R4 AUDITING

SHSBC-323 ren 354 26 Nov 63 R4 Auditing

A lecture given on 26 November 1963

[From the modern clearsound BC cassettes –

not checked against the old reels]

Thank you. Well ... Thank you. Is that because I haven't seen you in so long? All right. This is the what of what?

Audience: Twenty-sixth November.

Twenty-sixth of November. How did it get to be that? Well, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

Well, we're very glad you're here. You're just in time to be launched for Saturn. Some people are very clever. Some people are very clever and arrive right on the spot at the exact moment necessary to resolve the case. And the new students have been.

Of course, they don't have the old-timers' claw-and-paw-through-it-all uncertainty. "Will we ever make it? Will Ron make it? Is it possible? Well, I see we've shifted again to... Well, I guess that wasn't so good, you know." Scientology, Dianetics in the last thirteen years.

Now we got it pretty well taped these days. Too well. So the romance has now gone out of it. We can take somebody now by the nape of the neck off the street and bit by bit and edge by edge and level by level, push him right straight through out the top beyond any target man ever dreamed of.

The techniques are all there. It doesn't mean that as you hit the top level that it isn't a - we used to have a tightwire walk across the Grand Canyon that we used to use as an example, you know?

Well, actually, the tightwire is a little bit of an overstatement in the matter. That's - that's putting it up too high. Actually, it's a busted spider thread across the top of the Grand Canyon. There are going to be some people, even good auditors, who get up there ana walk around for quite a while trying to get their big toe on the edge of it, see?

The levels that you see as they come up the line all look very confident and they're all very fine till you get to the highest level. And there the best trained pc - the best trained pc reaches with his ballet slipper for the near edge of that spider thread, you see, and goes over and grabs hold of the small cedar tree five hundred feet down and climbs back up again laboriously, gets to the edge; at that moment the auditor inadvertently steps on his fingers. This sequence of dramatic events continue for some time until he is safely out over the middle of the canyon with nothing below him and the roaring water thousands of feet down. And at that point - at that point, he gets a wrong goal. The umbrella collapses on him, don't you see, and he's lefted there in suspended animation.

The only way he can possibly make it is his case shape is now sufficiently good that he can maintain suspended animation in empty space.

It isn't that it - it isn't that it isn't frightening and it isn't that it isn't spectacular. He just happens to be able to do it at this particular point.

I know. I've seen them now until you get a bank "to spit," you see? And "to spit" has - this is an alleged GPM for "to spit" - has thirty-two items in it, you see, without any of them having reached up to the crossover, see? None of these - all the items on the terminal side are still in favor of the goal - this is quite remarkable - if they are in favor of anything. And they have certain things like "blacksmith's forges," you see, and so on. Well, you maybe could tie that in to "spit" and that sort of thing. That's fine. And they have "World War II" and "catastrophe," and "my mother's handkerchief," and well, that's probably connected with it in some particular fashion. And "barrel organs."

Well, "a steam calliope," you might be able to see it, you see, but "a barrel organ." After a while - after all and so on. And the oppterms that these things solve are such things as "the Constitution," "clouds." Clouds? That might possibly make it, you see. "The ocean." That might possibly make it, too, and so forth. "Library books," we can't quite see how that connects. And we look at these things and we'll say, "Well, there's something you can conclude about this. That something has either been overlisted or underlisted or it's an implant GPM or it's only an actual goal, or, or, or, or, or." In other words, there are about eight things you can conclude that would be wrong, and you have to conclude that it's at least one of those eight.

Or it's simply that the auditor is finding far too many items for that bank. You know, a bank usually runs from twenty to twenty-four items. And somewhere in the vicinity of ten to twelve items from the bottom, you've reached the crossover and the items - terminals above that point are no longer for the goal. They are against it on a gradient.

So we see all kinds of wild things and if we don't know our business, why, there it is.

Well, we got an impression from this that it is a long road and that it is a complex road and that it's very difficult. The most difficult end of it, however, is finding the present time GPM. That's the most difficult end of it and of course at that point we find the auditor the least experienced, the pc the least experienced and the hardest part of that to find is the existing, latest terminal of the present time GPM, which of course is not the top terminal. It's just how far up this bank has gotten, don't you see.

And to find that terminal then becomes the touchiest, trickiest piece of auditing ever done. And this is being done by a wholly inexperienced pc and it is being done by an auditor who is just getting his feet wet, particularly with this pc.

The hardest part of it is practically the beginning of it, and this operates as quite an effective bar-out. However, it is resolvable. The funny part of it is that you can't mess up a right item or a right sequence. Now, by that I don't mean that you can't get items in wrong places or GPMs in juxtapositions which you can.

But even though you list and list and cross list and suppress and get wrong items and everything else, the funny part of it is the actual bank is still there ready to be run out when somebody hits the happy combination. You cannot wreck a case. You can only kill a pc. That's something for you to console yourself with.

After he gets back from the between lives area - they aren't able to wreck the case either, don't you see - and he picks up another body, why, somebody will be able to audit him just as before. They will find the bank a little scrambled, but they can go through it and get what it is. This is very remarkable.

The only thing that doesn't disappear is the incorrect item, the improperly worded goal, the wrong goal. These things - these things don't disappear. As a matter of fact, they tend to appear, which is another thing that adds some misery to the passage. They tend to appear.

If you find a goal on somebody "to have big ears," I swear his ears would start growing, if it's a wrong goal. If you see somebody dramatizing an item that was found yesterday, that's a very sure proof that it was a wrong item.

The validation of a wrong item tends more than anything else to throw it into the behavior pattern of the pc, which is quite interesting. Somebody has an item "to be mean" or a GPM, let us say, "to be mean." It happens to be a wrong goal, but it's been validated like mad and he believes implicitly and the auditor believes implicitly that this happens to be a correct rendition. And by George, that pc will get mean. That's a way of testing it out because, you see, when you've found a right one, it ceases to have power of making the pc dramatize and when you find a wrong one and say it's right, it is now possessed of power to make the pc dramatize. An unimportant point but a little side commentary; it's just something that makes the way a little more arduous.

We find a goal "to be tired," and it happens to be just - just a goal. It's only a goal. It's not an actual GPM at all. And we find this thing "to be tired." And it's found just at the end of the pc's intensive. And he goes for a week now before he gets audited again and during that entire week he will be completely exhausted. And he'll know what it is. It's that goal that is making him this way.

And this consoles him and so on. However, in the first few minutes of play of the following intensive, the goal is discovered not to list. The RR turns off, something catastrophic occurs and somebody finds that this is not a right goal. And they go ahead and continue the list and null it down and find the right goal for the list, and "to be tired" has nothing whatsoever to do with it. At that point the pc tends to cease to be tired.

Now, if we had found the GPM - the correct GPM, "to be tired," and it was the right GPM, then some of the pc's feelings of tiredness would vanish. He wouldn't get more tired. He'd get less tired. This is just side commentary and chitchat that I'm giving you here. It's just, the way is arduous.

You can believe the most horrible things about yourself for a while, you know. You do this list and you get this goal, and it's supposed to be the PT GPM, you see. "To be a thief." And this is ladled out to you as the real McCoy, you see. And you look at that and you say, "Well I know it's degrading, but I should accept it and I shouldn't keep insisting on high-tone GPM and it probably is my GPM and I realize that and I - I did steal some sugar once and..." Just explain it, you see, and go around feeling very degraded and so forth and sort of restraining stealing things, you know?

