneezed at. Has about the same
power of aberration as breaking your leg or something like that, don't you see?
But
I suppose any pc has got 8,760,272,943 1/2 broken legs, and he's still
functioning somehow or another. You see, it's quantitatively nonsense. It
doesn't matter. But here you've got a situation where the pc's sitting in the
middle of this implant GPM suddenly doesn't recognize what it is as an implant
GPM because it's all black mass.
Engrams
and implants you really mustn't run mid ruds on. They mush and they do bad
things. If you run an implant GPM putting in lots of mid ruds, why,you'll very
soon be in very sad trouble as an auditor because the mass is beginning to mush
and so forth. It can't stand up to it.
It's
not true of an actual GPM. It's not true of an actual item. These things are
big, strong and tough and you can run all the mid ruds you want to on the
things and you're not going to get in any trouble.
But
getting back to what I was saying there, the individual running a wrong goal in
an implant GPM actually gets a similar effect. You can run out of RR and RI if
you're running 3N - implant GPMs, you see? See, you can get the same effect. You
can run out of RR.
You
think the goal is "to be cold," you see, something like that. And
it's actually a bit worse than this. It's "to be dead." Rather common
goal, "to be dead," in these implant GPMs. Seldom "to die."
Usually "to be dead." In fact, I don't know of any implant GPM which
is "to die." They're all "to be dead," you see? It's very
easy.
But
getting back to what I was talking about there, you get into trouble just
running the wrong goal and implant GPM. What do you think happens with this
great, big mass for which you don't have any name?
Well,
you can start running items in it because the pc has no guide, he doesn't know
where to go, he doesn't know what the name of it is and so forth; he's going to
go over the hills and far away. And he's going to go into other implant GPMs.
And
very shortly - running an implant GPM will happen this way, too, but in an
actual GPM, this gets very serious.
You're
running a goal with no name, see? You haven't got the goal. You're running the
GPM and you haven't got the goal for the GPM, and you run RIs and now listen
carefully: It isn't so much a problem that you run out of RRs, see, and
blowdown, you know, and needle action. That is not really the problem.
The
problem is that you almost never find - almost never find the item for that
GPM. You usually find an item in some other GPM or an implant. If you haven't
got the goal - in other words, it isn't just that your slash and surge and all
that stuff shut off on your needle. It's the fact that you now give the pc the
wanders. And with what ease you will pull in an item out of an implant GPM.
That's very easy to do now. You have no guide, you see, so the pc will pull an
implant item in and then you oppose that in some knuckleheaded fashion and you
- you all of a sudden will find an - your hair should start standing on end now
- you'll find an item in some other GPM, actual GPM, see? Not even the one you
didn't have the goal for. You understand me? You're already running one wrong,
see. You haven't got the goal for this GPM. But now because you are finding
items in it, you are very likely to pull an implant GPM into that GPM.
Now,
you got that? That's bad enough. Now if you persist, you then will pull - this
is great stuff for an auditor's nerves - it - if an auditor can live through
these R4s without going mad and if he - if he can hold his coffee cup without
it slipping out both sides, while auditing this on somebody, why, we call him a
steady auditor. Only slipping out one side, we pass him, see? Nervy stuff.
Because you see, the next item you find is going to be out of another GPM; out
of another actual GPM. So that brings - now, it's all right now at this point
to start looking pale – this brings another GPM out of line and pulls it up and
yanks it into the GPM you haven't got the goal for. Got that?
Now,
as you oppose this one, since you're already skidded on the track - it isn't
that you just don't have a guide, it's just that there's some - actually some
mystery about all this: How come all these things go wrong when you just don't
have the goal for this GPM?
Well,
it's almost - it's almost magic how wrong it can go, see? It isn't that the pc
just doesn't know. Just don't put it down to the fact well, he doesn't know
what the goal is, so he doesn't know what item to list on it. It isn't there.
These
other things just go wrong just for the hell of it all on their own, see? So
now you oppose this one. Now you've got another GPM in here, see. You've
already pulled an implant GPM into the actual GPM.
Now
you've got your next item and that took a GPM down the track up here 65 feet, 5
feet high, 20 feet wide; and that towed that up the track and pulled that into
this GPM that you didn't have the goal for. You got it?
Weirdly
enough, pc's still in the GPM you don't have a goal for because there's where
he is dying, item by item, see?
All
right. Now - now we oppose that. We oppose that one and we're very likely to
reach way to some other corner of the bank and tow up another actual GPM and
pull that into this one.
Pc
by this time, he looks like he had a cross between yellow fever and typhoid or
something like this, but at this point, of course, he ceases to be certain of
his auditor. For some reason or other, at this point he has some lapse of
confidence. And he doesn't necessarily, oddly enough, ARC break. He just gets
puzzled and starts to whatsit like mad and he'll say there's lots of things he
doesn't understand about what's going on. That's usually what you get out of
this kind of a mess.
He
doesn't quite understand what is going on. Well, of course, the auditor at this
stage of the game, if it's a very persistent auditor who knows he had better
get on with it and get his job done because the thing to do is to find items,
you see, doesn't notice this tone arm is motionless by this time, you see? And
is likely then to go on and compound the felony and pull another series of
implant GPMs in on top of this one.
Pc
by this time can recognize nothing, see nothing, have nothing to do with
anything. Got the idea? I mean that's - that's - it's too horrible for words.
Now what happens?
Well,
actually, your proper action is to find the goal for the GPM you thought you
were working with in the first place. Your proper action is to do everything
you can to find that goal whether you had to do it by represent lists or
inspections of the meter. It's very tricky. You can ask does it have something
to do with the subject matter, you see, that you're already handling.
You
thought you were running "to be cold," don't you see, or something
like that. And your subject matter, "Well, does it have something to do
with being cold?" or "Does it have anything to do with cold?"
and so forth. You can get a fairly good rendition off of your meter; you can at
least block it out, you see?
And
you can say, "Well, give me some represents," you see. "Give me
some goals similar to this goal," or something like that. You're not
really doing a goals list. It doesn't follow the rules of a goals list. You're
just tinkering with this thing, trying to put it right and find the goal.
You'll find yourself doing this every now and then, particularly if you didn't
do a good thorough goals list job in the first place.
There's
no substitute for a good goals job in the first place, see? But nevertheless,
even though you do do one, you occasionally run into this other condition.
