   
   CLASS VIII CONFIDENTIAL COURSE PACK PART 5/16


CLASS VIII COURSE PACK

CONTENTS:

Part 5

46. HCOB  21 MAY 62 MISSED WITHHOLDS, ASKING ABOUT
47. HCOB  25 MAY 62 E-METER INSTANT READS
48. HCOB   2 JUL 62 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS
49. HCOB   4 JUL 62 BULLETIN CHANGES
50. HCOB  21 JUL 62 URGENT - INSTANT READS
51. HCOB  10 JUL 64 OVERTS-ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING
52. HCOB  12 JUL 64 MORE ON O/Ws
53. HCOB   8 SEP 64 OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM?
54. HCOB   4 APR 65 ARC BREAKS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS
55. HCOB  21 FEB 66 DEFINITION PROCESSES
56. HCOB   5 AUG 68 CHANGE OF COMMANDS - OVERT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE
57. HCOB   3 SEP 78 DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM
58. HCOB  10 AUG 76 R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN
59. HCOB  17 APR 77 RECURRING WITHHOLDS AND OVERTS


**************************************************

CLASS VIII CONFIDENTIAL COURSE PACK PART 5/16

**************************************************

46. HCOB  21 MAY 62 MISSED WITHHOLDS, ASKING ABOUT


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise

MISSED WITHHOLDS,

ASKING ABOUT

Since a pc can give a motivator response to the question,
&quot;Have I missed a withhold on you?&quot; and since a pc's case
can be worsened by permitting the pc to get off motivators
rather than overts, the following becomes a must in asking
for Missed Withholds: &quot;What have you done that I haven't
found out about?&quot;

Use &quot;done&quot;, not &quot;missed a withhold&quot; in all missed w/h questions.

The prior confusion aspect will be found to operate also if
this is followed and the missed withhold will blow.

In short use done not &quot;missed withhold&quot; in rudiments and
middle rudiments questions and stress doingness rather than
withholdingness.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.cden
Copyright 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************


47. HCOB  25 MAY 62 E-METER INSTANT READS


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 MAY 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise

E-METER

INSTANT READS

An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle
which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced
by the auditor.

The reaction of the needle may be any reaction except
&quot;nul&quot;. An instant read may be any change of characteristic
providing it occurs instantly. The absence of a read at the
end of the major thought shows it to be nul.

All prior reads and latent reads are ignored. These are the
result of minor thoughts which may or may not be
restimulated by the question.

Only the instant read is used by the auditor. Only the
instant read is cleared on rudiments, What questions, etc.

The instant read may consist of any needle reaction, rise,
fall, speeded rise, speeded fall, double tick (dirty
needle), theta bop or any other action so long as it occurs
at the exact end of the major thought being expressed by
the auditor. If no reaction occurs at exactly that place
(the end of the major thought) the question is nul.

By &quot;major thought&quot; is meant the complete thought being
expressed in words by the auditor. Reads which occur prior
to the completion of the major thought are &quot;prior reads&quot;.

Reads which occur later than its completion are &quot;latent reads&quot;.

By &quot;minor thought&quot; is meant subsidiary thoughts expressed
by words within the major thought. They are caused by the
reactivity of individual words within the full words. They
are ignored.

Example: &quot;Have you ever injured dirty pigs?&quot;

To the pc the words &quot;you&quot;, &quot;injured&quot; and &quot;dirty&quot; are all
reactive. Therefore, the minor thoughts expressed by these
words also read on the meter.

The major thought here is the whole sentence. Within this
thought are the minor thoughts &quot;you&quot;, &quot;injured&quot; and &quot;dirty&quot;.

Therefore the E-Meter needle may respond this way: &quot;Have
you (fall) ever injured (speeded fall) dirty (fall) pigs
(fall)?&quot;

Only the major thought gives the instant read and only the
last fall (bold-italic type in the sentence above)
indicates anything. If that last reaction was absent, the
whole sentence is nul despite the prior falls.

You can release the reactions (but ordinarily would not) on
each of these minor thoughts.

Exploring these prior reads is called &quot;compartmenting the
question&quot;.

Paying attention to minor thought reads gives us laughable
situations as in the case, written in 1960, of &quot;getting
P.D.H.ed by the cat&quot;. By accepting these prior reads one
can prove anything. Why? Because Pain and Drug and Hypnosis
are minor thoughts within the major thought: &quot;Have you ever 
been P.D.H.ed by a cat?&quot; The inexpert auditor would believe 
such a silly thing had happened. But notice that if each 
minor thought is cleaned out of the major thought it no 
longer reacts as a whole fact. If the person on the meter 
had been P.D.H.ed by a cat, then only the discovery of 
the origin of the whole thought would clean up the whole 
thought.

Pcs also think about other things while being asked
questions and these random personal restimulations also
read before and after an instant read and are ignored. Very
rarely, a pc's thinks react exactly at the end of a major
thought and so confuse the issue, but this is rare.

We want the read that occurs instantly after the last
syllable of the major thought without lag. That is the only
read we regard in finding a rudiment in or out, to find if
a goal reacts, etc.

That is what is called an &quot;instant read&quot;.

There is a package rudiment question in the half truth,
etc. We are doing four rudiments in one and therefore have
four major thoughts in one sentence. This packaging is the
only apparent exception but is actually no exception. It's
just a fast way of doing four rudiments in one sentence.

A clumsy question which puts &quot;in this session&quot; at the end
of the major thought can serve the auditor badly. Such
modifiers should come before the sentence, &quot;In this session
have you ........?&quot;

You are giving the major thought directly to the reactive
mind. Therefore any analytical thought will not react
instantly.

The reactive mind is composed of:

1. Timelessness.

2. Unknownness.

3. Survival.

The meter reacts on the reactive mind, never on the
analytical mind. The meter reacts instantly on any thought
restimulated in the reactive mind.

If the meter reacts on anything, that datum is partly or
wholly unknown to the preclear.

An auditor's questions restimulate the reactive mind. This
reacts on the meter.

Only reactive thoughts react instantly.

You can &quot;groove in&quot; a major thought by saying it twice. On
the second time (or third time if it is longer) you will
see only the instant read at the exact end. If you do this
the prior reads drop out leaving only the whole thought.

If you go stumbling around in rudiments or goals trying to
clean up the minor thoughts you will get lost. In sec
checking you can uncover material by &quot;compartmenting the
question&quot; but this is rarely done today. In rudiments, What
questions, et al, you want the instant read only. It occurs
exactly at the end of the whole thought. This is your whole
interest in cleaning a rudiment or a What question. You
ignore all prior and latent reactions of the needle.

The exceptions to this rule are:

1. &quot;Compartmenting the question&quot;, in which you use the
prior reads occurring at the exact end of the minor
thoughts (as above in the pigs sentence) to dig up
different data not related to the whole thought.

2. &quot;Steering the pc&quot; is the only use of latent or random
reads. You see a read the same as the instant read
occurring again when you are not speaking but after you
have found a whole thought reacting. You say &quot;there&quot; or
&quot;that&quot; and the pc, seeing what he or she is looking at as
you say it, recovers the knowledge from the reactive bank
and gives the data and the whole thought clears or has to
be further worked and cleared.

You can easily figure-figure yourself half to death trying
to grapple with meter reads unless you get a good reality
on the instant read which occurs at the end of the whole
expressed thought and neglect all prior and latent reads
except for steering the pc while he gropes for the answer
to the question you asked.

That's the whole of reading an E-Meter needle.

(Two Saint Hill lectures of 24 May 1962 cover this in full.)

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.rd 
Copyright  1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

************** 

48. HCOB   2 JUL 62 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 JULY 1962

Franchise

REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS

How to Get the Rudiments In

I am in a hurry to get this bulletin to you and to get it
into use for all except CCH sessions.

For a long time I've been urging you to get rudiments in.
For the past ten days I have been working hard to analyze
and resolve why you sometimes cannot.

Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the
presence of a monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go
gradiently dull in the presence of out rudiments. If you
fail to get one IN then the outness of the next one reads
faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you'll miss the
rudiment's outness and there goes your session.

To get over these difficulties, I have developed a Model
Session that can be used, in the rudiments, as a series of
repetitive processes.

Then, with this, I've developed Repetitive Rudiments.

The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks
the rudiments question of the pc until the pc says there is
no further answer. At this point the auditor says, &quot;I will
check that on the meter.&quot; And asks the question again. If
it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to the
answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again
lays the meter aside and asks the question of the pc as
above until the pc has no answer. The auditor again says,
&quot;I will check that on the meter&quot; and does so.

The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is
clean of any instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962
for Instant Read).

