Volume VIII 1972-1976 - Technical Bulletins

Volume VIII 1972-1976 - Technical Bulletins

Сообщение auditor » 27 дек 2016, 16:31

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/

The
Technical Bulletins
of
Dianetics and Scientology
by
L. Ron Hubbard

FOUNDER OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY

Volume
VIII
1972-1976
_____________________________________________________________________

I will not always be here on guard.
The stars twinkle in the Milky Way
And the wind sighs for songs
Across the empty fields of a planet
A Galaxy away.

You won’t always be here.
But before you go,
Whisper this to your sons
And their sons —
“The work was free.
Keep it so.”


L. RON HUBBARD


L. Ron Hubbard
Founder of Dianetics and Scientology


EDITORS’ NOTE


“A chronological study of materials is necessary for the complete training of a truly top grade expert in these lines. He can see how the subject progressed and so is able to see which are the highest levels of development. Not the least advantage in this is the defining of words and terms for each, when originally used, was defined, in most cases, with considerable exactitude, and one is not left with any misunderstoods.”

—L. Ron Hubbard

The first eight volumes of the Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology contain, exclusively, issues written by L. Ron Hubbard, thus providing a chronological time track of the development of Dianetics and Scientology. Volume IX, The Auditing Series, and Volume X, The Case Supervisor Series, contain Board Technical Bulletins that are part of the series. They are LRH data even though compiled or written by another.

So that the time track of the subject may be studied in its entirety, all HCO Bs have been included, excluding only those upper level materials which will be found on courses to which they apply. If an issue has been revised, replaced, or canceled, this has been indicated in the upper right-hand corner along with the page number of the issue which should be referred to.

The points at which Ron gave tape recorded lectures have been indicated as they occurred. Where they were given as part of an event or course, information is given on that event or course on the page in the chronological volumes which corresponds to the date. The symbol “**” preceding a tape title means that copies are available from both Publications Organizations. A tape preceded by “*” means that it will soon be available. No asterisk (*) means that neither Publications Organization nor Flag has a master copy of that lecture. If you have, or know anyone who has, copies of these tapes, please contact the Flag Audio Chief, P.O. Box 23751, Tampa, Florida, 33623, U.S.A. The number in the tape title is a code for the date; example: 5505C07—55 = year, 1955; 05 = month, May; C = copy; 07 = day, 7th; 7 May 1955. The abbreviation tells what group the tape is a part of. For an explanation of the abbreviations see Volume X, page 539.

At the back of this volume is a Subject Index covering only the material in this volume. Use the index to locate the LRH source material in context, don’t just get data from the index. This index has been combined with indexes from other volumes to form the Cumulative Index which is in Volume X, starting on page 287.

TECHNICAL BULLETINS
1972-1976


CONTENTS


1972

1 Jan.RA L IX Hi-Lo TA List Revised (revised & reissued 20 Nov. 1974)
2 Jan. WC1 Comes First (W/C Series 30) 10
3 Jan. C/Sing Checklist (C/S Series 69 Addition) 11
7 Jan. Training and Interning Staff Auditors 12
14 Jan. Study Correction List (canceled—see Vol. IX, 329) 16
20 Jan. PTS RD Addition 19
22 Jan. Drugs & Trippers (reissue of 23 Sept. 1968) Vol.—258
3 Feb. R6EW—OT III No Interference Area 20
15 Feb. False TA Addition 2 24
16 Feb. Talking the TA Down Modified (C/S Series 74) 25
18 Feb. False TA Addition 3 26
22 Feb. Word Clearing Method 4 (WIC Series 32R) (revised 26 Mar. 1972)
(revised—see 301) 28
24 Feb. Word Clearing OCAs (C/S Series 71A) 30
26 Feb. Word Clearing Series 15R 32
26 Feb. LRH Model Tape Sessions (26 Feb. 1972) 33
29 Feb.R False TA Checklist (revised 23 Nov. 1973) (revised—see 417) 34
1 Mar. Establishment Officer Series Lectures (1 Mar.—6 Mar. 1972) 36
13 Mar. Production and Establishment—Orders and Products
(EstO Series 5) (HCO PL) 37
16 Mar. What is a Course—High Crime (HCO PL) 41
23 Mar. Full Product Clearing Long Form (EstO Series 11) (HCO PL) 44
24 Mar. HAS Specialist and Establishment Officer Auditing Program
(Revised) (revision of 20 Nov. 1971) 50
26 Mar. Word Clearing Method 4 (W/C Series 32R) (revision of
22 Feb. 1972) (revised—see 301) 28
27 Mar.R Course Supervisor Correction List—Study Corr List 2R
(revised 3 Dec. 1974) 52
27 Mar.RA Auditor Correction List—Auditor Recovery (Study Corr List 3RA)
(revised & reissued 17 Dec. 1974) 60
30 Mar. Primary Correction Rundown—First Cramming Correction
(Study Series 5) (revised—see 133) 65
30 Mar. Expanded Dianetics Lectures (30 Mar.—7 A pr. 1972) 67
31 Mar. Expanded Dianetics Series 1 (revised—see 87) 68
2 Apr.RB L3 EXD RB—Expanded Dianetics Repair List (Exp. Dn. Series 3RB)
(revised 17 Mar. 1974) 70
3 Apr. Re: Study Series 5 see footnote— 67