And then, all of a sudden, it turns out that that happens to be a wrong GPM, you see? Actually, the right one was "to be a saint." Something like this, you see? And maybe that was wrong, too, but if that was wrong, then you'd go around for the next week or two, you see, with growing a halo. But if it was right, you would cease to be so saintly.

In other words, you get the reduction of aberration with correctness and you get an additive aberration with uncorrectness.

Now, that doesn't mean that this is very disturbing or aberrative, but it does tend to upset somebody. And you'll see this happening and that simply adds some more danger to the line. The killing power of a GPM is not to be questioned. You get a GPM wrapped too thoroughly around somebody's neck and you can kill him deader than a mackerel. I might as well tell that here between us girls and boys it takes some real doing. It would be awful lousy auditing. It would have to be absolutely incredible. You would have had to audit the fellow with his RR off for a whole intensive. You'd had to shove the items down his throat with a thud and disarrange all the GPMs in the bank practically and drop them in front of him when they should have been behind him on the track. You'd have to make some colossal blunders that one - one would really have to work at to accomplish this, but the end product is you could knock off a body with it.

That merely adds to the difficulties. I'm just cheering you up. Long ago you got audited beautifully through your lumbosis. Now, you haven't had lumbosis for just years until you get into the second GPM and an item which is an incorrect item - the auditor didn't take the first one on the list that fell but made something else read and goes five items beyond it, pain suddenly turns on. Boy, have you got lumbosis. You got lumbosis you never heard of before.

This is more lumbosis than you ever dreamed of, because anything you got rid of in early auditing is going to be found again. Just to cheer you up.

Now, actually, it's only a wrong RI that gives you somatics. Only a wrong GPM that gives you the somatics and the creaks. This is quite interesting.

A right GPM, or a correct GPM - of course, with this one proviso, that on a GPM you can get sufficient invalidation of it, it will act like a wrong goal and give somebody the creaks or somatics. You understand that? You could actually make a right one act like a wrong one.

Well, with that slight proviso, no GPM which is a correct GPM and no item ever turns on any pain of any kind whatsoever if found in proper sequence. They only turn on heat. They do not turn on sen. They do not turn on pain. They only turn on heat. Great, swelling waves of heat. Globular, radiant waves of heat. And that's a properly found item in proper sequence. Nothing but heat. No pain.

This is so much true that if you find pain on an item, you unload. You hit the silk gracefully and with a swan dive. That is the end of that. You go back and find out where you erred. You will normally find that the item two or three back of you on the line plot - two or three items back - still reads. If it still reads, the list it came off of was improperly done. That is to say, there's a higher item, usually, on that list that was the right item. The auditor overshot the right item, found the wrong item. Naturally, as you try to oppose that item, it will continue to read. You will thereafter usually get nothing but wrong items for the remainder of the bank. That's cheerful, isn't it?

One of your awarenesses will turn up on the fact the pc turns on pain. That means you've got a wrong item right there, which is unlikely, or an item which you have had just before was wrong. Probably it was an earlier item on the list from which the wrong item came that was the right item. It's already been listed. It's sitting right there. Don't continue lists these days, for heaven's sakes. Try to make the earlier item read.

If these rules don't follow, you are not auditing a right GPM. That is all. You are just doing only a goal or you're getting locks on an implant GPM. There's something wrong with the GPM if these rules don't apply.

This is very precise material. There are only a few elements to handle. These elements we are getting together to show you in terms of actual model form. The new students are very, very lucky. They'll be trained from scratch in this particular technology.

There are only certain objects in the mind and they can only get disarranged in certain ways and only certain things can go wrong with the mind and actually those things are not significances but masses.

Significance, poof, poof. Who cares? It's the mass. It's the mass that counts. And these masses are in different shapes, sizes, with different names, behaviors and sequences. And it's all very simple. There's not very much to it, but you'd be surprised how much complexity can come out of four or five different kinds of items. I mean, different kinds of objects in the mind. And you just get variety, endless variety out of the thing. And every once in a while why, you slip from grace as an auditor and omit something from your patter. You forget to ask about implant GPMs.

You know, you'll start saying, "Is this the - this the GPM?" you know, and wraabow - and it reads, and you run it and nothing works right, and ooooh my, and you get about ten items later and you - suddenly it dawns on you that this thing isn't following any sequence anybody ever heard of. There's pains turning on in the pc. The thing is going all wrong, your needle's kind of getting stuck up. It isn't too bad, but it just seems to be sour. And nothing seems to be able to get into proper sequence, and that sort of thing. And you brightly do an examination of it again, and you remember that you didn't ask if it was an implant GPM. Uuuuuuh.

And you ask it now, and you get a beautiful blowdown, and that is the end of that.

Then, of course, you can have an implant GPM and an actual GPM which have the same name. Have the same goal. There are several like this. Any pc is common enough to pick up one of these because, of course, implant GPMs are designed on the actual bank, except they - this might be of historical interest to ou - they really didn't know what an actual bank was composed of.

They knew it had goals and they knew it had RIs, but that's all they knew about it. So obviously they never cleared anybody because those items oppose, and actual GPM items solve. Quite remarkable.

They knew the goals opposed and so they - then they presupposed that the items opposed, and they don't. And so they could just have messed everybody up like fire drill if they had known that other little piece of technology. They didn't know it, so now we have these beautiful implant GPMs that student auditors can practice on. And I think it was very, nice of them to provide us with practice material so that people can see what rocket reads look like and see what patterns look like and that sort of thing.

The difference is, of course, that in an implant GPM you always have to use oppose. And in an actual GPM it is solved. Only goals oppose each other in actual GPMs. Goals always oppose. Items always solve.

So item lists always contain the word solve. Goals lists always contain the word oppose. And never any other way. I won't look at anybody just now so as to be accusative, but I've seen this violated lately.

Items oppose - implant GPM. Distinguishes an implant GPM from an actual GPM. I think it is quite amusing. They didn't know.

No, in an actual GPM, the items always solve. Always solve. "Who or what would solve a caterwump?" It's very seldom a statement of a goal, but sometimes a "to" might occur in the item wording, like well, of course, as silly as, "going too far," but you can actually have "wanting to get out," see? And it might occur in a GPM, you see, that has nothing about "to get out" in it, you know.

A GPM "to not be bothered," see. And it contains this item "wanting to get out." Somewhere on your goals list this pc is going to write down "to get out." Difficult, don't you see?

He's going to put on this list and it's liable to get a read when the whole thing is all charged up because items read on the burden of the whole charge of everything, don't you see? So you get "wanting to get out," which tends to give you something that looks like a goal "to get out."

Well, it's worse than that. Sometimes a lock item will have a goal wording as part of it. I had one myself. "Wanting - not wanting to find fault." And the goal read is "to find fault." Three telegraph poles and what was left of Ronnie later, we found out it was an RI, not a goal. "To find fault." See, I was perfectly willing to say, "Well, all I do is find fault and that's me. I mean, that fits my personality." You know, trying to degrade, degrade to fit myself into this thing. And I got more and more nattery and more and more naggy, you see. And then we finally find out it was just an RI and that was the end of that. Interesting.

But - so there is the source of a goal and the source of trouble. Sometimes you have the tag end of an item that will give you a read like it's a goal. That's rare, but it does occur. The most trouble you'll get into and the most horrible thing that can occur to anybody is this implant GPM and actual GPM which are the same goal, and you pick up an RI out of the implant GPM and you use it to solve, don't you see, and you get the pc running the implant on the track of the implant GPM, thinking you are running the actual GPM while you were doing it.