The cycle:

1. Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no answer.

2. Consult meter for a hidden answer.

3. If meter reads use it to steer (&quot;that&quot; &quot;that&quot; each time
the meter flicks) the pc to the answer.

4. Lay aside the Meter and do I and 2 and 3.

The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question.

One does not &quot;bridge out&quot; or use &quot;two more commands&quot;. When
the meter test of the question gets no instant read, the
auditor says, &quot;Do you agree that that is clean?&quot; covertly
looking at the needle as he or she says &quot;clean&quot;. If the
question really isn't clean, there will be an instant read
on &quot;Do you agree the question is clean?&quot; If there is such a
read, do 1, 2 and 3 again.

The trick here is the definition of &quot;In Session&quot;. If the pc
is in session the meter will read.

If the pc is partially out the meter will read poorly, and
the rudiment will not register and the rudiment will get 
missed. But with the pc in session the meter will read well 
for the auditor.

Thus you get the pc to talk to the auditor about his own
case, the definition of &quot;in session&quot;, before consulting the
meter by using the repetitive process.

What a relief to the pc to have his rudiments in! And
goodbye ARC breaks and no auditing results!

Use this system always on the beginning rudiments for every
type of session.

Use this system on the Middle Rudiments in a havingness and
sometimes on the Prepcheck type of session. But seldom on a
Routine 3 (goals) type of session.

Use this system always on the End Rudiments of a havingness
session. Do not use it on the End Rudiments of a Prepcheck
or Routine 3 type of session unless the session has been
full of screaming pc (which with this system it won't be).

Havingness Type Session:

Repetitive Rudiments System on Beginning, Middle and End Rudiments.

Prepcheck Type Session:

Repetitive Rudiments on Beginning and sometimes Middle
Rudiments. Ask End Rudiments against meter as in step 2 and
3 of cycle (Fast Checking, see below).

Routine 3 Type Session:

Use Repetitive Rudiments on Beginning Rudiments. Use 2 and
3 only (Fast Checking) for Middle and End Rudiments unless
Session very rough.

So that's where Repetitive auditing processes wind up.
Addressed to rudiments! A tip-you can ARC break a session
by overuse of Middle Rudiments on Routine 3 processes.
Never use the Middle Rudiments just because the pc is
talking about his or her own case. That's the definition of
In Session. Use Middle Rudiments in Routine 3 when you have
not had any meter needle response on three goals read three
times (not one goal read disturbed the needle). Then get
your Middle Rudiments in and cover the first consecutive
nul goal above (the three that gave no response). Don't use
Middle Ruds just because 3 goals went nul. Only if no
reading of a goal disturbed the needle for three goals in a
row. Also use Middle Ruds when the pc &quot;can't think of any
more&quot; in listing of goals or items. Don't use every time
you shift lists now. Only if the pc &quot;can't list more&quot;.

--------------

In Prepchecking use Middle Ruds Repetitively after 3 Zero
questions have each been nul on a list of Zeros and recheck
those Zeros if Middle Ruds were out. Use Middle Ruds after
each What question was nulled and check the What question
again and rework it if alive. Also check the Zero questions
if a What went nul. If a Zero advanced to a What, both What
and Zero must be checked for nullness and found nul before
leaving them.

One Middle Rudiments use may suffice for both unless one
was found still alive after the Middle Ruds were gotten in.
Repair it and recheck if so.

FAST CHECKING

A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of steps 2 and
3 of the cycle done over and over.

Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up
only what reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One
does this as many times as is necessary to get a clean
needle. But one still says, &quot;Do you agree that that is
clean?&quot; and catches up the disagreement by getting the
additional answers. When both the question and the
agreement are seen to be clean, the question is left.

In using Fast Checking NEVER SAY, &quot;THAT STILL READS.&quot;
That's a flunk. Say, &quot;There's another read here.&quot;

-----------------

You cannot easily handle a transistor type meter more
sensitive than a Mark IV. The needle would be so rapid in
its swings you would find it nearly impossible to keep it
centred.

Therefore a more sensitive meter was no answer. The TR 1 of
many auditors lacks any great impingement. And this is
remediable only when &quot;altitude&quot; can also be remedied. There
had to be a better answer to getting out rudiments to read
better on a Meter for all auditors and all pcs.

Repetitive Rudiments is the best answer to this.

(Note: I am indebted to Mary Sue, when I was working on
this problem, for calling my attention back to this system
which I originally developed for Sec Checking and where it
worked well.)

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :dr.cden
Copyright  1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************

49. HCOB   4 JUL 62 BULLETIN CHANGES


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JULY 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise

BULLETIN CHANGES

(Changes in Model Session HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962, 
HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962 and HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962)

(Note: Make changes on your copies of HCO Bulletin May 3,
1962, HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962 and HCO Bulletin July 3,
1962 so that students passing these bulletins do not have
to give the outdated data in their Theory Examination of
HCO Bulletins May 3, 1962, June 23, 1962 and July 3, 1962.
This HCO Bulletin July 4, 1962 is to be passed also in
Theory as it gives Why.)

HAVINGNESS RUD

The Room Rudiment is dropped from Model Session in the
Beginning Rudiments but remains in the End Rudiments.

Abolish its use in Beginning Rudiments. Retain its use in
End Rudiments in all HGCs, Academies, staff auditing and
the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

The Room Rudiment spoils the evenness of Repetitive
Rudiments and as often as not takes the pc's attention out
of session.

MISSED WITHHOLDS

The question: &quot;In this Session have you thought, said or
done anything I have failed to find out?&quot; is to be used in
all Model Sessions as a Random Rudiment to be used in
strict accordance with HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962, &quot;ARC
Breaks-Missed Withholds&quot;. It remains also as part of End
Rudiments.

The word &quot;about&quot; is deleted from the end rudiment question
as it is unnecessary.

Change your copy of HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962 to give the
above as the standard command.

This is used whenever the pc starts to get tense or tries
to explain urgently. Don't let the pc get into a full ARC
Break. See it coming. But if pc does get into a heavy ARC
Break it is of course used. It means the auditor was slow
observing.

Its use is always repetitive as in any other Repetitive Rudiment.

The &quot;said&quot; is added to prevent upset from poor TR4.

OVERT/WITHHOLD

At the start of any session, after starting the session,
General O/W may be used on any pc who is feeling ill or
misemotional before session beginning by reason of heavy
restimulation or acute PTPs. This is run only until the pc 
feels better and has cycled to present time. It is not run 
until both questions are nul (as given in HCO Bulletin 
July 3, 1962).

Use the cyclic type ending on the process.

Follow this action by Repetitive asking of the Missed
Withhold Rudiment above to prevent a missed withhold from
occurring.

END WORDS

The E-Meter has two holes in it. It does not operate on an
ARC broken pc and it can operate on the last word (thought
minor) only of a question. Whereas the question (thought
major) is actually nul.

A pc can be checked on the END WORDS OF RUDIMENTS QUESTIONS and the
charge on those single words can be made known and the
question turned around to avoid the last word's charge.

Example: &quot;Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?&quot;

The word &quot;difficulties&quot;, said to the pc by itself gives an
Instant Read. Remedy: Test &quot;Difficulties&quot;. If it reads as
itself then change the question to: &quot;Concerning your
difficulties, are you willing to talk to me?&quot; This will
only react when the pc is unwilling to do so.

Caution: This trouble of END WORDS reading by themselves
occurs mainly in the presence of weak TR1 and failure to
groove in the question to a &quot;thought major&quot;. With good TR1,
the END WORDS read only when the question is asked.

IN PRACTICE you only investigate this when the pc insists
strongly that the question is nul. Then test the end word
for lone reaction and turn the question about to make it
end with another end word (question not to have words
changed, only shifted in order). Then groove it in and test
it for Instant Read. If it still reacts as a question
(thought major) then of course, it is not nul and should be
answered.

CLEAN

Change HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962 to read: Do not pay
attention to any reaction consequent to asking &quot;Do you
agree that that is clean?&quot;

Trying to handle a reaction to this second question is too
involved for ordinary handling.

If the main question reads nul, ignore a read on &quot;Do you
agree that is clean?&quot; DOUBLE CLEANING

&quot;Cleaning&quot; a rudiment that has already registered nul gives
the pc a Missed Withhold of nothingness. His nothingness
was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A missed no-answer
then occurs. This is quite serious. Once you see a Rudiment
is clean, let it go. To ask again something already nul is
to leave the pc baffled-he has a missed withhold which is a
nothingness.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.aap.cden
Copyright  1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************

50. HCOB  21 JUL 62 URGENT - INSTANT READS


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1962

Franchise
Sthil Students

URGENT

INSTANT READS

(Adds to HCO Bulletin of 25 May 1962)

On Rudiments, repetitive or fast, the instant read can
occur anywhere within the last word of the question or when
the thought major has been anticipated by the preclear, and
must be taken up by the auditor. This is not a prior read.
Preclears poorly in session, being handled by auditors with
indifferent TR One, anticipate the instant read reactively
as they are under their own control. Such a read occurs
into the body of the last meaningful word in the question.
It never occurs latent.