Now,
you think that's the end of it. You found the right goal and all of a sudden
ahhhaahhhhh, the guy's RR. You see this thing, the goal RRs and you can tell
it's the right goal because in this particular instance the only thing that
will turn back the RR is not some similar goal – a similar goal won't turn on
an RR. It's got to be the goal, you see? Right down to the last comma, see?
It's got to be the goal.
And
you read this and you see the thing RR, you know you've got it because the RR
is back on, see? You won't find some other goal. Nothing will RR until you find
that right goal. Interesting, isn't it?
And
now, because you've sinned and went on and on and on without having the right
goal for that GPM, you now have to take every one of those items and identify
it, analyze it, identify it and put it in its right place, and try to pat the
track back into some kind of condition.
And
you do that by asking, "Is this an implant item?" "Is this an
actual item?" "Is this from the GPM we were working?" "Is
it from some other GPM?" "Is it a lock on an RI?" "Is it a
lock on an implant RI?" "Is it a lock on an actual GPM RI?"
"Is it something or other?" You see, you just go on with questions of
that particular type and you get that thing identified, and all of a sudden the
pc will say, "Ah, oh, well, yeah. Ha-ha. Well, yes, yes." And you
suddenly see your thing start to blow and a 65-foot-long GPM is hooked up and
it starts moving back into its right place.
You've
got to undo this ball of yarn that you have undone and tangled, see? You've got
to undo that tangle and put it back into its proper order again. That sounds
pretty wild, doesn't it. It sounds pretty wild.
It's
things like this, and this is only one of them. I want to cheer you up today,
in cheery mood. Really, the first day of high furnace heat. I just want to make
you - make you feel happy about this whole thing. That is not all of the
problems connected with R4. That's just one of them.
It
will happen to your pcs. Don't think you can avoid it. It'll happen to you as a
case. It's fairly inevitable. It's happened to me twice, and - three times, I
think, in running an awful lot of GPMs. But all of a sudden, why, notice that
the auditor's gone white as chalk, not feeling too alert yourself, you see? And
start to run a whatsit and it turns out that your RR has been shut off for the
last item or two. So it can happen, don't you see? This is not an unusual
action. And just to cheer you up, is only one of the problems'connected with
R4.
It's
not enough to be an expert. That's the first lesson you've got to learn. You be
an expert and then work like hell from there on. First be an expert and then
work like the dickens. Because you'll find that an auditor who's an old hand at
running this type of - this OT-type processes will give you this - will give
you this as a maxim. And you yourself one day, regardless of whether I've told
you this here, will one day be sitting there after a complete - particularly arduous session, and you will
come up with this as a datum, and so forth, all on your own bat as how you run
it.
You
do the very best you can. You do everything as best you possibly can. And then
you cope with the things that go wrong. You don't try to run a total
perfection. You don't try to run this right from scratch, perfectly, with the
expectancy that it will be perfect. You try to run it perfectly with the
expectancy that every now and then you, canoe, barrel, pc, are going to go over
Niagara Falls, see?
You
can expect your pc to, one fine morning, not appear. And when found they will
be staring emptily at the ceiling in a total creak. And everything looked right
on your meter and everything was the best you possibly could do and so on, and
yet this occurred.
Now
you've got the task of unsnarling what you don't know is wrong yet. You don't
know what's wrong, and yet you have to unsnarl it. So you have to find out
what's wrong and unsnarl it.
Now,
there's no real sense in getting superemotional about it. That is what you can
expect. You do the best you can and you cope with the things that go wrong.
And
there's no sense in thinking, "Well, this is all just a walk in the park,
see? There's nothing to it, you see. And you just sit down and Ron's given me
some little rules here, and it's all fine, and I can just put the rules in the
chair and they'll run the case and we just sit back and itsa the whole track,
you see, nicely and the pc emerges at the other end, OT." Well,
unfortunately that is not the case. That is not the way it's happening. And I
can tell you that there is absolutely no faintest possibility, no faintest
possibility at all of that condition improving to any great extent. I can give
you absolutely no hope of any kind that technology will move an eighteenth of
an inch beyond that deadline.
R3M2
has been in existence for a very long time and has been run in a lot of areas.
It is being improved. I can give you little tips here and there that have
improved the living daylights out of it. Recognize a new way of recognizing
something wrong, don't you see? Something like that.
But
there is no substitute for an auditor here and there is no possibility that the
technique or auditing it will become any easier in the future. Because the tips
I can give you still require an auditor. They still require the same address to
the case and the hurdles are still there. And none of those hurdles are going
to be mounted by any little set of rules. Any new set of rules, rather. They're
not going to disappear simply because I tell you that there is a new address to
this particular problem.
Those
hurdles are there. And the reason why this hits this horizon and the reason why
this process is in this condition and will continue to be in this condition is
the matter of a meter.
The
meter reads just exactly the same distance always below the pc's ability to
itsa. A meter will not read any deeper than that. The sub-itsa. In other words,
this meter can see further into the case than the pc can itsa. Well, that's a
godsend because it, in actual fact, can see far enough to barely get us by.
As
the pc's ability to itsa improves, the sub-itsa level on the meter rises. This
is a constant distance. The meter is never going to see deeper. Now, I've
experimented with meters for a long time. I'm going to make a very, very
antipathetic statement to any research man when I say this meter is not going
to be improved. See, that's antipathetic to a research man.
He
likes to sweep statements like that aside. Remember, I've been trying to improve
this meter. We've been working on this meter one way or the other. We have
spent quite a bit of money and time in very recent times trying to improve
meters, and the limiting factor on the meter is a mental factor, not an
electronic one. And that is that the individual itsas at level A and the meter
reads always then at level B. And as you cannot develop a meter which is more
sensitive that will then read to level C. Do you understand?
And
this meter's already at the zenith. You get anything - you get anything more
sensitive than that meter, it gives you more trouble and has more variations
and vagaries on it and gives the auditor more trouble than it gives him help,
don't you see?
So
as you begin to make this meter more sensitive, as you begin to switch around
and change and alter various factors in it, you start entering in various other
things.
Now
of course, the modern medico approach, Pavlovian, he's got the answer. You
stick the electrodes into the brain of the patient. I've had these dogs actually
propose this seriously as a solution to an E-Meter.