And you'll get items like somebody or something with a goal "to spit," see? Well, of course, there are no such - you don't have items like that in an actual GPM. You don't have these "somebodys" and the goal "to..." and all of that. That's just implant stuff, see?

They didn't know what they were doing, fortunately. Because if they had really known what they were doing, they would have put those banks together so they did exactly what banks do. And brother, you couldn't have pried a pc apart with a crowbar. That would have made it ten times as hard.

But it's rough enough. You sometimes will take an actual GPM, RI or something like this, get over into the implant GPM, and the RR shuts off. Oh, marvelous.

Now you've got no RR, so it couldn't have been an implant - actual GPM. The RR shuts off because that isn't the wording of the implant GPM exactly, see. Something like that.

Let's say you have an actual GPM "to be a big man," see, actual GPM. And you've got an implant GPM, well, "to be mean" or something, but there's something about a couple of these words, you see, that hang up on each other, don't you know?

And you find the pc over here running on the implant track, and the RR shuts off, so you say, "Well, there is no actual GPM 'to be a big man' because the guy's implant - the guy's RR shut off, so that proves there was no actual GPM here, so we'll abandon it."

I don't know how many sessions later somebody gets bright enough to realize the pc was simply misplaced on the track. That leave you a little bit adrift? Well, it's very simple. You're supposed to be running down this aisle, you see, with the pc, and actually you've gotten an item for which you don't have a goal accidentally from some implant.

So you then follow this item listing that. So you overlist, go around a corner, jump out of the actual GPM, see, and go over into this implant GPM. You're now running in the zone and area of that implant GPM. Guy's RR shuts off, so you say, "To be a big man" - there can't be an actual goal there because the – the RR shut off. Sure test that there's no goal, isn't it?

Well, it's a sure test up to that point. Then you throw it all away, you see. That's the usual thing. Throw it all away. Dump it all overboard. Get rid of it and start anew. And eighty-nine-page goals list later, you still haven't found the guy's goal. Naturally, it was the right goal. Pc was just being run in the wrong place.

Oh, you got a lot of fun ahead of you. I'm just trying to paint a bright, sunny, cheerful picture here.

This is rough stuff. I'm not kidding you. But there are rules. There are rules. And those rules take you through. And the thing is all figured out and the only thing that wrecks you on these rules - well, it's like, it's the first fall on the list. Almost invariably. Almost never otherwise than the first fall on the list.

And this, if your pc is in session at all, is usually the first and last item of the list. But it's certainly the first nice fall on the list. The first fall on the list. Actually and factually that. If the pc's running any kind of shape at all, why, that's the way these things start to fall into place. First fall on the list.

You call it back to the pc and it doesn't read, you maybe list a little bit further, you get some charge off or something like this. Go back and try to make that first fall read again. Just because it didn't read is no reason it won't.

Go back there and chew away at it. Unburden it a little bit. Try and list a little bit further, and so forth, and all of a sudden you're staring at this first - you got another read. Oh, boy, something reads beautifully and you try to give it to the pc, and there's something wrong about this thing.

And you go backtracking and read that first fall again. And work it over real good. Nine times out of ten, it all of a sudden caves in. Great, big surge. Great, big, disintegrating rocket read. Blow on down and so forth. And you say brightly, "Is that your item?" "Yeah. Why didn't you give it to me in the first place?" "On this item has anything been suppressed? All right. Thank you. That's your item." Crash! Another great, big read.

You know, you can't be convinced that it all doesn't run off easily. You think the auditor shouldn't have to work for a living, see.

You say, "All right, let's just list and list until we see a great big blowdown and a big fall, and then let's take that item and give it to the pc." And then he's in Illinois and then he's in another bank and then he's doing an implant GPM item, and then he's - he's - and so on. And he's getting kind of weird looking and the creaks are turning on in all directions and somebody gets hold of it and they see this big beautiful item that you got, it went just like that on him. Bang! You just had him put down one, two, three items. Just like that. And that third item just went booom! And you know, thorough, full loads, wonderful, you know. Just gorgeous. Except you just got through missing three RIs.

Of course, when you oppose that, because you've skipped some RIs, instantly you will skip into another GPM. It's just like sending somebody off with a rocket.

Miss an RI, the item that you get after that might be in the bank you're listing in, but it goes phheeeeuuuu!

Your next list? Ha, Chicago. Get the idea? That's how you jump from bank to bank. That's how pc's are made to jump from bank to bank. Missing an RI.

Well, it was pretty hard at first to find out where this RR really lived on this list. And that was difficult because we were using "oppose," thinking it was on the same pattern as an implant GPM, when it isn't. Soon as we got to using "solve ..." The dangerous item is the first one on the list because sometimes the pc is saying, "Oh ..." pc's saying, "...well, I had - I had some good cognitions on that," and so forth. And the auditor's sitting here and he's getting his paper ready, don't you see, and the pc all of a sudden, without any pause of breath or anything like this or any word of warning, says, "guttersnipes." "Oh, guttersnipes. Yes, Yes." "Here's your question,'Who or what...' " and so on.

And you go ahead and list it. You didn't see guttersnipes on the meter. When he said it you didn't see it.

So you go on down, you get a ten- or twelve-item list and nothing's falling and you try to get it into shape and you know... So you null the whole list. And you go down, "Guttersnipe, fluh-uh-uh-uh-uh-huh" - go down to the end of the thing and you get this big blowing item down here at the end, you say, "That's obviously the pc's item. Ha, ha, ha. First fall on the list. Number ten. First fall on the list. Obvious. There it is. Fell easily and it read right away and the pc apparently happy."

"All right. Who or what would ..." - and this thing is crab apples, you see – all right, "Who or what would solve crab apples?" You see?

"Oh? Somebody or something with a goal 'to eat.' " Sabah-bah-ba-bah-bah-ba-ba-uh-huh-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah - and oh, let's hit a couple of more actual GPMs, carom off a couple of engrams, you see, and do a corner billiard, you see, off the Helatrobus.

And we come up with the item "scavengers." Mm. Sounds good. Pc says, "All right." So all right, let's oppose "scavengers" now, see?

All right. "Who or what would scavengers solve?" would be your next question. "Well, it's the absence of eating." (Good implant item.) "The starvation, starving people. Those who are starving." (Nice implant item.) That reads. Good, see. Nice. Oh, that's - that's a honey, that's a honey. That's good. Big, beautiful read. Blowdown. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Show the Instructor, you know, it blew down. I mean, there it is. We're all set, you see? We got this starvation, starvation. All right. "Who or what would solve starvation?"

"To run away. Running away. Beings who run away. Those who run away. Somebody or something that runs away."

"Oh, that reads. That reads. No, it doesn't read. Somebody or something that runs away. I'm sorry, it didn't read. The upper one, the first fall, that read. It doesn't read. Well, let's see now. Somebody or something that... Okay, give me some more items. Now, who or what would solve starvation?" "Oh, cooks, restaurants, somebody or something with the goal to eat." "Somebody or something with a goal to eat. Here, I'll null this." We got an item - we got an item list here, you know. It's now got twenty items on it. Now I got twenty-five items on it. When we go back nothing reads. You're trying to get this thing to read, and it won't read. Where are we? We're nowhere, man. What happened? Who pulled the rug out?

Pc's starting to say, "Where did you learn how to audit?" You know, starting to pull this line.

"Well, I told you a little while ago that the item was actually 'eating well' and so forth and you didn't listen to me and so forth" and oooooooh.

Well, of course, the actual action that you undertake is traceable back to that list on which "guttersnipes" occurred.