In other words all reads occurring when the major thought
has been received by the preclear must be taken up and
cleaned. This does not mean all needle reactions occurring
while question is being asked must be cleaned, but it does
mean that the instant read is often to be found before the
last meaningful word is spoken fully, and it is
catastrophic not to take it up and clean it.

Goals and items are however read only when the read occurs
exactly at the end of the last word.

This will give you cleaner sessions and smoother needles.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.pm rd
Copyright  1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************

51. HCOB  10 JUL 64 OVERTS-ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JULY 1964

Remimeo
Sthil Students
Franchise

OVERTS-ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING

(STAR RATED except for Forbidden Words List)

It will be found in processing the various case levels that
running overts is very effective in raising the cause level
of a pc.

The scale, on actual tests of running various levels of pc
response, is seen to go something like this:

I ITSA - Letting a pc discuss his or her guilt feelings
about self with little or no auditor direction.

I ITSA - Letting a pc discuss his or her guilt feelings
about others, with little or no auditor direction.

II REPETITIVE O/W - Using merely &quot;In this lifetime what
have you done?&quot; &quot;What haven't you done?&quot; Alternate.

III ASSESSMENT BY LIST - Using existing or specially
prepared lists of possible overts, cleaning the meter each
time it reads on a

question and using the question only so long as it

reads.

IV JUSTIFICATIONS - Asking the pc what he or she has done
and then using that one instance (if applicable) finding
out why &quot;that&quot; was not an

overt.

Advice enters into this under the heading of instruction:
&quot;You're upset about that person because you've done
something to that person.&quot;

Dynamics also permissively enter into this above Level I
but the pc wanders around amongst them. In Level III one
can also direct attention to the various dynamics by first
assessing them and then using or preparing a list for the
dynamic found.

RESPONSIBILITY

There is no reason to expect any great pc responsibility
for his or her own overts below Level IV and the auditor
seeking to make the pc feel or take responsibility for
overts is just pushing the pc down. The pc will resent
being made feel guilty. Indeed the auditor may only achieve
that, not case gain. And the pc will ARC break.

At Level IV one begins on this subject of responsibility
but again it is indirectly the target.

There is no need now to run Responsibility in doing O/Ws.

The realization that one has really done something is a
return of responsibility and this gain is best obtained
only by indirect approach as in the above processes.


ARC BREAKS

The commonest cause of failure in running overt acts is
&quot;cleaning cleans&quot; whether or not one is using a meter. The
pc who really has more to tell doesn't ARC Break when the
Auditor continues to ask for one but may snarl and
eventually give it up.

On the other hand leaving an overt touched on the case and
calling it clean will cause a future ARC Break with the
auditor.

&quot;Have you told all?&quot; prevents cleaning a clean. On the
unmetered pc one can see the pc brighten up. On the meter
you get a nice fall if it's true that all is told.

&quot;Have I not found out about something?&quot; prevents leaving an
overt undisclosed. On the unmetered pc the reaction is a
sly flinch. On a metered pc it gives a read.

A pc's protest against a question will also be visible in
an unmetered pc in a reeling sort of exasperation which
eventually becomes a howl of pure bafflement at why the
auditor won't accept the answer that that's all. On a meter
protest of a question falls on being asked for: &quot;Is this
question being protested?&quot;

There is no real excuse for ARC Breaking a pc by

1. Demanding more than is there or

2. Leaving an overt undisclosed that will later make the pc
upset with the auditor.

FORBIDDEN WORDS

Do not use the following words in auditing commands. While
they can be used in discussion or nomenclature, for various
good reasons they should be avoided now in an auditing command:

Responsibility (ies)

Justification (s)

Withhold (s)

Failed (ures)

Difficulty (ies)

Desire (s)

Here

There

Compulsion (s) (ively)

Obsession (s) (ively)

No unusual restraint should be given these words. Just
don't frame a command that includes them. Use something else.

WHY OVERTS WORK

Overts give the highest gain in raising cause level because
they are the biggest reason why a person restrains himself
and withholds self from action.

Man is basically good. But the reactive mind tends to force
him into evil actions. These evil actions are instinctively
regretted and the individual tries to refrain from doing
anything at all. The &quot;best&quot; remedy, the individual thinks,
is to withhold. &quot;If I commit evil actions, then my best
guarantee for not committing is to do nothing whatever.&quot;
Thus we have the &quot;lazy&quot;, inactive person.

Others who try to make an individual guilty for committing
evil actions only increase this tendency to laziness.

Punishment is supposed to bring about inaction. And it
does. In some unexpected ways.

However, there is also an inversion (a turn about) where
the individual sinks below recognition of any action. The
individual in such a state cannot conceive of any action
and therefore cannot withhold action. And thus we have the
criminal who can't act really but can only re-act and is
without any self direction. This is why punishment does not
cure criminality but in actual fact creates it; the
individual is driven below withholding or any recognition
of any action. A thief's hands stole the jewel, the thief
was merely an innocent spectator to the action of his own
hands. Criminals are very sick people physically.

So there is a level below withholding that an auditor
should be alert to in some pcs, for these &quot;have no
withholds&quot; and &quot;have done nothing&quot;. All of which, seen
through their eyes is true. They are merely saying &quot;I
cannot restrain myself&quot; and &quot;I have not willed myself to do
what I have done.&quot;

The road out for such a case is the same as that for any
other case. It is just longer. The processes for levels
above hold also for such cases. But don't be anxious to see
a sudden return of responsibility, for the first owned
&quot;done&quot; that this person knows he or she has done may be
&quot;ate breakfast&quot;. Don't disdain such answers in Level II
particularly. Rather, in such people, seek such answers.

There is another type of case in all this, just one more to
end the list. This is the case who never runs O/W but
&quot;seeks the explanation of what I did that made it all
happen to me&quot;.

This person easily goes into past lives for answers. Their
reaction to a question about what they've done is to try to
find out what they did that earned all those motivators.
That, of course, isn't running the process and the auditor
should be alert for it and stop it when it is happening.

This type of case goes into its extreme on guilt. It dreams
up overts to explain why. After most big murders the police
routinely have a dozen or two people come around and confess.

You see, if they had done the murder, this would explain
why they feel guilty. As a terror stomach is pretty awful
grim to live with, one is apt to seek any explanation for
it if it will only explain it.

On such cases the same approach as given works, but one
should be very careful not to let the pc get off overts the
pc didn't commit.

Such a pc (recognizable by the ease they dive into the
extreme past) when being audited off a meter gets more and
more frantic and wilder and wilder in overts reported. They
should get calmer under processing, of course, but the
false overts make them frantic and hectic in a session. On
a meter one simply checks for &quot;Have you told me anything
beyond what really has occurred?&quot; Or &quot;Have you told me any
untruths?&quot;

The observation and meter guides given in this section are
used during a session when they apply but not
systematically such as after every pc answer. These
observations and meter guides are used always at the end of
every session on the pcs to whom they apply.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: nb. cden
Copyright  1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************

52. HCOB  12 JUL 64 MORE ON O/Ws


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JULY 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students

SCIENTOLOGY I to IV

MORE ON O/Ws

The Itsa processes for O/W are almost unlimited.

There is, however, the distinct must not at Level I, as at
upper Levels, DON'T RUN A PROCESS THAT MAKES THE PC FEEL
ACCUSED.

A pc will feel accused if he is run above his or her level.
And remember that temporary sags in level can occur such as
during ARC Breaks with the auditor or life.

A process can be accusative because it is worded too
strongly. It can be accusative to the pc because the pc
feels guilty or defensive anyway.

At Level I proper O/W processes can take up the troubles
that are described as peculiar to some pcs without getting
too personal about it.

Here are some varied Level I Processes:

&quot;Tell me some things you think you should not have done.&quot;

&quot;Tell me what you've done that got you into trouble.&quot;

&quot;What wouldn't you do over again?&quot;

&quot;What are some things a person shouldn't say?&quot;

&quot;What gets a person into trouble?&quot;

&quot;What have you done that you regret?&quot;

&quot;What have you said you wish you hadn't?&quot;

&quot;What have you advised others to do?&quot;

There are many more.

