There is another style of auditing between Level 0 and Level 2 [See HCOB
6Nov64 "Styles of Auditing"].  It is a version of Guiding Style, without
repetitive commands.  It is a guiding style that goes into itsa: coffee-shop
style.  [LRH is talking about Guiding Secondary Style, here.  This is outlined
in HCOB 12Nov64 "Scientology II.  PC Level 0-IV; Definition Processes", p. 2.]

      (You can herd PCs into line by multiple acknowledgment.)

     The styles of auditing parallel the return of self-determinism to the
auditor.  Progression upwards through the styles of auditing goes along with
an increase in the auditor's ability to occupy a viewpoint and therefore
observe.  The error in training is to demand more of the lower-level auditor
than he can possibly deliver, e.g. having a Level 0 auditor finding out from
the PC what is troubling him, before having him talk about it.  Listen style
is the hardest for the instructor to judge and, at first, for the student to
do, because it is so simple that the student adds all sorts of complexities.
You must adjust your supervision to this simplicity.

     There are three [actually six] barriers to case improvement:

     1.  PTP's.

     2.  PTP's LD.

     3.  Overts and withholds.

     4.  Overts and withholds LD.

     5.  ARC breaks.

     6.  ARC breaks LB.

These are potentially present in any session at any level.  We don't try to
handle them at Level 0 and 1.  They come into action at Level II, with the
things given in The Book of Case Remedies.  The woof and warp of any case is
composed of a certain mental makeup of combination of a chronic or continuous
nature.  In any PC, there is a chronic case mess-up.  Then you have those
things that keep the basic aberrations from unraveling.  These are the things
that keep the case from being entered and that prevent the PC from being in
session, given that he does have an auditor.  Any of these things can be
chronic or immediate, continuous or temporary.

     An overt act will go into action only when a restraint is put on it, in
the form of some sort of withhold.  The person becomes guilty, etc.  Since you
have to have secrecy, you have to have censure.  [And with no censure, there
is no no need for secrecy.] When a being doesn't think an action is good, he
goes into being made guilty.  Hence the overt-motivator sequence.   [Hence the
connection between the feeling of guilt and, on the one hand, feeling that one
has done wrong, and, on the other hand, the feeling that one will be
punished.] The overt is prior to the withhold.  You should classify overt,
withhold, and missed withhold processes all under "overts".  There are lots of
things to know about overts and lots of processes for running them.

     The present existence of a problem is worse than its problematic nature.
The PTP's floatingness in time is what is peculiar to it and what makes it get
in the way of auditing.  It was looking at the PTP that got LRH into
discovering GPM's.  On a political-philosophical level, the problem appears as
dialectical materialism, which says that force vs. force produces ideas.
Dialectical materialism is making a philosophy of and deifying the problem.
Although dialectical materialism says that force vs. force produces ideas, it
is actually the other way 'round, since, actually, idea vs. idea produces
force.  The idea that force makes ideas is just an expression of the Man from Mud theory.  If neither postulate of a problem overcomes the other, force accumulates on them, and the forces will counter-oppose.  If they are in balance, they will hang up in time.  Only those problems that are held in this delicate balance hang up and become PTP's.  To get rid of a problem, one postulate or the other must give way.  If one side can overbalance the other, the problem slips and doesn't remain a PTP.  [Past problems may be "solved" by overbalancing, without really being resolved.  These may still exist in the past, but they are not floating up to PT.  PTP's still have an exact balance on both sides.] The Cold War of Russia vs. the U.S. has slipped, since the idea of co-existence crept into the U.S.S.R..

     If, as an auditor, you realize that not every problem needs to be
handled, but only the ones that are so delicately balanced, your job will seem
easier, since there have been lots of problems in a thetan's whole existence.
The balance is actually so delicate that any little nudge will change it and
let it slip away.  You sometimes see a PC struggling to hold onto a PTP that
has been a way of life, after the auditor has knocked it off its pins.  The PC
has still got tremendous accumulated forces involved in its solution.

