6410C27 SHSpec-44 The Failed Case

     The Book of Case Remedies handles the failed case.  Look up the symptoms
and handle as directed.  But there is one case that will always be a failed
case.  The reason lies not with the auditor, scientology, or the tech.

     In 1954, LRH researched people who had turned against dianetics and
scientology to find the common denominator.  He found about twenty-one people
who had been in dianetics and scientology but had worked against it and caused
a lot of trouble.  Seventeen of the twenty-one had criminal records.  Also,
they had had auditing but had gotten no case change.  There might have been
twenty-one for twenty-one, but LRH got tired of looking after seventeen.
Recently, LRH found out the other factor in the totally failed case:  "The
totally failed case commits more overts between sessions [in PT] than can be
picked up in a session."  He is the "continuous PT overts" case.  He doesn't
as-is things well.  He takes a long time to get at anything.  He takes no
responsibility for anything.  He is hard to get in comm with.  Etc.  In
Freudian terms, he is the "detached case" [Dissociative Reaction? Schizoid
personality?] He admits to fantastic crimes, but doesn't really consider he
did them.  He is really saying, "Society forced me to commit ... ," or "My
hand stole the watch ... ," etc.  He says, "I picked up the pocket book," but
means "My hand picked up the pocket book."

     Such a case can't as-is the overt because there is a lie in his statement
of it.  It is incomplete.  He says, "My hand stole the watch ."  but the
correct statement is, "I saw the watch and stole it with my hand."  He has put
an alter-is on the line.  He didn't do it.  It "happened".

     Then there is the guy who is putting up a social front and never admits
anything he has done, because he doesn't want to look bad to the auditor.
This is partly a matter of getting in a good comm line.  You can get real
overts off the case by asking for horrendously exaggerated overts, [like,
"Have you murdered any little children lately?"].  It is a trick.  For another
gradient, you can ask, "What are you willing to talk to me about?"

     (You can audit all the sexual overts off the case that you like, without
restimulating GPM's, because "sex" is not in the GPM's or end-words as such,
though it forms locks on GPM end-words and root-words.  Sex is a humanoid
activity, and the GPM words don't necessarily refer to humanoid activities.)

     But the real failed case commits so many overts in PT you don't have time
in session to get them all off.  The failed case is continually committing
real PT overts.  He is so irresponsible that the overts don't react on the
meter, because they are just not potentially real to him.

     The source of small reads in R6 is running the PC where he isn't, which
means leaving BPC where he is.  If he is getting no reads on any list you are
using to correct this situation, either the items on the lists are unreal,
because he's got no reality on GPM's, being totally uneducated, or he's got it
all suppressed.

     If you are running a prepcheck on a PC, and he runs out of answers on a
button, e.g."  suppress", don't push him on that button just because you are
getting TA on it.  You will just restimulate the rest of the buttons!  TA
action, in a prepcheck, is on the process [i.e. the whole prepcheck], not on
the button you happen to be running at the moment.  If the prepcheck is not
flat when you reach the end of the buttons, go through it again.  "I know of
no auditing action where a PC who has been getting proper TA action in the
session, who says, 'I don't have any more answers to it,' has ever had any
further answers to it."  There are indicators in the physical appearance and
meter behavior of the PC who is running O/W, that there are more answers than
he is willing to give.  Only in this case do you press the question home.
This is not applicable to PTP's.  Withheld PTP's won't hurt the PC.  They will
only be withheld if they are connected to an overt, and you will get that on
O/W buttons.  So watch out for overrun.