These at Level II all convert to repetitive processes.

At Level III such processes convert to lists.

At Level IV such processes convert to how they weren't
overts or weren't really done or justifications of one kind
or another.

Care should be taken not to heavily run an out-of-ARC type
process. This is the command which asks for out-of-Affinity
moments, out-of-Reality moments and out of-Communication
incidents.

All after charge is based on prior ARC. Therefore for a
withhold to exist there must have been communication
earlier. ARC incidents are basic on all chains. Out of ARC
are later on the chain. One has to get a basic to blow a
chain. Otherwise one gets recurring answers. (Pc brings up
same incident over and over as you don't have the basic on
the chain.) You can alternate an ARC command with an
out-of-ARC command. &quot;What have you done?&quot; (means one had to
reach for and contact) can be alternated with &quot;What haven't
you done?&quot; (means not reached for and not contacted).

But if one runs the out-of-ARC (not reached for and not
contacted) process only the pc will soon bog.

On the other hand an ARC process runs on and on with no bad
side effects, i.e. &quot;What have you done?&quot;

&quot;What bad thing have you done?&quot; is a mixture of ARC and
out-of-ARC. Done reached and contacted. Bad wished one hadn't.

So solely accusative commands upset the pc not because of
social status or insult but because a pc, particularly at
lower levels of case, wishes so hard he hadn't done it that
a real bad done is really a withhold and the pc not only
withholds it from the auditor but himself as well.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.cden
Copyright  1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************

53. HCOB   8 SEP 64 OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM?


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 SEPTEMBER 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students

LEVELS II to IV

OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM?

I recently made a very basic discovery on the subject of
overts and would like to rapidly make a note of it for the
record.

You can call this the &quot;Cycle of an Overt&quot;.

4. A being appears to have a motivator.

3. This is because of an overt the being has done.

2. The being committed an overt because he didn't
understand something.

1. The being didn't understand something because a word or
symbol was not understood.

Thus all caved-in conditions, illness, etc, can be traced
back to a misunderstood symbol, strange as that may seem.

It goes like this:

1. A being doesn't get the meaning of a word or symbol.

2. This causes the being to misunderstand the area of the
symbol or word (who used it whatever it applied to);

3. This causes the being to feel different from or
antagonize toward the user or whatever of the symbol and so
makes it all right to commit an overt;

4. Having committed the overt, the being now feels he has
to have a motivator and so feels caved in.

This is the stuff of which Hades is made. This is the trap.
This is why people get sick.

This is stupidity and lack of ability.

This is why Clay Table Auditing works.

Clearing a pc then consists only of locating the area of
the motivator, finding what was misunderstood and getting
the word made into clay and explained. The overts blow.
Pure magic.

The trick is locating the area where the pc has one of these.

This is discussed further in Saint Hill lecture of 3 Sept
1964, but is too important a discovery to leave only in
tape form.

The cycle is Misunderstood word or symbol-separation from
ARC with the things associated with the word or
symbol-overt committed-motivator felt necessary to justify
the overt-decline of freedom, activeness, intelligence,
well being and health.

Knowing this and the technology of auditing one can then
handle and clear these symbols and words and produce the
gains we have described as being clear, for the things
causing the decline are cleared out of the being.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw .cden
Copyright  1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************

54. HCOB   4 APR 65 ARC BREAKS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 APRIL AD15

Remimeo
Franchise

ARC BREAKS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS

The primary error one can make in ARC Break handling is to
handle the pc with ARC Break procedure when the pc really
has a missed withhold.

As some auditors dislike pulling withholds (because they
run into pcs who use it to carve the auditor up such as &quot;I
have a withhold that everybody thinks you are awful --&quot;) it
is easier to confront the idea that a pc has an ARC Break
than the idea that the pc has a withhold.

In case of doubt one meter checks on a withhold to see if
it is non-existent (&quot;Am I demanding a withhold you haven't
got?&quot;). If this is the case the TA will blow down. If it
isn't the case the needle and TA remain unchanged. If the
pc's nattery or ARC Breaky condition continues despite
finding by-passed charge, then of course it is obviously a
withhold.

ARC Break finding does work. When the pc doesn't change
despite skillful ARC Break handling, locating and
indicating, it was a withhold in the first place.

The hardest pc to handle is the missed withhold pc. They
ARC Break but you can't get the pc out of it. The answer
is, the pc had a withhold all the time that is at the
bottom of all these ARC Breaks.

Scientology auditing does not leave the pc in poor
condition unless one goofs on ARC Breaks.

ARC Breaks occur most frequently on people with missed withholds.

Therefore if a pc can't be patched up easily or won't stay
patched up on ARC Breaks, there must be basic withholds on
the case. One then works hard on withholds with any and all
the tools that we've got.

ARC Breaks don't cause blows. Missed withholds do. When you
won't hear what the pc is saying, then you have made him
have a withhold and it responds as a missed withhold.

In short, the bottom of ARC Breaks is a missed withhold.

But an anti-social act done and then withheld sets the pc
up to become &quot;an ARC Breaky pc&quot;. It isn't an accurate
remark really since one has a pc with withholds who on
being audited ARC Breaks easily. So the accurate statement
is &quot;the pc is a withholdy type pc that ARC Breaks a lot&quot;.
Now that type exists. And they sure have lots of subsequent
ARC Breaks and are regularly being patched up.

If you have a pc, then, who seems to have a lot of ARC
Breaks, the pc is a &quot;withholdy pc&quot; not an &quot;ARC Breaky pc&quot;.
Any auditor miss causes a pc blow-up. The auditor by
calling this pc an &quot;ARC Breaky pc&quot; is not using a
description which leads to a resolution of the case as
thousands of ARC Break assessments leave the case still
liable to ARC Break. If you call such a case that ARC
Breaks a lot a &quot;withholdy pc that ARC Breaks a lot&quot; then
you can solve the case. For all you have to do is work on
withholds.

The actual way to handle a &quot;withholdy pc that ARC Breaks a
lot&quot; after you've cooled off the last of his many ARC
Breaks is:


1. Get the pc to look at what's going on with his sessions.

2. Get the pc in comm.

3. Get the pc to look at what's really bugging him.

4. Get the pc's willingness to give withholds up on a gradient.

5. Bring the pc to an understanding of what he's doing.

6. Get the pc's purpose in being audited in plain view to
him or her.

Those are of course the names of the first six grades.
However, low down, these six things are all crushed
together and you could really pursue that cycle in one
session just to get the pc up a bit without even touching
the next grade up.

Whenever I see a sour-faced person who has been &quot;trained&quot;
or is being &quot;trained&quot; I know one thing-there goes a pc with
lots of withholds. I also know, there is a pc who ARC
Breaks a lot in session. And I also know his co-auditor is
weak and flabby as an auditor. And I also know his auditing
supervisor doesn't shove the student auditor into doing the
process correctly.

One sour-faced student, one glance and I know all the above
things, bang! So why can't somebody else notice it?

Auditing is a pleasure. But not when an auditor can't tell
a withhold from an ARC Break and doesn't know that
continual ARC Breaks are caused by missed withholds on the
bottom of the chain.

I never miss on this. Why should you?

The only case that will really &quot;bug you&quot; is the CONTINUOUS
OVERT case. Here's one that commits anti-social acts daily
during auditing. He's a nut. He'll never get better, case
always hangs up.

Unless you treat his continual overts as a solution to a
PTP. And find what PTP he's trying to solve with these
crazy overt acts.

You see, we can even solve that case.

BUT, don't go believing Scientology doesn't work when it
meets an unchanging or continually misemotional pc. Both of
these people are foul balls who are loaded with withholds.

We've cracked them for years and years now.

But not by playing patty-cake or &quot;slap my wrist&quot;.

Takes an auditor, not a lady finger.

&quot;Mister, you've been wasting my time for three sessions.
You have withholds. Give!&quot; &quot;Mister, you refuse just once
more to answer my question and you're for it. I've checked
this meter. It's not a withhold of nothing. You have
withholds. Give!&quot; &quot;Mister, that's it. I am asking the D of
P to ask the Tech Sec for a Comm Ev on you from HCO for no
report.&quot; If skill couldn't do it, demand may. If demand
couldn't do it, a Comm Ev sure will.

For it's a no report!

How can you make a man well when he's got a sewer full of
slimy acts.

Show me any person who is critical of us and I'll show you
crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate's
hair on end.

Why not try it? Don't buy &quot;I once stole a paper clip from
the HASI&quot; as an overt or &quot;You're a lousy auditor&quot; as a
withhold. Hell, man, people who tell you those things just
stole your lunch or intend to empty the till.