Now, you go back to that. You go back to that list and you read the item that you took off of it. Ten down, see. You read that item and it's got a read on it. It goes cltsk-cltsk. You read it and it goes cltsk. What does that mean?

That doesn't mean it hasn't been opposed. That is never what it means. That "never" is underscored, as in implants. Never means it is unopposed. I don't care if it rocket reads and stands up on its tail and barks. See, it has nothing to do with it hasn't been listed against, see.

You say, "Well, I found the right item. I found the right item is ticking, but I haven't then properly opposed it. So that's why it's still ticking." And that's wrong. Cut your throat, because that's never right. Ha-ha - I - never. Don't ever go daydreaming on this, man.

If after you've done down the list, what would now be on the line plot, even though it's still on your list, I don't care if it ticks, if it rocket reads or if it blows smoke out of the meter, we don't care what is the quality of read, it only means one thing. The item list it came off of is incorrect in that you took the wrong item off the list. You understand?

It's an incorrect action. And that item that ticks is always improper for that location. It's not the next item to it. It's not the item it came from that's improper. It's it. It's a very simple one to remember. It sends up a little red flag and waves it, and it ticks. Or it rocket reads or it blows up the meter. We don't care what. That item is wrong.

Now the proper thing to do, you see, would have been just scrub all the rest of this stuff and get back there on that line plot and read the items you found and you get back here - you get back here to crab apples. And it goes clank! Well, you took the list off - take the list off which you got crab apples. The list off which you got crab apples. Understand? Go earlier on that list and roll up your sleeves and go to work. Because almost invariably there's an earlier item on that list. It's almost invariable that an earlier item on that list went undetected by you. And in this particular example I'm giving you, it's guttersnipes which was written down when the auditor wasn't watching, and so forth, and there it is. And you read guttersnipes and it doesn't say a thing. Now it's real good and stuck.

You see, you've put a wrong item in its place. So it's got it good and scrunched. Now, it would have been tough enough to make this thing read in the first place. But you've now unloaded an item where it belongs. Now this could be true of any of the ten it - any of the nine items which preceded crab apples. It could be true of any one of those items.

How you going to make that read? It requires nothing but genius, so wrap it up and just do it. You've got to make one of them read.

Only after you have totally convinced that none of them can be made to read in any way, shape or form do you ever extend that list any at all. And that, man, extension of a list is a last resort in modern OT auditing. That's the last resort. That is just, I don't know, it's sort of like throwing in the sponge. You'll usually find out that the item was so burdened that it didn't read well, but now that you've gotten the other item off of it and so forth, you go back and read it and it now will read and blow down. Almost always earlier than the wrong item was located on the list.

You've got ten items on the list, the wrong item was number ten, it's almost invariably - so I never pay any attention to any other circumstances - it's items one to nine on that list. It's one of those items.

Of course, if you're a smart cookie, you never miss a fall. You've got a built-in periscope into your eyeball by which you can see the fall of the meter even while you're arranging the papers. And the pc said something and the meter falls.

I carry this to considerable extent. I'll hear the pc talking about something and I will keep one eye slanted slightly on the meter. And when I get that, and the pc says things - why, I saw one the other day. "Walking fast," the pc said. "I was walking fast." And I noticed that "walking fast" gave an instant rocket read. And I used it as a cross-verification of the bank we were walking into. That's right. The goal was "to be fast."

The pc had offered it up as something else, so I was able to correct the bank through my inspection of what the pc was chattering about.

You can also go far astray on this. The pc suddenly conceives something or other is his next goal or the next oppterm or something of this character and he says something with regard to it and it tends to rocket read and if you bought it right there at that moment without further inspection, you'd probably get yourself into a lot of trouble. And some - because you'll get yourself in enough trouble, you see, by when - sometimes you buy them after inspection and they're still haywire.

See, you've got - you get it into enough trouble with the ordinary methods without being extraordinary. You don't have to work to get into trouble at auditing to OT at all. It's just sitting there at every bend of the trail. It's all over the place, see?

As you're crossing Grand Canyon, if it isn't meteors, why, it's boiling water splashing from below, don't you see? And if it isn't that, it's hurricane winds suddenly springing up. And if the hurricane wind isn't bad enough, it happens to be blowing anvils that day, you see.

You always look for these things. So actually you don't have to be original to make trouble because you see, there's plenty of trouble there with the most ordinary, textbook methods.

All right. Well, there, you see - now you're four items later, pc's got two more, three more banks chewed in, of course, you're just going to go back and continue the list. That's going to solve the whole thing. But the pc's sort of nattery and ARC broke and you've had some session ARC breaks and he's got some overts now on the session and he isn't running so well and he isn't cogniting now nicely and so forth. And he won't start cogniting again until you get out of the little disturbed area that you had him in. Then he starts cogniting again.

Heat is harder to get off and so forth. But these goofs occur. I got halfway down a bank the other night in a pc. Imagine it. Ten items deep. Gorgeous. Ten items running like a startled gazelle and all of a sudden, guuh-here was a list. And it was getting longer. I couldn't get anything to read. And that list was getting longer.

Well, I don't exactly subscribe to the school that pcs are better off for having suffered. I don't subscribe to that school. That's an old school of opera, you know. You couldn't sing unless you had suffered, you know, and I don't think that's true of pcs. So as soon as I noticed that list getting a bit overlong, I became cynical concerning the line plot that we already had and went chasing back up that line plot again, just reading each item in sequence, not reading them backwards but reading them in the sequence that they were found.

Always try to read items in the sequence they were found. Always try to read goals in the sequence they were listed. Do it in the sequence they were put down or found. And you'll find out there was much less disturbance.

Sometimes you can make somebody's bank go creaky by reading backwards or suddenly jumping back from a late item to an early item, you know, and the pc - guy goes creak because they still have location in space.

Anyway, so I went chasing back up the bank and I'll be a son of a gun if it wasn't the third oppterm. I just absolutely was willing to spit ballpoints. Yaaaaaaoow. There it sat. The third oppterm. The third one. And here I was at ten. I'll be a son of a monkey. It was sitting there, I call it. Tick. It was saying very nicely. Tick. "Oh, you drunk skunk," I said. Uuuh huuuuh.

So I fished the list out. Former session list. And I fished the list out and went earlier on the list and sure enough it was earlier on the list.

It was up at the top. The danger point of the list is always the first item on, whether that's a goals list or an items list. It's always the danger point.

It had been missed. I had read it, but it couldn't be made to read. I think there was some other little conditions concerning the thing. Been an upset or some - some little minor, additional thing.

Oh, I remember what it was. It was - it had been left that way between intensives and so the item had been sort of gummed up with the period of waiting in between, so it didn't list very nicely. It wasn't actually falling nicely as the pc listed and it didn't start falling nicely until it got down to about the fourth item.

Well, you're not very critical when you see that the fourth item fell when called to the pc, blew down very nicely, pc was happy with it, everything solved in all directions and it listed very well and apparently stayed in the bank and everything was happy and cheerful from there on out. You're not very critical of it, you see? You go and buy the thing. But it was ticking, and I found the earlier item was, I think, number one on that list. Aaaah. I beg your pardon. I beg your pardon. I've just given you a piece of misinformation.

I just remembered it utterly. It was the item just above it and the pc had added the item that I found. And that was when I learned that items with pain on them - I had been noticing this before - the item had a momentary pain on it when given to the pc. It wasn't the third item. It was the fourth. It was the list from the third item that was in error.