1972 (cont.)
3 Apr. Primary Rundown Note (Study Series 6) 75
4 Apr. Tech Div Primary Rundown (revised—see 135) 76
4 Apr. Ethics (EstO Series 14) (HCO PL) 78
7 Apr.R Touch Assists—Correct Ones (BTB)(revised & reissued
23 June 1974) Vol.. IX—502
9 Apr. Correct Danger Condition Handling (HCO PL) 82
10 Apr. PreOTs Don’t C/S (C/S Series 75, Solo C/S Series 13) 85
15 Apr. Expanded Dianetics Series 1R 87
16 Apr. PTS RD Correction List 89
17 Apr. C/Sing a PTS Rundown (C/S Series 76) 91
19 Apr. “Quickie” Defined (C/S Series 77) 93
20 Apr. Suppressed Pcs and PTS Tech (Exp. Dn. Series 4) 95
20 Apr. Product Purpose and Why and WC Error Correction (C/S Series 78) 96
24 Apr. PTS Interviews (C/S Series 79, Exp. Dn. Series 5) 98
26 Apr. The Glib Student (Study Series 8) 99
3 May Ethics and Executives (Exec. Series 12) (HCO PL) 100
3 May Havingness 105
4 May Six Basic Processes 107
4 May Assists—A Flag Expertise Subject (correction of
23 July 1971) Vol.. VII—335
5 May R The Remedy of Havingness (revised 17 Jan. 1973) 112
6 May Remedy of Havingness—The Process 115
7 May Expanded Gita 120
8 May The Importance of Havingness 123
8 May Old Lists Are Not To Be Copied (reissue of
19 Sept. 1968) Vol. VI—256
8 May Lists (reissue of 30 Sept. 1968) Vol. VI—263
10 May Robotism 127
11 May Standard C/S for Word Clearing in Session—Method 1
(W/C Series 8RB) (revision of 30 June 1971) 131
12 May Training and CCH Processes (reissue of 11 June 1957) Vol. III— 61
30 May The Primary Correction Rundown Revised (Study Series 5R)
(revision of 30 Mar. 1972) 133
30 May Primary Rundown (Revised) (revision of 4 Apr. 1972) 135
30 May Super-literacy (LRH ED 178 Int) see—314
2 June L4BR—For Assessment of All Listing Errors (revision of
15 Dec. 1968) 138
3 June R PTS Rundown, Final Step (revised 15 Oct. 1974) 141
9 June Grammar (W/C Series 36) 143
10 June Bypassed Charge (reissued 21 Sept. 1974) 144
12 June Length of Time to Evaluate (Data Series 26, EstO Series 18)
(HCO PL) 145
15 June “Dog Pcs” (C/S Series 80) 147