Get clever, auditor. Thetans are basically good. Them that
Scientology doesn't change are good-but down underneath a
pile of crimes you couldn't get into a Confession Story
Magazine.

Okay. Please don't go on making this error. It grieves me.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ml.rd
Copyright  1965
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************

55. HCOB  21 FEB 66 DEFINITION PROCESSES


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 FEBRUARY 1966

(Amends HCO B of 12 November 1964)

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil students 

SCIENTOLOGY II

PC LEVEL O-IV

DEFINITION PROCESSES

The first thing to know about DEFINITION PROCESSES is that
they are separate and distinct and stand by themselves as
processes.

In The Book of Case Remedies we find on page 25 REMEDY A
and REMEDY B.

These two remedies are A and B because they handle a
primary source of worry to supervisors and auditors.

AUDITING STYLE

Each level has its own basic auditing style.

The Auditing Style of Level II is Guiding Style. The
Secondary Style is GUIDING SECONDARY STYLE or Guiding S Style.

ASSISTS

An assist is different from auditing as such in that it
lacks any model session. Assists are normally short periods
of auditing but not always. I have seen a touch assist go
on for months at the rate of 15 minutes a day, two or three
days a week. And it may take hours to do a touch assist on
an accident victim. What characterizes an assist is that it
is done rapidly and informally and anywhere.

&quot;Coffee Shop Auditing&quot; isn't really an assist as it is
usually done over coffee too casually to be dignified by
the name of auditing. The pc is never informed at all of
the existence of a session.

The pc, in an assist, is however informed of the fact and
the assist is begun by &quot;This is the Assist&quot; and ended by a
&quot;That's it&quot;, so an assist, like a session, has a beginning
and an end.

The Auditor's Code is observed in giving an Assist and the
Auditing Comm Cycle is used.

As an Auditor one sets out in an Assist to accomplish a
specific thing for the pc like relieve the snivels or make
the ache in the leg better. So an Assist also has a very
finite purpose.

SECONDARY STYLES

Every level has a different primary STYLE OF AUDITING. But
sometimes in actual sessions or particularly in Assists
this Style is altered slightly for special purposes. The Style
altered for assists is called a SECONDARY STYLE. It doesn't
mean that the primary style of the level is merely loosely
done. It means that it is done a precise but different way
to accomplish assists. This variation is called the
SECONDARY STYLE of that level.

REMEDIES

A Remedy is not necessarily an Assist and is often done in
regular session. It is the Remedy itself which determines
what auditing style is used to administer it. Some
Remedies, as well as being used in regular sessions, can
also be used as Assists.

In short, that a process exists as a Remedy has no bearing
on whether it is used in an Assist or a Model Session.

GUIDING STYLE

The essence of Guiding Style is:

1. Locate what's awry with the pc.

2. Run a Repetitive Process to handle what's found in 1.

In essence-steer the pc into disclosing something that
needs auditing and then audit it.

GUIDING SECONDARY STYLE

Guiding Secondary Style differs from proper Guiding Style
and is done by: 1. Steering-the pc toward revealing
something or something revealed;

2. Handling it with Itsa.

Guiding Secondary Style differs from Guiding Style only in
that Guiding Secondary Style handles the matter by Steer +
Itsa. Guiding Style Proper handles the matter with Steer +
Repetitive Process.

DEFINITIONS PROCESSING

Definitions Processes, when used as Remedies, are normally
processed by Guiding Secondary Style.

Both Remedies of The Book of Case Remedies A and B are
Guiding Secondary Style in their normal application.

One would expect them to be used by a Class II Auditor.

One would expect the Assist to last 10 or 15 minutes,
perhaps more, but less than a regular session would take.

One would expect that any case in a PE class, any student
that was getting nowhere, would be handled by the
Instructor with Guiding Secondary Style using Remedies A
and B as precision processes.

REMEDY A PATTER

One would not expect the person or student in trouble to be
turned over to another student for handling. It's too fast,
sharp and easy to handle that trouble oneself if one is
Class II or above and far more certain. You can do it while 
you'd be finding another student to do the auditing. It would 
be uneconomical in terms of time not to just do it right
then-no meter- leaning up against a desk.

The auditor's patter would be something like what follows.
The pc's responses and Itsa are omitted in this example.

&quot;I am going to give you a short assist.&quot; &quot;All right, what
word haven't you understood in Scientology?&quot; &quot;Okay, it's
pre-clear. Explain what it means.&quot; &quot;Okay, I see you are
having trouble, so what does pre mean?&quot; &quot;Fine. Now what
does clear mean?&quot; &quot;Good. I'm glad you realize you had it
mixed up with patient and see that they're different.&quot;
&quot;Thank you. That's it.&quot; In between the above total of
auditing patter, the student may have hemmed and hawed and
argued and cognited. But one just steered the pc straight
along the subject selected and got it audited and cleaned
up. If the student gave a glib text book definition after
challenging the word preclear, we wouldn't buy it, but
would give the student a piece of paper or a rubber band
and say &quot;Demonstrate that.&quot; And then carry on as it developed.

And that would be Remedy A.

You see it is precision auditing and is a process and does
have an Auditing Style. And it works like a dream.

You see this is Steer + Itsa as to its style. And that it
addressed the immediate subject.

What makes A Remedy A is not that it handles Scientology
definitions, but that it handles the immediate subject
under discussion or study.

REMEDY B

What makes Remedy B Remedy B is that it seeks out and
handles a former subject, conceived to be similar to the
immediate subject, in order to clear up misunderstandings
in the immediate subject or condition.

Remedy B, run on some person or student, would simply be a
bit more complex than Remedy A as it looks into the past.

A person has a continuous confusion with policy or
auditors, etc. So one runs B like this (the following is
auditor patter only):

&quot;I'm going to give you an Assist. Okay?&quot; &quot;All right. What
subject were you mixed up with before Scientology?&quot; &quot;I'm
sure there is one.&quot; &quot;Okay. Spiritualism. Fine. What word in
Spiritualism didn't you understand?&quot; &quot;You can think of it.&quot;
&quot;Good. Ectoplasm. Fine. What was the definition of that?&quot;
&quot;All right, there's a dictionary over there, look it up.&quot;
&quot;I'm sorry it doesn't give the spiritualist definition. But
you say it says Ecto means outside. What's plasm?&quot; &quot;Well,
look it up.&quot; &quot;All right. I see, Ecto means outside and
plasm means mould or covering.&quot; (Note: You don't always
break up words into parts for definition in A &amp; B
Remedies.) &quot;Yes, I've got that. Now what do you think
spiritualists meant by it?&quot; &quot;All right, I'm glad you
realize that sheets over people make ghosts ghosts.&quot; &quot;Fine,
glad you recalled being scared as a child.&quot; &quot;All right,
what did the spiritualist mean then?&quot; &quot;Okay. Glad you see
thetans don't need to be cased in goo.&quot; &quot;All right. Fine.
Good. You had Ectoplasm mixed up with engrams and you now
realize thetans don't have to have a bank and can be naked.
Fine. That's it.&quot; (Note: You don't always repeat after him
what the pc said, but sometimes it helps.) Student departs
still cogniting. Enters Scientology now having left
Spiritualism on the back track. Doesn't keep on trying to
make every HCO Bulletin studied solve &quot;Ectoplasm&quot;, the
buried misunderstood word that kept him stuck in Spiritualism.


DEFINITIONS PURPOSE

The purpose of definitions processing is fast clearing of
&quot;held down fives&quot; (jammed thinking because of a
misunderstood or misapplied datums) preventing someone
getting on with auditing or Scientology.

Remedies A and B are not always used as Assists. They are
also used in regular sessions.

But when so used they are always used with Guiding
Secondary Style-Steer + Itsa.

As a comment, people who seek to liken Scientology to
something, &quot;Oh, like Christian Science,&quot; are stuck in
Christian Science. Don't say, &quot;Oh no! It isn't like
Christian Science!&quot; Just nod and mark them for a fast
assist or a session the moment the chance offers if they
seem very disinterested or aloof when asked to a PE Course.

There's weapons in that arsenal, auditor. Use them.

As Remedies A and B stand as the first and second given in
The Book of Case Remedies, so before a large number of
potential Scientologists stands the confusion of definitions.

We have made Scientology definitions easy for them by
compiling a dictionary, using words new to people only when
useful.

But those that don't come along at all, are so wound up in
some past subject they can't hear or think when that
earlier subject is restimulated. And that earlier subject
is held down only by some word or phrase they didn't grasp.

Some poor pawn howling for the blood of Scientologists
isn't mad at Scientology at all.

