6205C29 SHSpec-152  Question and Answer Period

     Routine 3G4 is another untested process that might get used on cases
which don't get plowed up enough with 3GAXX: You find a goal, then find a goal
that would oppose it, then do another assessment for goals that would not
oppose it, then assess for goals that would want that goal.  You get four
goals that all tick alike.  Then you list all four and you would theoretically
get the four items, which are actually two items, in the same way as in
3GAXX.  I can't say what the life expectancy for this process is; it is
probably longer than 3GA.

     In answer to the question, "Since we don't have a modifier now, how do
you keep a GPM keyed in if it should key out and you get a free needle?":
Actually, the modifier is only the label on one of the items that you are
listing on that listing.  You are still fighting the same package as in
Routine 3D.  By listing each one of those lines, you keep it pulled in as much
as you would anyway.  You might have more trouble keeping things stirred up
for the second goal, but by then the PC should be able to approach the GPM
more closely, so there should be no trouble.

     Stabilization is just going on and on, getting more goals and more
four-lists, until you couldn't get the meter to read if you hit the guy over
the head with a club.  You are not likely to find the guy flying off in a
key-out, because every time you find a goal, you will wrap your paws around
every element of it that was part of the GPM.  Stabilization is getting rid of
any masses the clear might run into which would get him re-involved with the
bank.  Formerly [before stabilization] he could have gotten enturbulated
again.  But by doing 3GA again and again, you will get to where there is no
GPM to key in.  It is so intricate to keep the GPM there at all in the first
place.  As you get rid of more packages, you get rid of things that could
cause the person to go unclear again.

     Something else can be done with the person: Drill him into the
re-acquisition of skills.  That is not doing anything to a clear.  It is going
into OT, which is the recovery of skills of the thetan.  Clearing is just
getting the bricks off the track, not the recovery of skills.  It looks to the
thetan as if he will get his head knocked off if he does certain things.  What
really knocks his head off is his inability to reach sustainability, which is
inherent in his bank, not in the physical universe.  As long as he has
aberrations, he will key himself in by indulging in such exercises.  If there
is nothing to key in, he won't get keyed in.

     Prepchecking is the best set-up procedure, assuming a very competent
auditor.  A Problems Intensive [See HCOB 9Nov61 "The Problems Intensive -- Use
of the Prior Confusion" and p. 134, above.  Note that, as used at the time of
this tape, prepchecking was used in place of sec checking, in the Problems
Intensive.] is like a junior grade prepcheck, but it can be done by a
not-very-skilled auditor.  With a skilled auditor, prepchecking and CCH's are
by far the best, difficult though it is to teach auditors to prepcheck well.
"I've been experimenting the past many weeks, trying to work out some
repetitive process which could be used at lower levels to get some benefit.
There is a lot of value to it, no doubt.  [This involves] a three-way bracket:
'What have you suppressed? / What has another suppressed? / What have others
suppressed?'.  Same phrasing with 'invalidated'; same with 'failed to reveal';
same with 'been careful of'.  You've got these buttons, and you could run them
back and forth and undoubtedly get somewhere....  In 37 1/2 hours, you could get
as far with this as I could in one hour of prepchecking."

The Problems Intensive, using the changes list, getting the biggest
self-determined change, finding the chronic PTP, and so on, gives you a way to
do something for the PC, particularly if you are not very skilled at
prepchecking.  But if you are, it is to some degree a waste of time.  There
are pcs who don't respond to much else besides prepchecking.  The "changes
list, prior confusion, people in it, prepcheck them" route is very interesting
to the PC and gives wins, but otherwise it is an excursion.  It is also useful
for teaching the auditor to assess, because you get everybody the PC knew
prior to the time of the change.  This means that the auditor learns to list.

The importance of havingness is that if the PC's havingness goes down, he will
have odd reactions.  You check, "Look around the room and tell me if you can
have anything." If it reads, turn down the sensitivity and get a can squeeze.
Havingness being down brings masses in on the body, and the PC will get reads
with small body motions, as when he looks around and moves even his eyes.  The
PC is a bundle of piano wire with masses packed in against the body.  With low
havingness, these masses are likely to start talking; circuits turn on.

The reason a missed withhold reads with a double tick is that the person is
pulling back against himself, pulling masses against the body, the same as
when havingness is down.  Extreme no-havingness results in getting needle
action when the PC moves his ear.  Watch it in Routine 3 especially.  You
don't want to do goals assessing on a low-havingness PC.  When you find the
right havingness process, the drop on the second squeeze, after a few
commands, should be a third to a half a dial drop.