I
mean I'm - I'm not joking now. That we use an E-Meter whereby we bore holes in
people's skulls and put the electrodes into the brain and this gives you a more
sensitive reading.
Now,
I've tried to inform these fellows, "Haven't you slightly mistaken our
purpose? We're not trying to kill the patient. We're trying to help him, you
see?" And these fellows look at me with complete blankness. They had never
realized that we had any idea of helping anybody. Why, they thought we were
just trying to find out.
Now,
therefore, you can look at no real help from the electronics of a meter. There
won't be any. You can put these things - we've tried oscilloscopes - but these
things have terrible liabilities. I think if we'd invested a billion dollars,
we would probably come up with a slight improvement. We would probably have
moved the B below the A maybe a thousandth of an inch. See. Hardly worth
struggling for, see, the improvement.
You
can put oscilloscopes - great big - you can imagine you auditing with an
oscilloscope, you know, great big dial you see here and the thing is going back
and forth, you know? And you know these old singsongs where you have the ball
bouncing off the words, you know. This thing going back and forth, you know,
and...
I'll
tell you something about that. Societies sufficiently electronically advanced
to conquer space and to put a spaceship through the air at trillions of light
years - trillions of light years an hour, that fast, have not conquered two
problems. They've never even come close to the problem of the human mind or any
other mind, never come close to it. It's something like a small boy shooting at
a squirrel in Germany by being in Denmark, see? Not even a miss, you see? Just
another state. And they have never conquered space communication.
These
very fancy spaceships can go so much faster than light waves and so forth, they
can never telephone home and say, "What do I do next, Joe?" You know?
That's what causes the warfare state of this universe: the inadequacy of a
communication wave. You can never communicate to anybody.
Space
fleet sent out is, of course, immediately beyond any possibility of
communication or control. This and that and the other thing. A lot of problems
add up around this sort of thing.
If
you have a crash, for instance, even if your telephone or radio was preserved
and so forth, you would never be able to call home and say, "We ran into a
telephone pole, Joe. Send the wrecker." That's the end of that. People
look for you for a long time on your predetermined course lines or something
like this.
The
answer to communication is life - a living being. And you can always, of
course, release an individual from a wreck to return to base and tell the boys
what happened. This, by the way, is the only method which is used in space
opera. Didn't mean to get off onto space opera, but I'm just giving you
relative development. So they turn the guy loose out of the wreck and he goes
home and he says, "Hey, the boys are wrecked over on Pluto." That's
the only answer they've had to it. But they couldn't improve that because they
didn't know anything about life or the mind. Ho-ho. Interesting, isn't it?
Didn't
know anything about that, so they couldn't improve that which left them
totally, really without communication because the times you can exteriorize
somebody and send him back to Pluto or send him back to home base from Pluto
and so forth, reliably, he'd have to be in pretty terrific shape. But this has
a limiter on it.
The
second you apply a real science of the mind, you get powerful beings and you
get fellows who are very able and capable and that sort of thing, and one, they
wouldn't be riding in a spaceship to Pluto, so the situation is actually not a
neat statement. It can't be made as a neat statement as you improve one or the
other. But these two things have never been improved. Communication in the
universe runs up against a factor of this particular character and knowledge of
the mind. And that has - oh, they've done quite a bit in this particular
direction. They know how to implant people, and so forth. But - they can make
people worse, and so on, but making them better: the easier route is to make
them better. And yet they haven't been able to do that.
So
those are dead-ended lines. And it's my contention that if the great electronic
civilizations where the way you get your coffee in the morning is to roll your
head on the pillow, you just roll your head over to the other side of the
pillow and sleep for a few more minutes and the coffee appears on the side
table, brimming hot, exactly to the temperature you like to drink at that
particular moment, you see, and simultaneously, why, the living room is swept
up and somebody has informed the office you are now awake and the - you see?
Any gimmickry that you can possibly think of, you see, way in advance of any
gimmickry we've even dreamed of on this planet, you see? If they haven't been
able to develop anything that reads the mind, we haven't got a prayer. See? That's
as far as - because we're dependent there on another line of science. We're
dependent on the electronic development of the age.
And
that we had managed to milk this out of the electronic technology extant in
this time and period is absolutely miraculous. Absolutely miraculous. And that
the – what somebody laughingly called the other day the United States
government - busy seizing, trying to seize this, is actually no accident at
all.
That,
by the way, isn't a very serious suit. I just got a full report on it in the
midst of everything else, and the last two weeks have been legal weeks. And
that isn't now considered a very serious suit. If it ever went up for trial,
we'd win it like that. They can't find anybody to testify. Even people we've
ARC broken, upset and so forth won't come in and clobber us. Government's
having a hell of a time. Feel sorry for it. The poor government.
I
don't happen to have any items in that particular line. I'm developing some.
One
of their ideas of fighting this case, by the way, was showing that I was mad
because I thought tomatoes talked. These guys can't even read, you know? Well,
we expect – I always knew they were lip movers, but I didn't think they just
couldn't read anything.
Anyway,
they're trying to clobber this meter. Trying to clobber this meter. This has
given me some puzzlement as to why they were trying to clobber this meter
because I wondered if they weren't getting orders from someplace or something,
you know? I was trying to puzzle this thing out and then I thought well,
they're just nasty tempered, ignorant louts, and that explains it, so I'll just
let it go. The fact is - the fact is, this meter has been eighty years in
existence. This is not a new meter. This is an old thing, but we've grooved it
up and sensitized it up to a point where it performs our function. We know more
about these things than other people have ever known about them.
We
know the voltage it best operates on, and nobody ever dreamed of running these
things before at 7 1/2 volts or something like that. And we've done a lot of -
lot of work this way, and all this is limited - limited technology because it's
limited by the state of development of the period in which we live.
So
just take a tip from me. The possibility of your meter getting better - from a
standpoint of its guts - and therefore reading deeper on the pc than meters now
read is not improbable but nonexistent. Forget it.