But at some earlier practice he got stuck in with
mis-definition of its terms.

You see, we inherit some of the effects of the whole
dullness of Man when we seek to open the prison door and
say, &quot;Look. Sunshine in the fields. Walk out.&quot; Some, who
need Remedy B say: &quot;Oh no! The last time somebody scratched
the wall that way I got stupider.&quot; Why say, &quot;Hey. I'm not
scratching the wall. I'm opening the gate&quot;? Why bother. He
can't hear you. But he can hear Remedy B as an assist.
That's the channel to his comprehension.

UNDERSTANDING

When a person can't understand something and yet goes on
facing up to it, he gets into a &quot;problems situation&quot; with
it. There it is over there, yet he can't make it out.

Infrequently (fortunately for us) the being halts time
right there. Anything he conceives to be similar presented
to his view is the puzzle itself (A=A=A). And he goes
stupid. This happens rarely in the life of one being, but
it happens to many people.

Thus there aren't many such messes in one person in one
lifetime that have to be cleaned up. But there are a few in
many people.

The cycle of Mis-definition is:

1. didn't grasp a word, then

2. didn't understand a principle or theory, then

3. became different from it, commits and committed overts
against it, then 

4. restrained himself or was restrained from committing 
those overts, then

5. being on a withhold (inflow) pulled in a motivator.

Not every word somebody didn't grasp was followed by a
principle or theory. An overt was not committed every time
this happened. Not every overt committed was restrained. So
no motivator was pulled in.

But when it did happen, it raised havoc with the mentality
of the being when trying to think about what seem to be
similar subjects.

You see, you are looking at the basic incident + its locks
as in a chain of incidents. The charge that is apparently
on the lock in present time is actually only in the basic
incident. The locks borrow the charge of the basic incident
and are not themselves causing anything. So you have a
basic misunderstood word which then charges up the whole
subject as a lock; then a subject charging up similar
subjects as locks.

Every nattery or non-progressing student or pc is hung up
in the above 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 cycle. And every such student or
pc has a misdefined word at the bottom of that pile. If the
condition is new and temporary it's a Scientology word
that's awry. If natter, no progress, etc, is continuous and
doesn't cease when all is explained in Scientology or when
attempts to straighten up Scientology words fail, then it's
an earlier subject at fault. Hence, Remedies A and B. Hence
Guiding Secondary Style. Hence, the fact that Definitions
Processes are processes. And VITAL processes they are if
one wants a smooth organization, a smooth PE, a smooth
record of wins on all pcs. And if one wants to bring people
into Scientology who seem to want to stay out.

Of course these Remedies A and B are early-on processes, to
be audited by a Class II or above on a Level 0 or I pc or
student. However, some in Scientology, as of this date, are
studying slowly or progressing poorly because A and B
haven't been applied.

One expects that very soon, now that auditors have this
data, there will be nobody at upper levels with his
definitions dangling.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.ml.rd
Copyright 1966
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************

56. HCOB   5 AUG 68 CHANGE OF COMMANDS - OVERT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 AUGUST 1968

Remimeo

LEVEL II

CHANGE OF COMMANDS

OVERT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE

IMPORTANT

(This HCOB takes precedence over all other
tapes and HCOBs on overts)

Whereas it is workable to ask for &quot;What have you done&quot; and
&quot;What have you withheld&quot;, it is NOT the Level II Grade II
process any longer.

The original work on this used the overt-motivator sequence
and the commands are &quot;What have you done?&quot;

&quot;What has been done to you?&quot;

There is a third &quot;leg&quot; which is

&quot;What has another done to another?&quot;

which can be used and if not used may stick as a flow.

This is a problem in flows. (I) Inflow, (2) Outflow, (3)
Cross Flow.

Therefore the only commands to be used to clean up overts
are three in number. They are run one at a time to floating
needle on the process (not F/N on each leg).

&quot;What has been done to you?&quot;

&quot;What have you done?&quot;

&quot;What has another done to another?&quot;

(By drawing three symbols

an auditor can put his pen on each as it is asked and so
keep his place.) 

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH :jp.js. cden 
Copyright 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


**************

57. HCOB   3 SEP 78 DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1978

(Cancels HCOB 5 Dec AD12 &quot;2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21
and Routine 2-10 Modern Assessment.&quot;)
(Cancels HCOB 13 Aug AD12)
(Cancels HCOB 1 Aug AD12)

Remimeo
HCOs
Tech Staff 
Qual Staff 
Confessional Courses 
All Auditors, 
C/Ses, Supervisors


URGENT-URGENT-URGENT

DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM


The following is the only valid definition of an R/S:

ROCK SLAM: THE CRAZY, IRREGULAR, LEFT-RIGHT SLASHING MOTION
OF THE NEEDLE ON THE E-METER DIAL. R/SES REPEAT LEFT
AND RIGHT SLASHES UNEVENLY AND SAVAGELY, FASTER
THAN THE EYE EASILY FOLLOWS. THE NEEDLE IS FRANTIC.

THE WIDTH OF AN R/S DEPENDS LARGELY ON SENSITIVITY
SETTING. IT GOES FROM ONE-FOURTH INCH TO WHOLE
DIAL. BUT IT SLAMS BACK AND FORTH.

A ROCK SLAM (R/S) MEANS A HIDDEN EVIL INTENTION ON
THE SUBJECT OR QUESTION UNDER AUDITING OR DISCUSSION.

VALID R/SES ARE NOT ALWAYS INSTANT READS. AN R/S CAN
READ PRIOR OR LATENTLY.

HCOB 5 December AD12, &quot;2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 and Routine 2-10
Modern Assessment&quot; is an HCOB composited by others
incorrectly and is CANCELLED as it misdefines an R/S as a
single slash left or right. It contains the statements:
&quot;One or two slashes make an R/S.... If it slashed up or
down once call it an R/S.&quot; The data is utterly false. By
this wrong definition a rocket read could be mistaken for
an R/S, or any sudden rise could be mistaken for an R/S.

ONE SLASH DOESN'T BEGIN TO BE AN R/S. NOR TWO OR THREE FOR THAT
MATTER. THE CORRECT DEFINITION OF AN R/S INCLUDES THAT IT SLASHES
SAVAGELY LEFT AND RIGHT.

DEFINITION OF A DIRTY NEEDLE

The following is the only valid definition of a dirty needle:

DIRTY NEEDLE: AN ERRATIC AGITATION OF THE NEEDLE WHICH IS
RAGGED, JERKY, TICKING, NOT SWEEPING, AND TENDS TO
BE PERSISTENT. IT IS NOT LIMITED IN SIZE.

A DIRTY NEEDLE IS CAUSED BY ONE OF THREE THINGS:

1. THE AUDITOR'S TRs ARE BAD.

2. THE AUDITOR IS BREAKING THE AUDITOR'S CODE.

3. THE PC HAS WITHHOLDS HE DOES NOT WISH KNOWN.

The definitions of a dirty needle as &quot;a small rock slam&quot;
and &quot;a smaller edition of the rock slam&quot; in HCOB 13 August
AD12, &quot;Rock Slams and Dirty Needles,&quot; are CANCELLED. The
definition of a dirty needle as &quot;a minute rock slam&quot; in
HCOB 1 August AD12, &quot;Routine 3GA, Goals, Nulling by Mid
Ruds,&quot; is CANCELLED.

All definitions which limit the size of a dirty needle to
&quot;one quarter of an inch&quot; or &quot;less than one quarter of an
inch&quot; are CANCELLED.

A dirty needle is NOT TO BE CONFUSED with an R/S. They are
distinctly different reads. You never mistake an R/S if you
have ever seen one. A dirty needle is far less frantic.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ROCK SLAM AND A DIRTY NEEDLE IS IN THE

CHARACTER OF THE READ. NOT THE SIZE.

Persistent use of &quot;fish and fumble&quot; can sometimes turn a
dirty needle into a rock slam.

However until it does it is simply a dirty needle.

AUDITORS, C/SES, SUPERVISORS MUST MUST MUST KNOW THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO TYPES OF READS COLD.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nc
Copyright  1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************

58. HCOB  10 AUG 76 R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1976R
REVISED 5 SEPTEMBER 1978

(Only revision is the correction of the definition of a
rock slam. Revisions in this type style.)
Ref: HCOB 3 Sep 78, DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM


Remimeo
All Sec
Checkers
All HCO 
All Meter 
Operators

R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN

(HANDLING OF CONFESSIONALS CHECKSHEETS)
(PTS PROCESSING CHECKSHEETS)
(EXPANDED DIANETICS CHECKSHEETS)
(METER OPERATION CHECKSHEETS)
(VARIOUS RUNDOWN CHECKSHEETS)

The crazy, irregular, left-right slashing motion of the
needle in the E-Meter dial is called &quot;A rock slam&quot; or
&quot;R/S.&quot; It repeats left and right slashes unevenly and
savagely, faster than the eye easily follows. The needle is
frantic. The width of an R/S depends largely on sensitivity
setting. It goes from one-fourth inch to whole dial. But it
slams back and forth.