     A routine is something you use to change an aspect of the PC's case.  It
always works, unless there is a PTP, overt, or ARC break in the way.  An ARC
break is actually a tickling of some major restimulation of something in R6.
List 1 is adequate to key it out.  It is a direct short-circuit into the
bank.  There are actually very few things in chronic restimulation in the
bank.  The primary one is difficulties with communication.  That is the
primary end-word that gets into restimulation.  There is no real reason why
anyone should communicate with anyone about anything.  When you run, "Recall a
time you communicated," you are actually running 268 GPM's all at once.  So no
wonder the PC feels better afterwards!  And when something goes wrong with
your comm cycle, that upsets the PC.  Exactly what the PC does at that point
is probably the root-word.  When you quiet it down by locating and indicating
the BPC, you just drop it back to its former status.  You haven't done
anything for the PC's case, but you have made him auditable.

     The big buttons in the bank are:

     1.  Communication.

     2.  Time.

     3.  Havingness.

These things, like time, problems, and bits of items like havingness are the
things that are in chronic restimulation.  But the aberrative value of
havingness, compared to communication and time, is miniscule.  Communication
is 'way back on the series.  Communication and time are in restimulation all
the time, or, for one thing, there wouldn't be any time.  That is one reason
why waiting is so upsetting.  That means that you go after ARC breaks with a
feather touch to key them out.  Don't audit them, or you will mess the PC up
by keying in "communication" harder.

     Knowing that these three phenomena are what keep a case from being
audited keeps you from being confused by all the possible manifestations,
which do, in fact, boil down to these categories [PTP's, O/W, and ARC
breaks].  The PC can be a troublesome case, a trouble source, because he has
someone on the other side of him who doesn't want him to improve.  He will try
to get better to prove the other person wrong, which gives him a PTP,
resulting in no case gain.

     Overts carry a lot of different reactions, depending on things like the
person's responsibility level.  They are a source of change, not fixedness, in
a case.  The case shifts, does well at times, gets sporadic results, etc.  The
PC won't let himself get any better.  He has odd computations, like the idea
that if he gets strong, he might commit overts.  You would get the same
manifestation of roller-coaster gain in a PTS condition, if there is someone
in the person's environment who keeps knocking him down whenever he gets
better.  The mechanism is a withhold.

     When a person has a tremendous number of overts that remain constant, he
is trying to solve a problem with overts.  That is the usual reason for the
overts.  The overt can be on the part of the person or of society, over the
course of an intensive or a longer cycle.  You have to get sufficient gain to
get the PC up high enough so that the gates don't get closed in your face, by
his committing more overts before you get to audit him again.  The reason the
psychiatrist damages people is that his problem is that of preventing people
from damaging other people.  Your problem, then, would be a social problem, in
dealing with the continuous PT overt case.  You would have to solve this
problem before you could make progress with the case.  The no-change overt
case goes up and down a little, unlike the PTP case.  The PC may refrain from
committing overts for awhile.  So overts cause change on graphs constantly,
but not steadily.  With a fluctuating graph, you could also be facing a PTS
situation.  The main problem relating to overts is whether the PC will be
damaged by motivators.

     Running overts can backfire, if you let the PC get off only whole-track
overts, because they are safe, or miniscule overts, critical thoughts, etc.
Such a PC is dodging a continuous PT chain of overts.

     The PC with continual out-rud is ARC breaky if you try to get him to put
his attention elsewhere, because when you take his attention away from the
charge of the out-rud, it hits him.  He's got to have it remedied before he
can be run on a routine.  Fortunately, not all PCs need much remedying.  The
Book of Case Remedies is basically just a batch of methods for putting in
ruds.

     You can be as nice as you want about pulling withholds, but remember that
it must be done, and that fact may put you beyond niceness once in awhile,
e.g. you might have to say something like, "OK.  Come back for some more
auditing when you have decided to tell me what you have done.  That's LF'ing!"