Now,
I stirred up - stirred up a cup of genius the other day and whipped up a meter
that makes it easier for you to list, that it's easier to handle and that sort
of thing. That's - and that's in production. I saw the prototype of it the
other day. But that's in design. That has to do with physical design of the
case. Has nothing to do with the guts. And there's a glass pane, and you look
through this glass pane to write your list and therefore you don't have to look
sideways and develop that mirror inside the cornea. And this is a very tricky
meter. It's a listing meter and you look through this meter and you see the
needle floating in thin air on the glass panes, you see, and you look through
these two glass panes and your hand is here on the other side of the meter so
the thing actually is - it's a little thing. It's much smaller than this, by
the way. It's like this. And you look through this in order to write. And of
course your line of sight passes through this floating needle. And of course,
that needle can't wiggle without you seeing it, see?
And
it goes out of set, that sort of thing, why, of course your thumb is right
there, bang! because you see that it's out of set. You don't have to pick your
eyes up off of what you're listing in order to see if you've had a read on it,
in other words.
There
are various adaptions of this. This meter, by being wired just the other way
to, could be set in a desk – now they're getting really fancy - with a
projection light underneath the meter, with the knobs that controlled it over
here someplace, and you would have the shadow of the meter projected on the
paper you were writing the list on. It's actually the same meter. You hardly
have to change it at all to do that with.
This
is very fancy, don't you see? Now, if you took that meter and put it in a desk
like this so that it projected its light against the back of your list and you
had a video - not a tape recorder, you see, but a video that gave you the
picture and everything, and this video machine was running over here and that
just had a couple of click buttons, it would be so rigged as to take a picture
of your meter, you see, while you were auditing the pc and record your voice
and the pc's voice and make a total record of the session, don't you see?
Now,
if that video was improved electronically a little bit further, why, of course,
every time you moved the tone arm, it would put a certain number of clicks on
the video tape and then by running the video tape back through, why, it would
also give you the total down divisions of TA for that particular session, you
see.
Now,
you could fix this up so a Coca-Cola would also appear, probably chilled. You
see the direction - you see the direction this could move from there on. We
actually cease to deal in sensitivity or workability of the meter and simply
get into - into flubber-jubber stuff. Foofaraw. Word of another age and time.
Anyway,
this little meter with the pane of glass in it answers all these things. It's
very lightweight. It's tiny. It surprised me that it could come up so light.
And it's a lemon - the plastic on it and so forth is lemon-colored. It's rather
- rather smart and it comes in a beautiful British leather case. Gorgeous,
gorgeous case. But that case isn't going to read your pc, see. And nothing else
is going to read your pc, and you being able to see the needle better on top of
the glass, that isn't going to read your pc any better, don't you see? That's
going to make it easier on the auditor.
In
other words, your developmental line is to make it easier on the auditor, see?
Make it easier for the auditor to read and see what is going on but not actually
more sub-itsa from the pc. That limit is there.
All
right. Let's look on the - looking further on the horror of it all, your pc is
of very little assistance even when he's itsaing. In fact, sometimes quite the
contrary. The number of things he will assert then causes these things to read
on the meter. He's asserted this is an actual GPM, so when you read it on the
meter, it reads as an actual GPM, don't you see? And you don't quickly put in
your rudiments and say, "On this has anything been asserted or suppressed
or invalidated," or something like that. And then read it, you see? Well,
of course, your limitation is you haven't heard him assert anything, so you
don't do that, you see? A slippy, sensible auditing approach here.
But
what's - what have you got? Your pc is sitting there. He's being hammered and
pounded by the biggest, toughest aberrations that he has ever been able to
develop and they're flashing back on him in a - in a solid avalanche as he goes
through this stuff, and as he's being knocked around. And his itsa is just what
he can actually, factually realize. And it's not very high because the thing
which is reducing his itsa is what you're running. You see, this is the case of
the snake eating its tail. This thing defeats itself.
In
other words, you could run these things out easily if the pc could itsa better.
But the pc can't itsa better because he's got these things. The thing to do is
to clear him and then have him itsa these things and tell you what they are.
You get all kinds of wild and silly solutions of this and of course that's an
automatic limitation. Now, as far as techniques - techniques that improve this
condition, you've had one in just an analysis of what is itsa and the itsa
maker and the whatsit line, and TA action and get TA action. All these are just
general improvements of auditing. And if you can do these things, of
course, you can improve the pc's
ability to itsa.
But
it improves only to a certain extent. And after that - after that, it can only
be improved by R4 because the thing which is preventing him from itsaing now
are the items which are contained in R4.
But
nevertheless, as you find these items, getting a little more TA action than you
would normally get, auditing a little more smoothly, making a - fewer mistakes.
Not making no mistakes, but making fewer mistakes, and you continuously raise
the pc's ability to itsa, and the job gets very good.
So
it requires, basically, very smooth auditing. It's auditing. It's smooth
auditing is what this requires. Now, the rules of auditing apply to all R4. And
if an auditor is basically a rough auditor, he's going to have trouble. He's
going to have more trouble on R4 than he would ordinarily get because he's
going to reduce the pc's ability to itsa, reduce the pc's meter abilities, so
he won't get the right answers off the meter, you see, and then you get into
more confusions and more upsets than you'd - ordinarily wouldn't give.
So
it comes down to basic auditing. So you got to improve basic auditing and
improve your ability to audit basically, you see?
This
is the cornerstone on which R4 must be built. We already see a process here
which is going to go to hell in a balloon at the least chance, you see? It's
going to go bang! Well, let's not make it go bang because of a bunch of
fumble-bum auditing, see?
I'll
give you an example. Pc says, "You've - I think you've overrun the list. I
think the list is too long. I think the item back on the list is cheesecake.
Now, I think the item's back on the list earlier, and I think it's
cheesecake." And the auditor is insufficiently alert to see that when the
pc said "cheesecake" there was a considerable - there was a beginning
of a commotion on that meter, you see? And is insufficiently schooled to
realize the list is already too long and goes on nulling down the list and
ignores this pc statement, "cheesecake," see? Just kicks that out a
window. Just ignores it or plows on further, you see?
Well,
you're going to have a lot of trouble there, man. You've now added some more
suppress, and you've added a potential - you've got a cut comm line on the pc,
and the pc's ability to itsa has been reduced, and so forth. Well, it isn't
much in itself, you eventually go back and find out that it is cheesecake. Or
you go back and find out that it wasn't cheesecake. But the net result is that
the mess has resulted from just unsmooth auditing, see? Pc says something, at
least give him cheers and say, "All right. You say it's cheesecake."
You audit with the pc, not a system, you see?