The term was taken from a process in the 50s which sought
to locate &quot;A rock&quot; on the pc's early time track; the &quot;slam&quot;
is a description of the needle violence, meaning it &quot;slams&quot;
back and forth. For a time all left-right motions of the
needle were considered and called &quot;rock slams&quot; until it was
found that a smooth left-right flow was a symptom of
release or key-out and this became the &quot;floating needle.&quot;
There is yet another left-right motion of the needle called
the &quot;theta bop.&quot; This occurs when the person has or is
trying to exteriorize. &quot;Theta&quot; is the symbol for the person
as a spirit or goodness; &quot;bop&quot; is an electronic term for a
slight hitch in the sweep of a needle. A &quot;theta bop&quot;
hitches evenly at each end of the sweep left and right and
is very even in the middle of the sweep.

Neither the &quot;floating needle&quot; nor the &quot;theta bop&quot; can be
confused with a &quot;rock slam.&quot; The difference of the rock
slam is uneven, frantic slashing left and right; even the
distances traveled left and right are likely to be
different in each swing from the last.

A &quot;rock slam&quot; can be caused sometimes by leaving rings on
the pc's fingers or by a short circuit in the meter or by
the cans (electrodes) touching something like a dress.
These are the mechanical considerations and must be ruled
out before the pc can be considered to have &quot;rock slammed.&quot;
If the pc is not wearing rings and if the meter needle is
calm with the lead unplugged, if the lead is okay, and if
the pc is not jiggling the ends of the cans against his
clothes, then the pc's rock slam is caused by the pc's bank .

One has to be very careful about the correctness of the pc
actually having rock slammed while on the meter, that it
was actually observed, that it was not mechanically caused
as above.

One puts the R/S down on the worksheet and also gives
exactly what was asked. And also that the mechanical points
were checked without distracting the pc.

ONE MUST ALWAYS REPORT A ROCK SLAM IN THE AUDITING REPORT,
NOTE IT WITH SESSION DATE AND PAGE INSIDE THE LEFT COVER OF
THE PC'S FOLDER AND REPORT IT TO ETHICS INCLUDING THE QUESTION 
OR SUBJECT WHICH ROCK SLAMMED, PHRASED EXACTLY.

Why? Because the rock slam is the most important needle
manifestation! It gives the clue to the pc's case.

In 1970 I began a full-scale research project into the
subject of insanity and its relationship to cases and case
gains and suppression. It was only then that the full
significance of the rock slam was unearthed. This research
developed into what is now called EXPANDED DIANETICS, a
series of special processes and actions with their drills
and training which permits the auditor to handle a specific
case type. This was, by the way, Man's first system of
positive detection and handling of psychosis and the first
full understanding of what psychosis is.

While this bulletin is not in any way a two-minute course
in or a substitute for full training in Expanded Dianetics,
any auditor who audits, Sec Checks, or handles people on a
meter has to know what a rock slam is and how it behaves
and what he should do about it.

The first thing is to be able to recognize one and to
quickly with the scan of the eye and unplug of the meter
cord (without any distraction of or notice by the pc) make
the checks for a mechanical rock slam as given above.

You can make a meter &quot;rock slam&quot; with no pc or cord
connected to it by (a) turning it on; (b) put the
sensitivity at perhaps 2;  put the needle at &quot;set&quot;; (d)
rapidly, very rapidly, move the TA back and forth maybe a
quarter of an inch and do it unevenly. That, if you did it
very fast and unevenly, would be something that resembled a
rock slam. But no matter how fast you made your fingers
move, a real R/S is a trifle faster. If you do that you
will see what an R/S looks like. The needle in this
experiment is not made to hit the sides of the meter.

Now if you take the same set-up and smoothly slowly move
the tone arm back and forth about 2 times a second without
any roughness and the same distance right and left, you
will have a floating needle. Note it very well as this
comes at a time of release and is the thing a good auditor
hopes to see and gives him the end-off signal for a
process. It has to be well known as you NEVER bypass one in
a session and to do so makes an uncomfortable pc. (The pc
will often cognite-get a realization about himself or life
at this point and one does not stop him from doing this.)
This is the thing you indicate to the pc. You don't ever
indicate rock slams or theta bops. When you see it, and
without stopping or interrupting the pc's cognition, you
always say, &quot;Your needle is floating.&quot;

Now the theta bop can also be shown to yourself by you. Set
up the meter as above. Only this time, you smoothly swing
it to the right and give it a tiny twitch in the same
direction. Then you smoothly, at once, swing it to the left
and give it a tiny twitch in the same direction. Then do it
to the right. And so on. This is a theta bop. It is
different than a floating needle only in that it hitches at
each end of the swing. So learn to recognize it.

There is a vicious smooth right direction slash that occurs
when a pc hits a certain area of the bank that is called a
&quot;rocket read&quot; and there is of course the small fall, long
fall (which both go to the right and indicate a charged
question or reaction) and there is the gradual rise to the
left. But these do not repeat back and forth which is the
characteristic of the rock slam, floating needle and theta bop.

All right, so we know exactly what it looks like when we
talk about a ROCK SLAM as a read of the meter. We know how
it can be mechanically caused. And we know what we have to
record and report when it is seen.

But exactly what does a rock slam mean with regards to the pc?

If you don't know this you can miss on the pc, on the case,
on the org and humanity.

A ROCK SLAM MEANS A HIDDEN EVIL INTENTION ON THE SUBJECT OR
QUESTION UNDER DISCUSSION OR AUDITING.

Two things underlie insanity, or to be more specific, there
are two causes and conditions both of which have been
lumped together by man and called insanity. He could not of
course define it as he didn't know what caused it.

The first of these two things does not concern us overly
much here and is the subject of a separate checksheet and
training and is called PTS or Potential Trouble Source
handling. A &quot;PTS&quot; is a person who has been or is connected
with somebody who has evil intentions. A PTS can feel
uncomfortable in life or be neurotic or go insane because
of the actions upon him of a person with evil intentions.
Most of the people in institutions are probable PTSes.

The second of these two things is insanity caused to the
individual himself (let alone others) by hidden evil
intentions.

The extent of these intentions and what the person will do
(and hide) in order to carry them out is quite shocking.
These people are covert or overt criminals and many of them
are insane-meaning beyond all rationality in their acts.
Because their evil intentions are hidden and because they
are often very plausible such individuals are what make
&quot;behavior so mysterious&quot; and &quot;Man look so evil when you see
what Mankind does&quot; and all sorts of fallacies.

It is this last type, the chronic, heavy rock slammer,
which Expanded Dianetics handles.

One rock slam doesn't make a psychotic. Or a total menace
to everyone. But it does mean there could be more and it
might in rare cases mean you have, seeing enough of these
R/Ses, a very dangerous person on your hands and in your
vicinity. And that person must be handled by Expanded
Dianetics.

You won't see a great many rock slams in auditing people so
you could be totally thrown off by surprise when you see
one. And mess it all up because you are surprised. So know
what it is and don't get all quivery and make mistakes and
blow your confront. Just carry on.

If you don't note the EXACT question that was asked and the
EXACTLY worded statement the pc made when the R/S was seen,
you can muck it up for the Expanded Dianetics guys. They
won't be able to get it turned back on again easily and
will lose a lot of time. So you have to be sure your
auditing report is accurate, that the R/S is written BIG on
the column and circled and, no matter what else you do in
the session, you have to get it recorded in the left front
cover of the folder giving the date and page of the session
and you have to report it to Ethics. And also you don't
third party the pc and give him a bad time in the session
because of it.

Now R/Ses most easily turn on during Sec Checks or
Integrity Processing or when pulling withholds or trying to
investigate something. So the people who see these most
often are those engaged in that activity and not routine
auditing (when they can also but more rarely turn on).
Further the most likely person to collide with &quot;needing to
be Sec Checked&quot; is an R/Ser, which again increases the
numbers of R/Ses seen in these activities compared to
routine auditing. But a very heavy R/Ser will also turn
them on in routine auditing.