1972 (cont.)
16 June R Auditor’s Rights Modified (C/S Series 81R) (revised 27 Feb. 1975) 149
19 June Dinky Dictionaries (W/C Series 37) 151
21 June Method 5 (W/C Series 38) 152
21 June Method 6 (W/C Series 39) 153
21 June Method 7 (W/C Series 40) 154
21 June Method 8 (W/C Series 41) 155
25 June Recovering Students and Pcs (HCO PL) see—193
20 July Primary Correction Rundown Handling 157
20 July Distractive and Additive Questions and Orders 160
10 Aug. Dianetic HCO B—Interest (C/S Series 82, Exp. Dn. Series 6)
(amended & reissued 28 Mar. 1974) 161
13 Aug.R Fast Flow Training (corrected & reissued 15 Aug. 1972) 162
15 Aug. Fast Flow Training (corrected reissue of 13 Aug. 1972) 162
16 Aug. Flubless C/Sing (C/S Series 84) 164
17 Aug. Method 4 Notes (W/C Series 42) (revised—see 305) 166
18 Aug. Grammar Definition (W/C Series 43) 167
3 Sept. Honest TRs (LRH ED 180 Int) see— 33
13 Sept. Catastrophes From and Repair of “No Interest” Items (C/S Series 85,
Exp. Dn. Series 7) (amended & reissued 28 Mar. 1974) 169
5 Oct. Continuous PT Overts (reissue of 25 Sept. 1968) Vol. VI—260
2 Nov. How To Get Results In an HGC (C/S Series 56, Aud. Admin
Series 2) (reissue of 25 Aug. 1971) Vol. VII—365
6 Nov. Illiteracy and Work (W/C Series 44) 170
6 Nov. Auditor’s Worksheets (C/S Series 66, Aud. Admin Series 15)
(reissue of 3 Nov. 1971 ) Vol. VII—433
12 Nov. Johannesburg Security Check—Revised (HCO PL) (revision of
7 Apr. 1961 ) see footnote—422
15 Nov. Students Who Succeed 172
13 Dec.R Integrity Processing Questions Must Be F/Ned (I/P Series 10R)
(revised & reissued 1 Nov. 1974) 175
14 Dec.R Generalities Won’t Do (I/P Series 11R) (reissued 1 Nov. 1974) 176
15 Dec.R Withholds, Missed and Partial (I/P Series 12R) (revised
1 Nov. 1974) 178
16 Dec. Help the Pc (I/P Series 13) (reissued 7 Nov. 1974) 180
17 Dec. Havingness (I/P Series 14) (reissued 7 Nov. 1974) 181
30 Dec. Confronting (Study Series 2) (corrected reissue of
2 June 1971) Vol. VII—264


1973

4 Jan. Confront (Study Series 9) (reissued 6 Apr. 1974) 182
17 Jan. The Remedy of Havingness (revision of 5 May 1972) 112
28 Jan. Keeping Scientology Working (HCO PL) (reissue of
7 Feb. 1965) Vol. VI— 4
6 Mar. False TA Addition (revision of 12 Nov. 1971) Vol. VII—438

1973 (cont.)
6 Mar. VIII Actions (C/S Series 13R) (revision of
30 June 1970) Vol. VII—100
30 Mar. Step Four—Handling Originations (reissued 21 Sept. 1974) 183
5 Apr. Axiom 28 Amended (reissued 19 Sept. 1974) 185
7 Apr.R Gradients in TRs (revised 15 Nov. 1974) 186
15 May Code of a Scientologist (HCO PL) (revision of
5 Feb. 1969) OEC Vol. 0— 25
10 JuneRA Cramming (Cramming Series 10RA) (reissued 19 Sept. 1974) 188
26 June Student Rescue Intensive (revision of 23 Nov. 1969) Vol. VI—451
11 July Assist Summary 189
21 July Recovering Students and Pcs (Qual Flub Catch Series 4) 193
25 July F/N Everything (corrected reissue of 14 Mar. 1971) Vol. VII—196
29 July Art, More About (Art Series 2) 196
30 July Scientology, Current State of the Subject and Materials 201
2 Aug. Pep 207
10 Aug. PTS Handling 209
Sept. Mission Into Time 212
15 Oct. Nulling and F/Ning Prepared Lists (C/S Series 87) 213
21 Oct. Pc Completions—Second Revision (revision of 30 Aug. 1971) see—214
23 Oct. Pc Completions—Second Revision (revision of 30 Aug. 1971 ) see—214
11 Nov. Preclear Declare? Procedure 218
15 Nov.R Fear of People List—R (revised 4 Dec. 1973) 219
20 Nov. Reissued from 21st Advanced Clinical Course Training Drills
—Anti-Q and A TR 221
20 Nov. F/N What You Ask or Program (C/S Series 89) 222
21 Nov. The Cure of Q and A—Man’s Deadliest Disease 223
23 Nov. Dry and Wet Hands Make False TA (revised—see 415) 226
23 Nov. False TA Checklist (revision of 29 Feb. 1972)
(revised—see 417) 34
24 Nov. Short Hi-Lo TA Assessment C/S (C/S Series 53 RF) (reissued
25 Nov. 1973) (canceled—see 398) 228
25 Nov. Short Hi-Lo TA Assessment C/S (C/S Series 53 RF) (reissue of
24 Nov. 1973) (canceled—see 398) 228
4 Dec. Fear of People List—R (revision of 15 Nov. 1973) 219
5 Dec. The Reason for Q and A 230
6 Dec. The Primary Failure (C/S Series 90) 233
15 Dec. The Continuous Missed W/H and Continuous Overt with Data on
Degraded Beings and False PTS Conditions 235