All right. That's beside the point. It was simply earlier on the list by one item. Heartbreaking. Of course, that took the line plot and that was it.

He now only had three items on the line plot. I put the fourth item on the line plot that I had gotten in and just proceeded straight from there. I didn't try to sell the pc any of these other items. You never give the pc anything. Don't give the pc a thing that they've had before. Just scrap it from there on, man. That's it. Finish.

You sit there, you think you've got ten items in the bank and suddenly you have three items in the bank. The fall - roof falls in just like that. Now you don't have ten items in the bank. You don't have. Maybe some of those items will come up later and the pc will put them on the list and maybe they will all line up later, but only if the pc put them back on the list again.

Sometimes an auditor probably will be seen kind of shoving the line plot at the pc saying, "Don't you want some of these items there? There's some nice items there. You have nice items there?" and so forth. Mmmm-mm. You want to ARC break a pc, try it, because they're probably all out of - scramble in sequence and anything else. And usually they're mostly locks. The pc just launches off at that long - that wrong item. He just launches off into locks and he gets nothing but locks and other bank items after that and so forth.

And then he may freakily, through another double mistake, double back into the bank and actually get an actual RI and then for two or three items it runs straight, you see. But then it goes out of the bank again because you got the bypassed charge, and so you can't - you don't know which ones of those things are straight, so you can do nothing with any of them.

So you just take off where you corrected and proceed from there. And if you're very, very lucky and if you said your Sunday school lessons very well and stayed out of Dallas, you'll get - you'll get yourself a situation there where the pc will suddenly put a pair back on the list. Say, "Oh, yes. That's railroad locomotives and drunk engineers. They belong there. Oh, that's where they belong. Yeah oh, that's where they belong. Yeah, that's right."

But it's only in the course of listing, and you write them down on the new list. There are - just - just go on writing on your new list, just as though he never heard of them before. That's what a mistake on an item means. And that's how you correct. And that's where you straighten them out. And that's how you hold it in line.

It is adroit. An item list of two items should be regarded as moving into the zone of overlisted. Items are usually overlisted. Goals lists are almost always underlisted. Goals lists are almost never complete - almost never.

They're so arduous. You take such pity on the pc. You break it off one way or the other and they just never get a complete list. And the pc will add a few goals and you null those. And the pc adds a few goals and you null those. And you just can't find the pc's goal. And you add a few goals and you null those and you add a few goals and finally you get down one for one. The pc will add a goal, you read the goal back and you say, "That doesn't read." And the pc adds a goal, you read the goal back, you say, "It doesn't read." Echo metering. Whatever the pc says, you say it and look at it on the meter.

Actually, that's about the grimmest thing that can happen. And you know why it's grim? Because the goal, with a complete list, may have been five or six. Number five or six on the list. Way up at the beginning.

The moral of this story - the moral of this story is to do a complete list before you null it. That is the moral. And in view of the fact that's almost impossible to guarantee, when you don't find it on your extended list, at once renull the whole cotton-picking early list.

You should always be terriby thorough on goal lists. A goals list is an arduous, mean, vicious, mechanical, clanking proposition. It is done: What goal went up ha-ha-ha, oh that goal went up ha-ha. Wawawawawa. Wawawawawa. Wawawawawa. That's with fall, with the RR, with the tick, with the fall, with the blowdown, watching the tone arm, watching the tone arm over here. Does the tone arm have motion left in it? Finaly, we get down to no tone arm motion.

Now we begin to watch for the last fall on the list. And we finally find the last fall on the list. And then we go fifty beyond it. We go, not forty-nine, not thirty-eight, not fifty-seven. We go fifty. Five-O.

How big is a fall? A fall is a distinguishable read that might be the fall of a goal.

You will find that if you continue a list beyond that fifty flat point with no TA, that you start roughing up the pc's needle. The pc starts listing himself off that section or area of the time track and starts listing himself into other areas and you start crimping up the bank. And other evils set in.

So a goals list is complete when you have totally run out of TA - no TA action and fifty beyond the last decent-looking fall on the list.

A finished goals list has a very smooth, beautiful, complete-looking needle. Nothing goes off on it. Nothing, man. I mean that thing is just flowing, just dry, smooth as a little river of butter.

And when you null it, a complete list just goes smooth as a river of butter. There's nothing in at all but the pc's goal. And that rocket reads like a startled gazelle. Pow! And when you get to it, you just check a couple of more falls on the list to make sure you haven't got two rocket reads on that list and you give the pc the goal.

It is a bad policy to continue nulling the goals list for the next three or four sessions after you have found the pc's goal. That is not good policy. It puts a certain amount of strain on things. Actually, it invalidates the pc's goal.

You can always tell if the pc's goal is on the list. Not by standing and chanting at the meter, "Is this goal on the list? Is this a complete list? Is this an inc - " I wouldn't give you two nickels - man, I wouldn't give you any communist money for the value of a question like "Is this list complete?" I've just never seen the question correct.

See, I don't care whether it reads or it doesn't read. I've just gotten to a point now where I know what questions will Ouija-board and what questions won't. And that one won't Ouija-board. "Is the goal on the list? Is the goal not on the list? Heh-bah-heh-beh-thaa?" I don't know.

Will the United States be here long? Will the United States not be here long? Silly questions, see? Everybody knows what's going to happen to it. It won't be here long. Obviously.

TBD

Now, there is a way of telling. (Not unless they get some cops.) There is a way of telling. There is a way of telling. Is this pc in a relaxed, un-ARC broken frame of mind? That's about the first test. Seem happy when you finished the goals list? When a pc refuses to list, you usually only have to put in Suppress and the pc goes on listing. You don't even have to tell him to go on listing, you see? His stopping listing and his nattering have nothing to do with that. But when you finally finish this list, the pc seem calm? Seem happy? Relaxed? Is that needle flowing nicely? The last few goals that went on the list, did they disturb the needle in the slightest? Or did they just leave that needle completely smooth? When he said them, nothing happened.

These are all tests. And a very, very important one: Has pc got heat? Did some heat come off? Start coming off? Is this list kind of blowy? Is the pc getting heat now? Somewhere did heat turn on on this list? Not pain-heat. Some heat turn on? Man, if some heat turned on, that goal is on that list. That right there. You can go to it at once. Bark, bark, bark. And there it'll be. Reading beautifully.

Now, that's what a complete goals list actually looks like. Those questions were all answered one way or the other. But if he didn't turn on heat, it still doesn't invalidate the list.

Now, what you'll run into sometimes on nulling a goals list, I should remark on. Because it's quite amazing and mad.

Violate audit with a moving tone arm, you know. Saying things to the pc while the tone arm is moving, you see. Do things while the tone arm is moving, you see. That's a violation of basic auditing. And of course, a lot of violations of basic auditing gets you into trouble in doing these upper-level processes. In fact, it all requires basic auditing which is a long, smooth - you know, you don't even notice it. The auditor and the pc don't even notice the basic auditing that's in progress. That's the best kind of basic auditing to occur.

And when you get this long, smooth list and the pc's had heat, you've got another little hurdle that just makes life just a little bit interesting. And I'd better tell you about this because you're going to run into it sometime. You're going to be totally baffled. It isn't seldom that you run into it. You run into it quite frequently as you start the pc. The pc's getting more and more OT, don't you see? And his meter's reading easier and easier and easier. And this phenomenon turns on better and better and better.

You're auditing while the tone arm is moving. In other words, you've started nulling the list, see. Bark, bark, bark; and all of a sudden you see big surges start off of this thing, you see. And surges go off of this thing. Tone arm's blowing around here and so forth.