You
say, "Oh, it's cheesecake. Cheesecake. Cheesecake. Anything been
suppressed on it?"
"No."
"All
right. Well, I'm sorry. That doesn't read. Doesn't read yet. Might read later,
but it doesn't read now."
And
the pc's itsa has been handled to this degree and not totally invalidated, you
see? And the pc - you very often find out that it was cheesecake. You see, the
rolling RR; that's what almost knocks you off. You make that list one item
longer, and the RR moved one bit further. It isn't that all - each item has a
different RR. The RR all comes from the goal. So the RR coming from the goal,
therefore and thereby, operates to move as you list.
So
that you went - the item that fell three from the top is the item, and yet you
went five down and had another one that fell. Now the RR lives at 5.0. The
right item is at 3.0. You call 3.0. You say, "Cheesecake.
Cheesecake." And you don't whistle the RR back because it has moved
further down the bank and the pc's attention is now stuck deeper into the GPM.
And so therefore, you can't get his attention off the GPM and back over to the
cheesecake - arrhhhh, arrhhh - till after you list it a while longer. And
finally the pc puts cheesecake back on the list again or does something like
this. And you all of a sudden, if you're lucky, you'll see cheesecake, and
it'll read again.
Well,
what happened is you moved the RR, the rolling RR. You moved that thing out
from underneath it, see? I shouldn't be using RR because you don't list by RRs
these days. You list by surges.
The
stable datum is - it took me twenty minutes or ten minutes or twelve minutes or
something like that to teach somebody (whose name I won't mention) the other
day, a datum. One datum. One datum. One datum. And that is this datum. And
you'd better know this datum. I don't think you will. I think you'll do
something else with it and then eventually come back to it and know it.
An
RI in an actual GPM is anything that surges, falls or rocket reads while being
listed. And that is the point of assumption from which we adjudicate an RI. And
it doesn't happen to be true, see? It - it's not a total truth because you
could also find an implant RI on the list someplace, you see, and it would
read, too. But it's still an RI in a GPM someplace, isn't it, even though it's
an implant GPM.
You
consider anything that falls, anything that does a - well, you know, surge, RR,
any kind of a left-to-right-as-you-face-the-meter action - anything that does
that - you assume that any item which when said by the pc did that, that was an
RI. That's an RI.
What's
an RI? It's an item that does that, regardless – of course, you can now
describe it in a geographical position in a bank and what it is and how it
composes and compounds and all sorts, and you go into that endlessly. But the
truth of the matter is, the point of assumption from which we are operating
today in the auditing of items is just that point of assumption. And it doesn't
have anything to do with anything else and there is no additive to this, and
that is itself. And many of you said, "Oh, now, then when you list, so
therefore if something appears on the list..." That isn't what I said. I
call to your attention, all I have told you is that we assume that - this is a
point of assumption - that anything which moves the needle from left to right,
anything that moves the needle from left to right in a surge, in a fall or an
RR - that's or, or, or, see – was an RI in a GPM. And that's how we define one
as far as it's assumed. If it did it, that's what it is. GPM, see? Elementary.
That is it. And that's the RI in relationship to the meter. That isn't even
anything in relationship to a list, don't you see? That's just the datum by
itself.
You
get out of your skull this datum that an RI is something that RRs only, that an
RI is something that does this only or does that only or does something else
only. You just throw that datum out. Just pick up the lid of the garbage can
and dump it in because this other datum is the one we have to operate from to
find and work - make R4 work. Otherwise, you're going to get in trouble if you
don't operate from this datum and know this datum well.
What's
an RI? Well, we assume anything is an RI which causes action on the needle from
left to right as you face the needle, which we would call a fall, a surge or an
RR.
Now,
somebody's going to - going to modify that on you sooner or later. Somebody's
going to change that on you or you're going to change that. And the moment you
change that, you're going to be in trouble. You're going to be arguing around
and you all of a sudden are going to have something on the order of, "Say,
I didn't think that one inch was a fall. I didn't think one inch was a
fall." You get the change of datum? Somebody's going to get around this,
see?
"Oh,
I - I - but it RRed so I didn't really give it to you because it shouldn't have
RRed. It should have disintegrated."
You
get the idea? You get the number of variations here that can go on this
assumption? And just know this about that assumption. That there aren't any,
and that's the primary assumption that you have to have firmly in mind with R4.
Otherwise, you're going to get yourself in all kinds of trouble.
Now,
you notice I haven't said it's something which falls when you call it back to
the pc. I haven't connected this with auditing in any way, shape or form. It
just lives in pristine purity all by itself as a datum uncontaminated by
application. That's an RI behavior on a meter.
Now,
if you know that, you recognize that and you see what the score is with regard
to that, you're going to have very little trouble. Very little trouble, because
this now can be used in listing. It can be used in nulling. It can be used in
testing it. It can be used in this, that and the other thing. Now, the basic
listing datum which you should use is the first RI or the first item on a list
that can be made to fall, surge or RR on being called back to the pc - that's
the earliest one on the list that when being called back will fall, surge or
otherwise - is probably, we hope, maybe, the item that goes in that position.
But that by overlisting we can move the read on the list down.
Now,
knowing that - knowing that, you get into a very simple situation here. It
gives you a terrific number of one-item lists.
The
best answer is to know what an item looks like on a meter. Undescribable. It
looks a certain way on a meter for each pc. It isn't the same for all pcs, but
it's pretty close to the same for all pcs.
So
what you must do is recognize an item when you see one on the meter. But until
you do, in listing, follow the severest rule - again, not necessarily - not
necessarily the right rule - it's: Don't let the pc list beyond the first fall.
You say, "Well, we'll cut off his itsa if we shut him up." You better
cut off his itsa. That RR will be rolled right on down the bank and the right
item won't be - won't be readable now. Wow!
So
you get things all arranged with the pc. You say, "When the quarterback
says so-and-so and hits the wicket with the cricket bat by saying 'thank you'
or 'that's it' or something like that - 'thank you' is probably better - you're
to shut your mouth and you are not to say nothing else." Now, this is very
hard on somebody in W Unit who has been shot very recently for having dared
shut the pc off, do you see?
But,
boy, you better get to that valve and close it tight right now because you're
going to be in trouble if you don't. Now you get - take the first datum I gave
you, you'll see why. You'll see why.