It is the exact point of the R/S in the session, the exact
question that was asked and the exact subject or phrase
where the R/S turned on that are important. And these are
very important as then the person can be fully handled with
a full Expanded Dianetics Rundown by a qualified Expanded
Dianetics Specialist. When, of course, the person gets to
that point on his Grade Chart. The Grade Chart points are
after Dianetics (like Drug RDs, etc.) but before grades,
after grades but before Power, after Power but before Solo,
and after OT III or after any single grade above OT III.
These are the only points where Expanded Dianetics can be
delivered and the R/S fully and completely handled.

Now here is how you can turn off an R/S and mistakenly
think it is handled:

1. The overt-motivator sequence has two sides. One is what
the person has done (overt) and what is done to the person
(motivator). You can ask, when the person R/Ses on
something, if anyone has ever INVALIDATED him on that
subject or action. He will find some and the R/S will turn
off AND WON'T EVEN BE FAINTLY HANDLED BUT

ONLY SUBMERGED. One can believe he has &quot;handled&quot; the R/S.
Not true. He has just turned it off and maybe made it
harder to find next time. One can ask what the person has
done TO the subject mentioned and while this may unburden
the case and make the person a bit better, the R/S is NOT
handled, only turned off or submerged. It's almost as if
there are so many overts and motivators on this subject or
in this area that the push-pull of it makes the needle go
wild (R/S). And indeed, this may be the energy cause, in
the bank, of the needle reaction. But neither overt nor
motivator handles an R/S finally because the CAUSE of the
R/S is an INTENTION to harm and it isn't all that likely
the basic intention will be reached.

2. Another apparent way the R/S can get &quot;handled&quot; and isn't
is to take the R/Ser earlier similar on the subject of the
R/S. The R/S will probably cease, go &quot;clean.&quot; But in actual
fact it is still there, hidden.

3. The third way an R/S can be falsely &quot;handled&quot; is to
direct the person's attention to something else. If, when
this is done, the exact subject of the R/S is not noted by
the auditor, it will be difficult to find it again when the
person goes into Expanded Dianetic auditing.

4. Yet another, and probably the last way to falsely
&quot;handle&quot; an R/S is to abuse the person about his conduct or
behavior or the R/S, or to &quot;educate&quot; him to do better, or
to &quot;modify&quot; his behavior with shocks or surgery or other
tortures like the psychiatrists do. In other words one can
seek to suppress the R/S in numerous ways. Maybe the R/S
won't occur (being too overburdened now) but it is still
there, buried very deep and possibly beyond reach now.

So if you understand the above four points you will see
that although you can ease off the R/S, you have not
handled it. It has merely gone out of sight.

All right, what then DOES HANDLE an R/S?

I warned you that this isn't a two-minute course on
Expanded Dianetics and it isn't. An R/S is HANDLED by a
fully qualified Expanded Dianetics auditor delivering full
Expanded Dianetics to the person at that point on the Grade
Chart where Expanded Dianetics is supposed to be delivered.
If anyone thinks it can be done effectively any other way
or if he C/Ses it to be done and the auditor is stupid
enough to try to do that C/S, then it's Committees of
Evidence and suspended certificates all around.

With that warning, and only with that warning, I can
briefly state what has to be done with the case. This is
not what YOU do if you are not delivering full Expanded
Dianetics at the right point on the Grade Chart. It is a
brief statement so that you can understand what lies under
that R/S.

The pc with an R/S on any given subject and who R/Ses while
discussing that or related subjects HAS AN EVIL INTENTION
TOWARD THE SUBJECT DISCUSSED OR SOME

CLOSELY RELATED SUBJECT. The pc intends that subject or
area of life nothing but calculating, covert, underhanded
HARM which will be at all times carefully hidden from that
subject.

Thus, the Expanded Dianetics Specialist, in handling that
case (at the proper point on the Grade Chart) has to be
able to locate each and every subject and question and R/S
in that person's folder as noted by Sec Checkers and
previous auditors or Cramming Officers or Why Finders. He
has to have the complete list of R/S subjects. If they are
noted as to session date and page and if all Sec Checking
papers and cramming papers are in that person's folder, then
the Expanded Dianetics Specialist can do a full and
complete job. Otherwise he has to do a lot of other time
wasting actions to get the R/Ses found and turned on again.

What the Expanded Dianetics Specialist actually does is
locate EXACTLY the actual evil intention for every R/S on
the case and handle each one to total conclusion. When he
is finished, if he has done his job well, the person's
behavior will be magically improved and as to his social
presence, menace and conduct, well that will be toward
survival.

When you see an R/S, if you are not an Expanded Dianetic
Specialist doing Expanded Dianetics at the correct point on
the Grade Chart, you don't say &quot;Hey, you've got an evil
intention!&quot; and you don't ask &quot;Say, what's that evil
intention?&quot; or do corny things like that because you'll get
the pc self-listing, you may get a wrong item, you won't
know what to do with it and you're just likely to get the
auditing room wrapped around your neck right there.

No, you quietly note it, make sure it isn't a mechanical
fault, write it big on the worksheet, write down everything
the pc is saying swiftly, note what question you were
asking and let the pc talk and ack him and go on with what
you are doing with the pc at the time. And after session
you note it in the left-hand cover of the folder and send a
report to Ethics.

And some day, when he's done his Drug Rundown or gotten to
one of the points on the Grade Chart where a full XDn can
be done, why then it will be handled. And a good C/S will
program or tip the case for that to be done.

So that's the know-how you have to know about R/Ses to
really help the guy and the society and your group.

We're not in the business of curing psychos. The
governments at this writing pay the psychiatrists billions
a year to torture and kill because of R/Ses they don't know
anything about. The crime in the society out there is
caused by people who R/S. Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon and
Caesar were probably the most loaded R/Sers of all time
unless it was Jack the Ripper or your local friendly
psychiatrist.

So know what you are seeing when you see it and know what
to do about it. And don't kid yourself. Or vilify or mow
down people who R/S; we're not in that business.

And the Expanded Dianetic Specialist and the pc someday
will love you dearly for knowing your job and doing it right.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.dr
Copyright  1976, 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************

59. HCOB  17 APR 77 RECURRING WITHHOLDS AND OVERTS


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 APRIL 1977
(LRH is quoted)

Remimeo 
Tech Divs
Qual Divs
Auditors
C/Ses

RECURRING WITHHOLDS AND OVERTS

Ref: 
HCO PL 7 Apr 70RA GREEN FORM
HCO B 15 Aug 69 FLYING RUDS
HCO B 10 Jul 64 OVERTS ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING
HCO B 6 Sep 68 CHECKING FOR FALSE READS
HCO B 11 Sep 68 FALSE READS


DEFINITION

The definition of recurring withhold or overt is an overt
or withhold that keeps coming up, repeats again, or shows
up again. Definition is obtained here from the American
Heritage Dictionary and &quot;the Scientology Tech Dictionary.&quot;
Before a recurring withhold or overt can be handled it must
be understood what one is. It is simply a withhold or overt
that has already been gotten off and comes up again as an
answer to an apparent reading withhold or overt question.
The pc may also become exasperated at having to get off an
overt or withhold that has already been gotten off. The pc
may become upset, seem resigned or even protest a recurring
overt or withhold. These are just a couple of the signs of
a recurring withhold or overt.

METHODS AND HANDLINGS

1. When a pc gets upset with a withhold being demanded that
they already got off and they get into protest then &quot;there
is obviously a false read as the pc is getting off overts
already gotten off.&quot;

HANDLING: &quot;Check for false reads on overts by asking the pc
what overt he or she has gotten off more than once and
tracing it back with the pc to what auditor or person said
something read when it didn't. You would clean all these
up.&quot; (Reference: HCOB 6 Sept 68 CHECKING FOR FALSE READS.)

2. When number 1 above doesn't handle the recurring overt
or withhold:

HANDLING: &quot;Who said or seemed to infer something read when
it didn't? Then this would be dated to blow and located to
blow.&quot; (Reference: HCOB 11 Sept 68 FALSE READS.)

3. When a pc gets upset with getting off withholds or
overts or mentions he or she felt his or her overts weren't
accepted.

HANDLING: Ask who wouldn't accept it E/S. (Reference: HCO
PL 7 April 70RA GREEN FORM.)

4. &quot;The pc has been invalidated for getting it off.&quot;

HANDLING: Find out who invalidated the pc for getting off
overts or withholds. (Note any terminals for later handling
on the PTS RD.)

5. &quot;The pc has been punished for getting it off.&quot;

HANDLING: &quot;Find out who punished the pc for getting off
overts and withholds.&quot; The above methods of handling
recurring overts and withholds can be found in the
reference materials listed above.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Assisted by
Paulette Ausley
LRH Tech Expeditor

LRH:PA:lf
Copyright  1977
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

**************