1974

6 Jan. Assist Summary Addition 237
23 Jan. The Technical Breakthrough of 1973 ! The Introspection RD
(revised—see 346) 239


1974 (cont.)

27 Jan. Dianetics—R3R Commands Have Background Data 243
28 Jan. L3RC—Dianetics and Ext RD Repair List (revision of
11 Apr. 1971) (revised—see 265) 245
6 Feb. Pc Completions—Second Revision (revision of 30 Aug. 1971) 214
10 Feb. The Technical Breakthrough of 1973! The Introspection RD
(revision of 23 Jan. 1974) (revised—see 346) 249
15 Feb. Service Facsimile Theory and Expanded Dianetics (Exp. Dn. Series 20)
(amended & reissued 28 Mar. 1974) 257
17 Feb. Mutual Out Ruds (C/S Series 91) 259
20 Feb. Introspection RD—Additional Actions 260
5 Mar. Overt-Motivator Sequence (corrected reissue of
20 May 1968) Vol. VI—231
6 Mar. Introspection RD—Second Addition—Information to C/Ses—
Fixated Attention 262
8 Mar. L3RD—Dianetics and Int RD Repair List (revision of 11 Apr. 1971) 265
Mar. Organization Executive Course and Management Series 269
17 Mar. L3 EXD RB—Expanded Dianetics Repair List (Exp. Dn. Series 3RB)
(revision of 2 Apr. 1972) 70
17 Mar. TWC Checksheets—TWC, Using Wrong Questions 270
18 Mar. E-Meters—Sensitivity Errors 271
21 Mar. End Phenomena 272
24 Mar. Use of Dianetics (C/S Series 32RA) (revision of 4 Apr. 1971) 274
28 Mar. Dianetic HCO B—Interest (C/S Series 82, Exp. Dn. Series 6)
(amended reissue of 10 Aug. 1972) 161
28 Mar. Catastrophes From and Repair of “No Interest” Items
(C/S Series 85, Exp. Dn. Series 7) (amended reissue of
13 Sept. 1972) 169
28 Mar. Service Facsimile Theory and Expanded Dianetics
(Exp. Dn. Series 20) (amended reissue of 15 Feb. 1974) 257
28 Mar. Expanded Dianetics Developments Since the Original Lectures
(Exp. Dn. Series 21 ) 276
28 Mar. Security of Data (HCO PL) (amended reissue of
11 Aug. 1971) Vol. VI—105
30 Mar. Interiorization Summary (C/S Series 23RA) (revision of
17 Dec. 1971) 279
4 Apr. Tone Scale in Full (revision of 25 Sept. 1971) Vol. VII—404
4 Apr. Scales (correction of 18 Sept. 1967) Vol. VI—200
4 Apr. Short Hi-Lo TA Assessment C/S (C/S Series 53RG) (reissue of
24 Nov. 1973) (canceled—see 398) 282
6 Apr. Use of Dianetics (C/S Series 28RA) (revision of 7 Mar. 1971) 284
6 Apr. Confront (Study Series 9) (reissue of 4 Jan. 1973) 182
8 Apr. Triple Reruns (C/S Series 33 RA) (revision of 5 Apr. 1971 ) 286
8 Apr. Dianetics (C/S Series 36RB) (revision of 21 Apr. 1971) 289
10 Apr. Stage Manners (Art Series 3) 293
19 Apr. CCHs 5, 6 & 7 (amended reissue of 30 Sept. 1971) Vol. VII—408

1974 (cont.)