So
just list till you see an item on the list, using that earlier definition as
the item. Just list till you see an item on the list. And without startling the
pc unduly, say, "Thank you. That's it. Got it? All right. Now I'll read
this item back to you. All right. I'll read the item back to you."
"Well, I - I was saying..." "Oh - bo - dut-dut - dut-dut-dut -
dut" "I was, but I had - had it - now - I was trying to ..."
"Ssshhhh. Cheesecake. Cheesecake. It reads. Is that your item?"
"Well - well, as a matter of fact, it is. Yes, yes, yes. Sometimes,
however - no, no, that wouldn't oppose it."
You
usually suspect not that the list is incomplete but that it is overlisted. You
probably had an earlier item than cheesecake which you didn't notice read. So
you go on these various data.
In
other words, you've got to shut that pc up. You can't let that pc list, man.
Don't let him list and list and list because he's going to be in trouble. Any
item - any list that tends to get long - "long" is used advisedly -
what is a long list? Well, it is a long list. And any item which is used advisedly
like this - any long list comes about because the item you are listing from was
the wrong item.
That's
also true of goals. That's true of anything. The item you were listing from was
incorrect to begin with.
Your
list gets long, see? Your list gets long. And you just can't get anything to
read back, and the pc says "Battercakes," you see, and you say,
"Thank you," you know. "Thank you." "Battercakes.
Battercakes. Battercakes."
It
fell beautifully when he said it, see? You can't get it to read back?
Uh-uh-uh-uh. Well, let him list a little bit further and he comes now with
cupcakes, you see? "Good. Thank you. Thank you. Cupcakes. Cupcakes.
Cupcakes. Cupcakes." And you sometimes see a - this is the mark of an
amateur and it's also the mark of a very harassed pro. "Cupcakes.
Cupcakes. Cup cakes. Cup! Cakes Cupcakes! This item been suppressed? This item
been suppressed? That's all right. Cupcakes! Sorry. It doesn't read." You
get into too much of that sort of a situation, you see, and your list is going
for, oh, I don't know. It's going for 30, 40, 50 items, or something like that.
And you still can't get anything to read. You have to assume that what you are
listing from was incorrect in the first place. And the usual assumption is that
there was an earlier item on the list than the one you gave the pc. That is the
usual assumption. You don't now continue that other list.
In
other words, listing items is not handed - handled by extending lists. They're
handled by rolling back the RR, if possible, under the item it should have been
under in the first place. Do you follow me?
R4M2
is nearly always overlisted on items and underlisted on goals. The only thing
that really follows all of the rules of listing is a goals list. That follows
all of the rules of listing, beautifully. Two items reading on the same list,
shoot the pc. It's not complete, see? Two items reading, this, that, all these
other rules that you know, they apply to goals list. The list is incomplete.
The list is this. The list is that. That applies all to goals lists. And they
are usually underlisted. Auditors tend to list too few goals. That's the
tendency. Because a pc begs off all the time.
"Well,
it's on the list now. I know it's on the list. It must be on the list, and so
forth. Well, you haven't had an RR for a long time, have you?" "Well,
no, I haven't had one. I haven't had one." "Well, how many?"
"Well - it's - uh - uh - uh - 27. That's 27 since the last rocket
read." "Oh, well, 27 since the last rocket read. Well, that's all
right, I guess it's..."
Boy,
if he'd only put the 28th on, he would have gotten another RR, don't you see?
And then he takes a goal from an incomplete list and it is then messed up
because he has skipped a couple of GPMs and the pc's attention is dislocalized
or moved from where it should be on, don't you see? All these. A lot of - a lot
of things happen, see? You've taken an item off an incomplete goals list and
doing something with it and oh, it - it's a mess. So an incomplete or
underlisted goals list gives bounteous trouble. Oh, that's lots of trouble.
And
most of your horrible psychosomatic responses to R4 stem from incomplete goals
lists. Nothing wrong with item lists but something wrong with the goals list,
see?
All
right. Item lists, listing for items inside a GPM, tend to be overlisted, see?
Goals lists tend to be - you see, they tend to be underlisted. And item lists
tend to be overlisted. You'll see some auditor with what enthusiasm going on on
his item list, you know. Bang! Bang! On and on and on and on and on and on and
on and on and on and on and on and on. Boy, he should have shut up and moved
on, stopped a long time ago, you see?
Item
lists must be as short as possible. You only want an item list just long enough
to be able to get the item on it.
You'll
have a tremendous number of one-item lists. You'd be surprised how often the pc
comes up with the exact, next item. The pc sometimes also in a blue moon skips
one. But you'd be surprised at how many one-item lists you've got. So much so
that there is a certain way of writing up the list so that you don't have to
keep copying the item you have just found. You just circle it and draw it into
your next question and then circle that and draw it into the next question,
don't you see, and circle that and draw it into the next question, just for
rapidity of listing. You can list fairly rapidly this way. You've got to call
it back and it's got to fall and blow down and it's got to do all these things,
and you got to do your courtesy steps on it. And there's no reason you do these
things slowly.
But
you'd be surprised how seldom you have to list a long list on an item. And if
you do list a long list on an item and you can't get anything reading back
easily and it isn't making good sense, why, you assume already that you have just
got through finding a wrong item, and you backtrack one list, and then fix that
list up. And it usually is an earlier item on the existing list. It's not
something that you extend, don't you see? That's the way you handle these
things.
Now,
even with that, you'll make a mistake occasionally, but these are fairly
infallible actions that you start extending item lists endlessly and you're
going to get in trouble.
Now,
we've done tests. We've done a lot of tests one way or the other. Tests of how
complete lists are and mathematical count lists, you see? I mean like 25 beyond
and 12 beyond, and we've done all kinds of list tests of various types, you
see? There's a lot of this work has been done. And there is only one listing
that works. And that's the one I've just described to you. So all of those
other listing systems are not only kaput, but dangerous.
You
don't want RRs. The next-to-the-last rocket reading item on the list and the
last rocket reading item on the list - you remember that system, and so forth.
That just finds tons of wrong items.
But
this one - this one - now another thing is, you say, "Well, gee-whiz, this
- this - this item rocket read beautifully. Just rocket read beautifully, so
therefore, you know, item, therefore - therefore, it must be the item because
look at that beautiful rocket read." Well, a rocket read proceeds out of
solid mass.