Well, I don't particularly stop and twiddle my thumbs just because this - I go on and null the list because you could waste an awful lot of time doing something like that, don't you see?

Nevertheless, it's a violation of basic auditing to be – for the auditor to be acting while the tone arm is moving; and this is the kind of silliness which now occurs if you violate that, if you're not awfully slippery. And you're for sure going to violate it because you're not going to sit there when you get to this level of auditing for a half an hour waiting for some tone arm action to disappear before you give the pc his goal, see. He will finally ARC break on you.

Any vocal impingement on the pc causes a rocket read. And, man, if you don't know that, you're going to be in more trouble.

Now let me give you the exact statement. Any vocal impingement on the pc may give you a rocket read. That's very accurate. And most of them do.

So you say anything to the pc, like you read him the next goal, and of course it appears to rocket read. And you read him the next goal and it appears to rocket read; and you read him the next goal and it appears to rocket read. Or you've got a goal and it appears to rocket read and you go down the line five more and it appears to rocket read. So you say you've got two rocket reading items on this list, so therefore... This is only true, you know, when you're getting this blowdown. You've already seen this meter blowing around and the pc has had heat. Those things are vitally necessary before this other phenomena that I am telling you about takes place. This doesn't take place unless you've had heat, see, on the thing. And you say, "Well, there's two rocket reading goals on the list. Let's extend the list." Two rocket reading items on the list, the rules say extend the list. But you didn't have two rocket reading items on the list. You had two rocket reading vocal impingements on the pc. Actually his bank is simply sitting there right in front of you and you're not actually hitting the pc with anything, but your voice can actually impact a bit of the bank. And every time it impacts a bit of the bank, of course, it blows a huge surge into this meter. And you say, "cats," and you'd get a surge on the meter.

You get - your vocal impingement is what's kicking your meter. And you can read this actually very directly after heat is turned on in a goals list. This is something to know because sooner or later, before you get to be an old veteran at this, you're going to ARC break a pc by refusing to give him his goal because everything on the list is reading.

At this particular time the pc can unfortunately get upset while this blowdown is going on, and a pc can get sufficiently upset that you're going to get the Protest rocket reading. So now anything you say rocket reads and any protest the pc has rocket reads, and then there are occasional surges going on anyhow.

Now, you try to walk yourself through that much rocket reading and that much contradictory information. Now we try to do a case analysis, see. Got a nice, blowing-down goal, see. Going to do a case analysis, see?

"Is this an implant GPM?" Rocket read. "Is it an actual GPM?" Rocket read. "Is this only a goal?" Rocket read. "Is this just an item?" Rocket read.

Now, sometimes it isn't that consistent, so you don't notice it. You say, "Is this only a goal?" Rocket read. "Is this an implant GPM?" No read. "Is this an actual GPM?" No read. Ah, well, it's only a goal. All right. Well, let's check this out again. "Is this an implant GPM?" Rocket read. "Is this an actual GPM?" Rocket read. "Is this only a goal?" No read. What's going on here? What's going on here, see?

Well, what you're actually doing, you're just bucking away at a blowing down meter. And this - this pc is throwing off charge and heat and everything else and you really shouldn't be doing anything, by the basic rules of auditing.

Your voice is then causing your own rocket read, you see. Your voice hits his bank, and if it's this way and that way, it either always or occasionally causes the meter to go bang.

And you will notice this once in a while. I've seen an item list - failure to give a pc an item on an item list – and I've seen a pc - an item list with six items on it, with the pc blowing down on the right item, but the right item not spotted by the auditor. With six items then, reading, and a blowdown in progress, no matter what was read to the pc; the pc ARC broke at the same time and so not being informative. Pc ARC broke, of course, because you haven't given him the item. How can you give the pc the item? You've got six items on the list. You've got six rocket reads. Any one of them will rocket read. You can't tell which one of them is and which one of them isn't. Well, that whole trouble and upset causes from flying into the teeth of a moving tone arm, trying to do case analysis, locate items and that sort of thing.

Your proper action, of course, is to sit quietly back and let the tone arm stop moving. Now you'll have to do that on item finding. You can't possibly afford to do it on goals lists. But you have to do it on item finding. You say to the pc, you've got this thing reading, you see. Pow! You say - all right, you say - and you've seen that the blowdown starts, and so you say, "Is that your item?" Now you really see it read. Big surge, see, and the pc's got more confidence in it, you see. Big surge and you got more confidence, and you'll see this thing blowing down. You're just a fool if you say a thing. You're just being a fool. You're just making trouble for yourself. I mean you just must be silent at that point. Just be silent. Just keep your big yap shut. Don't say a word. And let that thing blow down.

Now, it frankly is only going to take it about thirty seconds to blow down. Where you're going to take your big error is waiting for ten minutes for it to finish off all of its tone arm action and of course you're just going to waste a lot of auditing time doing that.

No, you want to get the major read off of that. And it's come down here now to let's say - this is not the - you just don't pay any attention to this numeral - but let us say it has come down to 3.2. See, this is just an example.

It's blown down to 3.2. It doesn't seem to be moving now. You say, "All right. That's your item."

Now shut up. Because first you said, "Is that your item," don't you see? See? You say, "That reads. Is that your item?"

Let me show you a sequence here.

"That reads," you're saying, "Grapevine, grapevine. Anything on that been suppressed? Grapevine. That reads. Is that your item?" You're going to see psssseeeeeeeur. More confidence, because you're asking him if it's his item, you see.

"Oh, yeah," he says. "Oh, yeah, that's fine. I mean that's my item. That's my item. That's my item. Zooooooo."

This thing comes down here about 3.2, see. You didn't say a word while it was doing it. He's terribly introverted. He won't notice that you're being silent. He isn't expecting anything to happen. He's looking at this. What do you know, you know? Now it's at 3.2, and it appears to be momentarily stable at 3.2.

Don't sit there and wait for the next half-hour to see if it's going to move again or you're going to get into a mess. You now say to the pc - you now say to the pc, "That's your item." "Good. Whoa. Good. I thought that was my item, see." Bsssoooooooooosh - 2.8. Comes down to 2.8, apparently stable.

Now the pc says, "Yeah, you know, all of a sudden, every time I get in the car and I see a girl and so forth and so on, I get this great - and she tells me a rumor or something like that, I almost go mad, you know. And it's so on. But I'm always wanting to find out what it is and I never want to hear it. And this is a terrible situation I've been in, and so forth." And this thing is going pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa . And you're getting tone arm motion, tone arm motion here and so on. And he finally shuts up.

You'll find that by the time he shuts up, your meter's probably recovered this - don't pay any attention to these figures, they're just relative, you see maybe recovered to 3.5.

Now if you hang around that corner drugstore, and you wait around leaning against that telegraph pole, you going to wrap somebody around it. There's a nice piece of timing. It's now regained the height it's going to regain. And you'll see that meters do this. They regain this higher level. The tone arm action's gone out of them. You've just seen the new item move into place and the old item go away - because the meter's regained it slightly.

And you say, "All right, see. Now we're all set here. That was yackety-yackety-yackety-yackety-yacketa. Now let's blow some more charge out of this thing, see. You don't – it doesn't have to have regained anything for you to blow this charge out, but I'm just giving you an example. You say, "All right. Would caterwumps solve a grapevine?" Watch your meter at this point, man. Watch your meter. Turn on those big, beautiful eyes of yours and put them right straight on that dial because you want about a two-inch peeeeeew when those two items collide. I don't care if he's already said it! You always say it.