20 Apr. Introspection RD—Third Addition—Additional
Introspection RD Steps 295
23 Apr. Expanded Dianetics Requisites (Exp. Dn. Series 22)
(revised—see 372) 297
25 Apr. Rhythm (Art Series 4) 298
8 May Thirty-Six New Presessions (revision of 6 Oct. 1960) Vol. IV—156
10 May Objectives—An Early Release (revision of 2 Nov. 1957) see—393
14 May Int Rundown Correction List—Revised (revision of
29 Oct. 1971 ) Vol. VII-429
31 May Unhandled Drugs and Ethics 300
6 June Quads Canceled (C/S Series 28R, 32R, 33R, 36R, 49R)
(revision of 15 July 1971 ) (canceled—see 3 73) Vol. VII—324
8 June Assists (C/S Series 49R) (revised reissue of 5 July 1971) Vol. VII—322
8 July Word Clearing Method 4 (W/C Series 32RA) (revision of
22 Feb. 1972) 301
8 July R Clear to F/N (W/C Series 53R) (revised 24 July 1974) 303
8 July R Word Clearing Errors (C/S Series 92R) (revised 24 July 1974) 304
8 July Method 4 Notes (W/C Series 42R, T/C Series 10)
(revision of 17 Aug. 1972) 305
17 July XDN Case B (Exp. Dn. Series 23) 307
24 July Clear to F/N (W/C Series 53R) (revision of 8 July 1974) 303
24 July Word Clearing Errors (C/S Series 92R) (revision of 8 July 1974) 304
30 Aug. Short Hi-Lo TA Assessment C/S (C/S Series 53 RH)
(revised reissue of 24 Nov. 1973) (canceled—see 398) 308
31 Aug. New Grade Chart (C/S Series 93) 311
7 Sept. Superliteracy and the Cleared Word (W/C Series 54) 314
17 Sept. Green Form (HCO PL) (revision of 7 Apr. 1970) see—321
19 Sept. Exteriorization (reissue of 22 Oct. 1971) Vol. VII—420
19 Sept. Change Brackets and Commands (reissue of
30 Apr. 1961) Vol. IV—258
19 Sept. Obnosis and the Tone Scale (reissue of 26 Oct. 1970) Vol. VII—148
19 Sept. Interiorization Errors (C/S Series 35RA) (revision of
16 Dec. 1971) Vol. VII—456
19 Sept. Cramming (Cramming Series 10RA) (reissue of 10 June 1973) 188
19 Sept. Axiom 28 Amended (reissue of 5 Apr. 1973) 185
21 Sept. Assists in Scientology (reissue of 21 Oct. 1971) Vol. VII—415
21 Sept. Resistive Cases—Former Therapy (reissue of
25 Nov. 1971) Vol. VII—449
21 Sept. End Phenomenas (reissue of 5 Dec. 1971) Vol. VII—451
21 Sept. Bypassed Charge (reissue of 10 June 1972) 144
21 Sept. Step 4—Handling Originations (reissue of 30 Mar. 1973) 183
21 Sept. Tapes, How to Use (W/C Series 25R, T/C Series 6R)
(revision of 10 Nov. 1971) Vol. VII—434
21 Sept. Dianetics (C/S Series 36RB) (reissue of 21 Apr. 1971) 289