Therefore,
you expect goals to rocket read. But you don't expect items to. If an item
rocket reads, it's inevitably the wrong item. Ooooh! Horrible, isn't it?
You've
got to have a disintegrating read and it more looks like a fall than anything
else. But if that item rocket reads with a beautiful, stylized rocket read, it
must be gripped in a very solid case to rocket read that beautifully. So therefore,
it isn't disintegrating; so therefore, it wasn't the next item to come up. Do
you see that?
The
reason a goal rocket reads so beautifully is because it's got that 65-foot by
20-foot by l0-foot case, see? And that imparts this beautiful rocket read with
the whip start and the hook end and - perfect. Of course it's perfect. You'd be
perfect, too, if the thing was that much encased, you see?
Now,
very often implant RIs - implant RIs that are RRing are also suspect a little
bit, but implant RIs tend to rocket read more often than actual GPM RIs.
Now,
you don't throw it out because it rocket reads - if you see that it's a
stylized rocket read - but you regard it with considerable suspicion. You
wonder if you didn't miss a fall just earlier on this list, you see? You don't
get any wild, scurvish, whirling dervish dance over this thing just because you
made something rocket read. The least valuable commodity you can have is a
rocket reading item. See? That's something like yesterday's newspaper or
something. It's going to be wrong. Anything that it says is going to have some
difference in it.
A
goal, on the other hand, that doesn't rocket read is something to be regarded
with considerable suspicion. This goal blew down and, oh, smoke came out of the
E-Meter, and everything went bang, and the pc was delighted with it. Cognited
all over the place, you know? Rave notices in all directions. Felt so much
better. But the auditor could never make it rocket read.
I
know the history of several of these things, one or two of them in particular.
Blew down, did all the things I just said to you, gorgeous, everybody was very
delighted with it, but later on it transpired that it was a lock on an RI in
the first bank.
Of
course, the power that the thing had was the partial disintegration of an RI.
It wasn't even a GPM, don't you see? It wasn't anything. It was just a lock.
And there are tremendous numbers of actual goals hanging around the perimeters
of RIs in actual GPMs.
You
see, it's very hard to do, but if you knew what the goal was - if you knew what
the item was before you found the item (this is very hard to do unless you find
some out of sequence and ARC break the pc like mad) but if you knew what the
item was before you found it, then you could probably tailor-make the goal that
would also read.
Give
you an idea. Thirst. The item is thirst. See, that's the RI. Thirst. And if you
knew that that was going to be the item, you could then read "to
thirst" or "to be thirsty" or even "to be dry" and get
a fall - get a falling goal of some kind or another. You'd get a goal response.
These goals would do something. It's quite intriguing to watch this even though
it's almost impossible to test.
I
know this because I've seen them in reverse, you see? I've seen a goal fall and
then later on found out what RI it was connected with and got a big meter
response by suddenly adding in this. These are actual goals, don't you see?
They're actual goals of one kind or another which are salted through these
GPMs.
Well,
they don't have any decent read to them, and they - they don't do anything very
much. And you can analyze them out rather rapidly. One of the easiest things to
get rid of is an actual goal if you know an actual goal exists, you see?
They're usually just locks on RIs. I regarded this with some suspicion for a
while, wondering what - if Ris weren't expressed as goals ordinarily and so
forth. But they're not.
Funny
how these things hang on the perimeter of it. And there are many trips and
traps for the unwary with regard to these things. But the point I'm making is
that goals - now dealing with goals, you expect rocket reads.
You
should know all about rocket reads. If something doesn't rocket read, you sit
there and cry into your Kleenex, you see, while the pc pats you on the shoulder
sympathetically.
The
subject of goals is then a subject of rocket reads. Anything that is a real
goal can be mid-ruded up to rocket read, you see? You can fix it up.
First,
it'll start rocket reading on just the Suppress buttons. It itself might have
just ticked when you first found it. And you get Suppress in as you run
Suppress on a real GPM's goal, see? Why, you'll see that thing start to rocket
read. Suppress rocket reads. You say, "On this goal, has anything been
suppressed?" Pour! See, you don't get - you get an instant rocket read on
Suppress and that will clean up and another button or two will clean up, and
all of a sudden you'll call a goal and maybe once out of three average, why,
it'll fire with a rocket read.
Doesn't
fire three out of three with a rocket read. That's really asking for it because
the pc is anxious and he's wondering if it's his goal, you know, and you call
it once and he anticipates the next one. Suppresses the thing. And of course,
the next time you call it, it ha-ha - what a dog's breakfast trying to get one
of these things to read sometimes.
And
an actual GPM will blow down, but not much. It'll blow down, but blowdown is no
requisite for it, whereas an RI has to blow down. If an RI doesn't blow down,
it isn't an RI.
Sometimes
an RI doesn't blow down just because the pc is waiting to find out if it's his
RI. He's got the brakes on the thing, see. "Cheesecake, see? And you -
he's sitting there and, "Well - well, did it read or didn't it?" See?
The auditor didn't say it read or anything like that, see. Hadn't really said,
"Is that your item?" Had just said, "Cheesecake" and looked
alertly at the pc, you know? The pc says, "Well, is it or isn't it my
item, you know?" "Well, it read. It read. Is it your item?"
"Yeah." Psssseewur. You see a blowdown.
Sometimes
the pc doesn't dig it, see. It's Siberia, see. The item is Siberia, see? And
the pc can't see how this relates to Instructors. Siberia, Instructors, you
see, so on. "Oh, oh!" And then you get your blowdown.
In
other words, lack of comprehension can sometimes hold up a blowdown. Blowdowns,
however, usually just happen and they require no other things, but they can be
slowed down.
So
an RI always has a blowdown. Always. Invariable. An RI that doesn't ever blow
down is not an RI for that position.
Now,
you'll get some of the ramifications of this definition I gave you of that
earlier. It was an RI, but it didn't belong there. It belonged someplace else.
In view of the fact the pc's got many thousands and thousands of RIs, actual
RIs, and he has in actual fact, well, I'd say at least a hundred locks - that's
being very, very conservative - for every one of these RIs, you see how many
things in the bank can be made to read or can be made to function or operate
with or be found or something. You got complications on your hands here.