He'll sometimes say, "Well, I already told you and so on. Weren't you listening to me? You cut my itsa and so forth; I already told you that caterwumps solve wra-wra-wra wra-wra-wra." I don't c... - we care what he said. You always put it in. We don't care if he's said it. We don't care if he put in all the courtesy steps himself. There is still tone arm action left on those courtesy steps put in by the auditor. The auditor is still the auditor and auditing works still because of an auditor.

So we say, "All right." We found this new item. You say, "Would grapevines be solved by caterwumps?" or "Would caterwumps solve a grapevine?" Which is the better wording when you've got an oppterm. Whichever it was. Or both. It doesn't matter. And you watch. You watch and you will see those two items come together and they go psssssst. And you'll see about the nicest two-inch bang as they hit that you ever wanted to see. Not because you say one or the other of the items, but because you've spoken about them coming together. Would it solve a blah? See? And you'll see it go boom. And that's one of your basic proofs that you've got the right item.

When it do not do it, get Suppress in. Do a little something here. Monkey around a little bit. Test this over. Get suspicious. When you've gotten Suppress in, ask him again just as though you haven't asked him before.

Would a caterwump solve grapevines? Pc says, "Oh, yes." And this time you see the two-inch bang. You say, "That's fine. And get off of that, see?

"Now, how does grapevine" - your next step which follows immediately afterwards. You don't have to worry much about the tone arm action. You say - you say, in no uncertain terms, you say, "How would grapevines...?" or "How does grapevines relate to...?" Now, be careful now. Don't you use that goal wording. Don't you use the goal as an RI. Get off of that.

Don't say, "How would it (grapevines) relate to 'to eat.' " Flunk, flunk, flunk. See. Because you're going to pull the goal as an RI up the bank and keep it restimulated. He knows what GPM he's running. Let him worry about that. So you say, "How would it relate to this GPM?"

Now, he sometimes has to say to himself, "Now, let's see.GPM, it was to eat." Something like that.

There seems to be a question in his mind it'll always come true. Now that's not as reliable a test as saying the goal that you're trying to relate it to. It's not as reliable, but it is less kick-the-pc-in-the-head. See? It's much easier on the pc and it restimulates the bank less.

And you will get another bang and another blowdown. And as soon as you say, "How does grapevines relate to this GPM?" - the proper wording, see - he says, "Oh, well, it's so and so on and so on, and it's up in the bank and so forth. I guess it's so on and so on, and so on. It's about - it's about the third or fourth oppterm, I guess, and so forth. Yeah, yeah, that's what it is." You all of a sudden see another blowdown and you'll see your needle. And your needle will go peeeewsst again. We blow it out with relationship then to the actual GPM mass. That is your proper step at that particular point.

Now, he may have something to say and he might not have something to say. There might be a little more tone arm action. If so, you could wait it out, but it would just be a matter until it regained a certain level.

Soon as it regains a certain level, your tone arm - you see your tone arm's coming back up and so forth. You might let it come back up a bit. Or let it come back up. Have at him again with the next question, see. Which of course is, "Who or what would solve grapevines?" or something of the sort. Just have him, with the next question, list it down and you're away with the same repeat action.

In actual fact, it takes from four to twelve minutes to ask the question, list the RI, get it to read back, get the tone arm action off, get the courtesy steps in, get their tone arm action off and be ready for the next question. Between four and twelve minutes - somewhere in that vicinity. Sometimes you're rolling hotter than a pistol, the pc's working very, very good and you make up your average in the session by getting one in two minutes or something like that, you see?

But usually your average is a bit more than this. And you'll find your - a session average of once every twelve minutes is perfectly acceptable. A session average of one every hour, I don't know. What are you doing? You must be going on vacations between RIs. Something else going on here. It's not - not the - not what is expected.

Just give you an idea of the expectancy. If you can add up a hundred-and-twenty-minute session of actual auditing in the session, don't you see - a hundred and twenty minutes of actual auditing in the session - and find that you have found ten RIs in that session, the pc is running well, you're going very smoothly, everything is moving fine and so forth.

Don't expect this to happen when you've run into trouble, you've accidentally overshot an item, found a wrong item, you're going back up and have to repatch the bank. You found yourself running a wrong goal and now you've got to have a right goal and the bank is all gummed up and that sort of thing.

This sort of thing is not expected. Now, you're going to have to hunt and punch and grope in the dark and fall over old, odd bits that you've left in the middle of the room, don't you see. So you won't come up to your average so good and maybe you'll do very well to get one in fifteen or twenty minutes. You're having a rougher time of it and so forth.

But as soon as you get things straightened out and get out of the affected zone that had got kicked around and so forth, it should fall right back to about one every twelve minutes. The thing to do is to get the tone arm action off of those things.

You don't want those things to read anymore. Tone arm action is mainly caused by the discharge of energy in the form of heat on the pc. Those surges, you don't want to get a new item going before the old surges are off, don't you see?

There's a limit at which this takes place. You could, of course, stretch this and take a half an hour to let the surges all come off of the item you found.

I'll tell you a joke. For the last twenty minutes of those, they're coming slowly off the new item you haven't found. You're not finding the surges off the old item.

The pc has moved into the new position in the bank and without even knowing what the RI is, but having some half-dim idea and so forth of it, he will continue to get surges. So the surges off an item actually are those that come off in the first part of the run and down to the last courtesy step of it. Do you got the routine to take? Those are exactly the way you find those things.

I suppose you understand such things as crude as this – that after you've opposed you - "What would the goal - what would 'to eat' oppose? What goal would'to eat' oppose?" and you've got the new goal "to starve to death," you realize, of course, that you've got to oppose the RI "to eat" - the goal as an RI "to eat" - against the top oppterm of the new GPM you just found.

Well, that is usually fairly easy and it follows the same rules. It's a "solve" question. It is not an "oppose" question. You've found the two goals on "oppose," see, but this is now "solve.

And you say, "Who or what would 'to eat' solve?" is your right question to get that oppterm.

And you normally get them in exactly the same way. It actually doesn't take any more trouble and so forth.

But a wise auditor does a nice little piece of case analysis. He does a nice little dance around the top of that thing after he's got that all taped. He's got the next goal, he's checked it out and so forth, he's found the two top RIs. He's found the top oppterm and he has found the top terminal and so forth. He does not now go like a fast rabbit around the track. He holds hard because the top of the list is the dangerous item, the most likely to be overlooked and the one you're likely to make the most mistakes on are the four top items of which the most dangerous are the top two.

You'll find that most of your mistakes are made in the four top items of the bank, but that the majority of those are made in the first two items of the bank.

And you want to check those out. You want to run a case analysis. After you've found the top oppterm, you found the new GPM, you got that and you got its top oppterm, you now got its top terminal and so forth and you're all square, you want to run yourself a case analysis.

Is there anything above these things, see? Is there any other item? Are these things correct, see? Are they incorrect? And you're getting some kind of equivocal reads and you can't make out what they are, you should proceed cautiously. Because if you've got a wrong goal - you could have just an actual goal or something like that, but if you've got a wrong goal or something like this, you can get the two top ones - the top oppterm and the top terminal - you can get those. Usually your RR doesn't start shutting down - the length of the fall doesn't start shutting down - until you get the third item.

Now, you don't mess up a pc very much by finding a wrong top item and then having to find a right one. Or find a wrong goal and find its top oppterm and then discard it, and then find a right goal and find its top oppterm. This is not going to mess up the pc to amount to anything.