     The slowest rate of change, in a PC, is at the start of the case.  The
case that is winning accelerates in rate of change, as you audit it up the
line.  Cognitions of a given magnitude come faster.  Comm lag decreases.  So
you have to be careful not to overrun the PC.  The failed case, however,
doesn't change at all.  You can check rate of change of a case by checking to
see how many hours it takes for a person to have a fundamental cog of some
kind.  At first, perhaps, it takes 25 hours.  Later, perhaps, it only takes an
hour.  Then you get the person who audits almost by inspection.  The increased
rate of cognition goes along with a decrease in the comm lag.  Another thing
you will notice is the PC's physical posture and mannerisms.  If there is no
change in these over time, if the PC keeps returning to a posture or
mannerism, then he is not experiencing a rate of change of progress.  Another
bad indicator in this respect is when a non-optimum condition persists.  When
you see that, you know that the case needs remedying.  The other bad
indicators would be there, too.  As an auditing supervisor, you should expect
to see some change within a few days.

     One way to spot what overts the failed case is committing between
sessions is to listen for what he complains of in others.  The way you would
handle the failed case would be to extend your zone of influence to include
everywhere the case goes between sessions, for long enough to prevent the
continuous overts, long enough to pull the PC out of it.  This would be a very
thoroughgoing solution and change, but it is about all you could do.  You do
what you can.  There is no fast process to undercut the case, either.  The
furthest south process you could use to benefit the case would be
justifications.  But you still have to get a comm line established first.

     Commoner than the continuous PT overt case is the person who continually
committed overts in the past and has this in restimulation.  The case that has
lots of past overts but isn't doing them in PT is easier to handle.  The
proper approach to this case is:

     1.  Get in comm with the PC.

     2.  Get more and more overts, on a gentle gradient.

If the case keeps getting off the same overt, it has become a problem, as far
as the mechanics of it go.  A problem is postulate-counter-postulate.
Therefore it floats in time.  This is a problem about the overt.  It wasn't an
overt, in his view.  It was justified, so, in this situation, you can use:

     1.  "What have you done?"

     2.  "How have you justified it?"

  or 3.  "How wasn't that an overt?"

This is not a repetitive process.  Ask, "What have you done that was a harmful
act?", and really get an answer that both of you agree was a real overt.  This
is not a repetitive question.  It is one question that might take 25 hours of
arguing back and forth about "What is an overt?", etc. -- chitter-chat -- to
get answered.  When you've got it, then ask, "How was that not an overt?", and
keep going on that one for as long as it takes to really get that answered.
You want to get "what he really thought was unharmful about it....  Why he
really had to do it."  At the end of this process, he will really cog.  Don't
run these two questions as a repetitive process.  It can take a long time to
get them answered.  You are asking the questions right into the guts of
aberration.  You are not going up on it on some gradient, hoping some accident
will occur.  You are going right down the center of the road, after something
that answered that question.

     An unchanging condition comes from a postulate-counter-postulate.  So "an
overt which created ... or ... sought to solve an obsessive problem, hangs in
time and becomes both an overt act and a PTP." Most overts are committed as
solutions.  This gives you another inroad to the case that keeps committing PT
overts.  Handle the overt as a PTP that the PC is trying to solve.  You could
find out, "What PTP are you trying to solve with overts?" Or, "What have you
done recently that was pretty anti-social?", then "What problem were you
trying to solve by doing that?" It would be an odd-ball problem.  The trouble
with such a case is that you are likely only to get a bunch of motivators.

     Repetitive questions don't work if the question you ask the PC or his
answer to it isn't real to him.  The fact that the PC is out of comm with you
makes finding the PTP that the PC's overt is intended to solve uncertain of
result.  However, on ordinary cases, it works very well to find what PTP the
guy is trying to solve with his overts, and doing so blows lots of overts into
view that the PC might never otherwise have suspected.  Not all overts are
efforts to solve problems.  Some are accidental; some are out of
misunderstoods.  Getting the justifications off unlocks the problem aspect,
takes a lot of locks off, etc.  The PC will cognite on the problem, and the
effect can sometimes be magical.

     None of the above will work with a truly failed case type, although it
may sometimes nudge such a case.  The only thing you can do with the failed
case is to restrain him somehow from committing overts, long enough to get him
audited, long enough so that he will quit committing the continuous PT
overts.