But
the point I'm making is that an RI, if it is in the right position, will fall -
surge usually - and blow down. But it always must blow down to be the RI for
that position. See, that doesn't change the definition for an RI I gave you
earlier. If it's in the right sequence, it'll blow down. Very often it's quite
correct as an RI, but you weren't supposed to get it for two more items and it
won't blow down yet. And this sort of thing. You have to ride this horse.
Now,
we look over - we look over R4M2, we find there's a lot of other little rules
of various kinds or another. They're not things, however, that trip you up.
I've given you the important, salient factors of this process.
There
is one more stable datum that I think I ought to peel off, however, and hand to
you. If the case is running well, you don't repair it.
You
only repair cases when they have ceased to run well. Person's not now running
well, you repair the case. Case running well, leave it alone.
I
had a case running like a startled gazelle and went back up to repair an upper
bank. I shouldn't have had anything to do with that, man. I found about six
items, then found out they didn't belong to that bank and found out this and found
out that and oh, my God, why should I have gotten up that morning, you see?
But
I was repairing a case that didn't need repair. We – all of us learn this
lesson many times, and I just am not giving it to you as something you must
know now, but something which I am inviting you to relearn every time you do
it.
Another
guiding datum - another guiding datum which is of great use is: Never force a
balk. Never continue to audit across a balk. Never, never, never. Pc balks - Q
and A, man - you balk. You're doing something wrong. You try to drive down a
one-way street wrong way to, or you're doing something weird - but the pc will
instinctively balk.
You
never really pay too much attention to why the pc is balking. You don't
necessarily say the pc is wrong, but you don't necessarily say he's right,
either. The pc doesn't want to go on. Well, then you'd better damn well find
out what's wrong with the R4. I don't care what he says, what she says; I don't
care. You find out what's wrong with that R4 because there's something wrong
with that R4 right now, man. Right now.
And
the sooner you find it, the better off you're going to be. And you start to
push past any kind of a balk of that kind, you're going to be in trouble, the
pc's going to go into a sad effect, you're going to wrap that case around a
telegraph pole. Usually the pc can be counted on balking when something is
going wrong with the case. It's fairly reliable.
The
pc can balk as faintly as this: "I don't really think I ought to have a
session today." See, that's a faint - that's a faint balk. "I really
can't - can't seem to list on this list." That's a balk.
Now,
there's something wrong. And you take those things up at once. Never push past
them. Don't, in R4, use the datum that the auditor must go on, summer storm,
winter snow or night, the auditor must not pause in his flight, you see? That's
the wrong motto. That's the wrong motto.
You
try to shove down the wrong rabbit warren on R4 and you got yourself a hat full
of trouble and you're going to have trouble and it's going to get worse and
it's going to get worse and probably the hardest lesson you have to learn in R4
is not all of its complicated rules and how you stand on your head in order to
list. That sort of thing - don't worry about all of that sort of thing. You
just - basic auditing and sensitivity to the pc. You notice a balk on the part
of that pc, man, find out why right now, and analyze it right down to the end
of the run, square it up, man, square it up.
Notice
those balks. And don't push past them, and almost never run a pc up an
alleyway. Get sensitive to balks, in other words.
The
unwillingness to be audited: "I don't feel well these days," "I
don't think auditing's doing me much good"; balks, see. Find out what they
are.You'll find they're always connected with finding a wrong item, skipping
some items, a wrong goal, something out of sequence, GPM skipped. You're
running an implant GPM when you thought you were running an actual one.
You
know, horrible things are going on here and they're actually - the first notice
you have of them is a little bit of a light balk. And sometimes an auditor is
not sensitive enough to see a balk when he sees one.
Pc
gets right up to the point, "I won't go on." Puts the cans down, you
see, steps back from the chair, puts his hands behind him, you see, and is
about to walk out the door. The auditor says, "You know, I think that
might be a balk." See?
Well,
that is a long way and a far cry from where the auditor would - should first
notice this balk, which is simply that "I don't know. I don't know. I
just" - and so on. "Do you suppose it's doing me much good to find
these items? I haven't cognited on very much here lately." That's a balk.
Find
out right away what's wrong, and don't be satisfied with little things wrong.
It isn't that you listed the list and invalidated something on the pc, you see.
It's that you listed the list through the implant GPM down to its bottom, and
you have now been opposing the implant goal as an RI instead of the actual GPM goal
as an RI, or it's something horrible that you were just sitting there and all
of a sudden this happened, you see? It's that sort of a process.
How
anybody ever gets to OT you will sometimes wonder. Cases are on the road,
however, and cases have met up with these conditions and are running through
them. It is not a process of sitting there holding the sprig of violets,
smiling. No, it's more like one hand full of lilies of the valley, you see, and
the other hand full of clouds. You're not quite sure which direction you're
going to wind up. It's a - it's a desperate situation. It is fraught with many
difficulties, many upsets, and so forth. Winning through this for the auditor and the pc is a
considerable task. It is very difficult and it is not an easy process to do,
and I would be lying in my teeth if I told you any differently.
The
road all the way to OT is the road that you're taking with this. There are
lesser roads and there are lesser heights and lesser goals. You're going all
the way to OT on this. There's only one way to do it, and that's right. And
even when you do it right, it'll go wrong. And there's only one road to OT and
that's the road over these confounded cobblestones and corduroys and tax.
And
so there it is, and just thank your stars that it's there and cry quietly to
yourself on your pillow because it is so damned rough. That goes for a pc and
an auditor. This is a rough, rough shot.
We
know all the answers to this. We know all the answers, but we can't get over an
inability to do basic auditing and we can't get over an inability to read an
E-Meter. We can't get over these corny ones. But the rest of the road, we know
all the rules and in knowing all those rules we can impart this information. I
can tell you how to do this. I can show you how to do this. But I can't show a
datum sitting in a chair how to do it. You have to be alert and on your toes
and you can do it. You can do it. It is doable, and you can do it, but it isn't
easy and there isn't any easier road.
I've
been looking for many, many months now that we have had this process, trying to
find some easier road, trying to find easier roads through it. I've perfected
listing a little bit. I've got a little bit better meter coming, so forth.
These improvements are so minor that it simply dumps it on our lap and leaves
it up to us to simply audit to get through and somehow or another make it.
Thank
you.
[end
of lecture]