But if you actually go so far as to find the two - the next goal, the two top RIs and the third and fourth RIs in that new bank - if it is a wrong goal, that's it. The RR is going to go off. And that needle is going to freeze. That needle is just going to freeze absolutely still. And nothing will fall until you start listing for goals. It doesn't matter what you list now, the pc's had it. He has no RR, he has no fall, he has no tone arm action, he has nothing. It just sits there with a frozen zzzzzo bzzzz and he gives you something. Brrrr. You can get nothing to fall. You can't get anything to move. That meter just freezes right up. And believe me, this is hell on a pc.

It won't kill him. It won't do anything to him particularly. But it sure - it sure - something like taking several tablespoons full of sand, raw, without salt. No good.

So if you're going to find anything wrong with a GPM, why, find it before you depart from the two top RIs. Now, that you have found those is no - and that the RR has stayed on - is not a guarantee. You can get sometimes as far as four items or even five items deep into a GPM without turning off the RR if it's a wrong goal. You can get that deep and the thing will still be reading.

But a real sharp auditor will have seen his falls getting shorter. From three inches, they have become two inches. From two inches, they have become one inch. From one inch, they have become a quarter of an inch. And he would have to be dead asleep not to have noticed something was wrong by this time. The meter locks up.

He's in a wrong goal, the RIs he's finding are, of course, wrong. They're being dragged from some other GPMs. You're getting GPMs dragged all over the place, and all hell is breaking loose in your auditing. And it is a big, pluperfect mess.

Actually, the number of things you can do wrong are few. The elements you are handling are few. The precision of the technique is great. There are no - there are very few variables in this technique. I don't know of any, as a matter of fact. It's something like, if you have a white salt shaker on the table, why, that means there is a salt shaker on the table. And if there is none on the table, then there is none on the table. I mean it's that type of testing stuff.

Certain things occur. You could even audit this stuff by ARC breaks.

Every time you tried to do something, the pc ARC breaks. You should - even you decide after a while that there's something wrong with that direction. You know, you could even - you could herd yourself down through this stuff with pc ARC breaks. A little bit hard on the pc, but you can do it.

You'll notice that when you undertake such and so an action the pc is not ARC broken. But when you undertake any other action than that, he is ARC broken. Then you can figure out from that what is correct or incorrect about the bank.

Every time you tell him to list more goals, his ARC break ceases. Every time - he's selling you all the time that you have found his goal, don't you see? But he's selling you at a high-pitched scream, see.

"What? You've already got this goal 'to eat.' You've already got this goal. And there it is. And I don't want you invalidating my goals all the time and everything. You know the horrible things that happen with regard to this sort of thing. You already got this goal and so forth."

And you say, "Well, we're going to list a few more goals."

And he sits there and he says, "Uh - to jump, to run, to ride a bicycle, to manicure my fingernails, and so forth, and so forth."

And you say, "Well, that's all right. We don't seem to be getting any reads on this particular list. Let's go back and take this goal,'to eat.'"

"Well, I told you all the time that the thing was the goal. It's the right goal. I mean, for Christ's sakes - could have told you a long time ago it's the right goal. What's..."

And you say, "Well, when he lists goals, he isn't ARC broken. Therefore, we have found a wrong goal." Slippy, see. You can use an ARC break to adjudicate it.

There are many ways of steering through it. Case analysis - here's another tip I better give you - is always done by blowdown and even then is about 50 percent reliable.

Case's analysis is always done by blowdown. Don't ever believe only the needle. Believe the blowdown. "Is this an actual GPM?" Tick. So what? You can buy ticks anyplace. Any watch company has lots of ticks, see? They're cheap. You can get them by the barrel-load. It means absolutely nothing. And you say, "Is this an actual GPM?"

Pseeeeeew. Little blowdown on the tone arm. Ah, yes. Yeah. That's an actual GPM. That's - we got some little confidence. There's a 50 percent chance that it's an actual GPM. Maybe - maybe better. Maybe 64 percent chance it's an actual GPM. Not 100 percent, but the blowdown gives you that chance. Tick gives you no chance at all. Forget it.

The case analysis you should really depend on in your analyses - results that you should really depend on - should be accompanied by a blowdown, particularly after an ARC breaky, upset period. You finally found something wrong and then you finally found what was right about this and you find out what was right and it goes pseeeeur.

Well, you've got a 64 percent chance that that was what it was, see? And you got a 36 percent chance that it wasn't. And that, having accepted this, you will now be in just as much soup as before, if not more so.

But the blowdown - the blowdown is what you want to put your paws on. That's what you want to have count. A little bit of a blowdown. Doesn't matter whether it's a big blowdown or a little blowdown, you know. But let's make sure the tone arm moves when you ask that signal question, see? Move that tone arm with the question.

If you don't move the tone arm with a question, regard it with a very jaundiced eye. Stuff like, "Is this list complete?" I might believe it if I had a half-a-division tone arm action.

See, I say, "Is this list complete?" Get a half a division tone arm action. Well, that particular question, I think there's a 30 percent chance in favor of the list being complete. Cynicism is the rule of the day on case analysis.

You do everything possible to overrule the tremendous opportunity for error in case analysis because it's only as good as the pc can do. It's only as good as the pc can itsa and it's just a little bit sub-itsa below where the pc is actually itsaing, don't you see?

And this also is attended by pc's skill. It's horrifying to realize that the only people who will ever get to be OT are Class IVs. That's horrifying. Nobody else will. Nobody will make it. I know that sounds horrible. It sounds absolutely - I saw an old-timer look up back of here and say what? What? It's true, though. You'd have to practically educate a guy into the whole skills of auditing before he knew where he was going.

His case would have to be as cleaned up as that level of case would clean up a case, and so forth, before he could head in that direction with any reliability. Because let me tell you, you took some guy who isn't educated and doesn't know what's happened to him about it, you wrap him around a telegraph pole, you have wrapped him around it with adequate mystery to spin him.

He doesn't know what the hell's happened to him now. He has no confidence in anything and so forth. Now, I'm afraid you're not going to make OTs out of non-Scientologists.

So it takes a lot of education to bring them up to that level. So your case analysis is actually as reliable as the pc's educational standards.

Does he really know what an actual GPM is? Well, that's the only read you're going to get. "Is this an actual GPM?" CLank!

Supposing he thinks actual GPMs are actually something that you implant people with.

So your case analysis is as reliable as the education of the pc, and it is reliable as the pc's itsa.

Now the - you - it goes a little bit lower than the pc's itsa, but it's actual fact depends on the pc's itsa because the distance between the pc's itsa and the sub-itsa is a constant distance.

Well, that's why case analysis has to be regarded with a jaundiced eye. Every once in a while, you're going to make a mistake and you're going to blame case analysis and its frailties for your own errors. You'll forget to ask some salient question. You will become so expert - become so expert a cook you see, that you don't bother to light the fire or something in order to cook the beans, you know? Some little mistake like this. You forget to ask if it's an actual GPM, you see. You just slip somewhere and then you'll say, "See, case analysis let me down." Well, case analysis will let you down often enough without assistance. You don't have to help it out any.

All right. Well, I've tried to give you some very factual data about the running and handling of these OT processes and you noticed today I have not been using the designation which we've been using because the designations that we have been using have become antiquated.

And we're grouping up all auditing skills, techniques, technologies and levels of auditing into new groups. And I found out we didn't have enough groups and so your classifications are about to go up. Isn't that nice? Now you can really swank it over people.

Thank you.

(end of lecture)