1974 (cont.)
25 Sept. Reduction of Refunds—C/Ses and Overload (C/S Series 94) 318
26 Sept. Handling Flubbed Pcs 320
29 Sept. Green Form (HCO PL) (revision of 7 Apr. 1970) 321
6 Oct. The Vital Information Rundown—The Technical Breakthrough
of 1974 327
9 Oct. HC Out-Point Plus-Point Lists RA (revision of
28 Aug. 1970) Vol. VII—132
15 Oct. PTS Rundown, Final Step (revision of 3 June 1972) 141
15 Oct. PTS Rundown (revision of 9 Dec. 1971 ) (revised—see 338) 330
15 Oct. Cramming Over Out Ruds (Cramming Series 14) 334
19 Oct. The Dramatization of Withholds on Vital Information
Lines (HCO PL) 336
21 Oct. F/N and Erasure (revision of 1 Aug. 1970) Vol. VII—117
21 Oct. Summary of How to Write an Auditor’s Report and Worksheets
for HQS Co-Audit (revision of 5 Apr. 1971 ) Vol. VII—215
21 Oct. PTS Rundown (revision of 9 Dec. 1971 ) 338
23 Oct. Course Translation to Tape (T/C Series I ) (reissue of
20 Nov. 1971) Vol. VII—441
23 Oct. Teaching a Tape Course (T/C Series 3R) (revision of
21 Nov. 1971) Vol. VII—446
24 Oct. Method 4 Notes (W/C Series 42R, T/C Series 10) (reissue of
17 Aug. 1972) 305
1 Nov. Integrity Processing Questions Must Be F/Ned (I/P Series 10R)
(revised reissue of 13 Dec. 19 72) 175
1 Nov. Generalities Won’t Do (I/P Series 11 R) (reissue of 14 Dec. 1972) 176
1 Nov. Withholds, Missed and Partial (I/P Series 1 2R)
(revision of 15 Dec. 1972) 178
1 Nov. Rock Slams and Rock Slammers 344
1 Nov. The Technical Breakthrough of 1973! The Introspection RD
(revision of 23 Jan. 1974) 346
5 Nov. Drugs, More About 354
7 Nov. Help the Pc (I/P Series 13) (reissue of 16 Dec. 1972) 180
7 Nov. Havingness (I/P Series 14) (reissue of 17 Dec. 1972) 181
12 Nov. Short Hi-Lo TA Assessment C/S (C/S Series 53RI) (revised
reissue of 24 Nov. 1973) (canceled—see 398) 356
15 Nov. Student Rehabilitation List 359
15 Nov. Gradients and TRs (revision of 7 Apr. 1973) 186
20 Nov. L IX Hi-Lo TA List Revised (revised reissue of 1 Jan. 1972) 1
25 Nov. Barriers to Study (W/C Series 3 R) (revision of
25 June 1971) Vol. VII—293
26 Nov. Post Purpose Clearing (revision of 4 Aug. 1971 ) 363
29 Nov. The Communication Cycle in Auditing (B/A Series 5R)
(revision of 23 May 1971) Vol. VII—248
30 Nov. Supervisor Two-Way Comm and the Misunderstood Word
(W/C Series 4R) (revision of 26 June 1971) Vol. VII—299
1 Dec. Word Clearing Lists for Prepared Lists 366

1974 (cont.)
1 Dec. Expanded GF 40 RB (revision of 30 June 1971 ) Vol. VII—304
1 Dec. The Three Important Communication Lines (B/A Series 3)
(revision of 23 May 1971) Vol. VII—243
2 Dec. Supervisor Two-Way Comm Explained (W/C Series 5 R)
(revision of 27 June 1971) Vol. VII—302

3 Dec. Course Supervisor Correction List—Study Corr List 2R
(revision of 27 Mar. 1972) 52
4 Dec. Communication Cycles Within the Auditing Cycle (B/A Series 4R)
(revision of 23 May 1971) Vol. VII—244
4 Dec. Recognition of Rightness of the Being (B/A Series 10R)
(revision of 23 May 1971 ) Vol. VII—257
4 Dec. The Magic of the Communication Cycle (B/A Series 1 R)
(revision of 23 May 1971) Vol. VII—238
5 Dec. Overts—Order of Effectiveness in Processing (I/P Series 6R) see—370
6 Dec. The Two Parts of Auditing (B/A Series 2R) (revision of
23 May 1971) Vol. VII—240
8 Dec. TR 0—Notes on Blinking 369
9 Dec. Effectiveness of Overts in Processing (I/P Series 6RA) 370
14 Dec. Expanded Dianetic Requisites (Exp. Dn. Series 22R)
(revision of 23 Apr. 1974) 372
17 Dec. Auditor Correction List—Auditor Recovery (Study Corr List 3RA)
(revised reissue of 27 Mar. 1972) 60


1975

12 Jan. Quads Reinstated 373
13 Jan. Use of Quadruple Dianetics (C/S Series 28RA-1) (reissue of
7 Mar. 1971 ) 374
13 Jan. Use of Quad Dianetics (C/S Series 32RA-1R) (addition to
4 Apr. 1971, revised 22 Feb. 1975) 377
13 Jan. Triple and Quad Reruns (C/S Series 33RA-1) (reissue of
5 Apr. 1971) 380
13 Jan. Quadruple Dianetics—Dangers of (C/S Series 36RB-1R)
(addition to 21 Apr. 1971, revised 22 Feb. 1975) 383
16 Jan. Past Life Remedies 388
Jan. Hymn of Asia 390
23 Jan. The Purpose of Class VIII 391
29 Jan. What is a Course? (HCO PL) (revision of 16 Mar. 1971) Vol. VII—198
31 Jan. Six Zones of Action (revision of 17 Sept. 1968) Vol. VI—252
31 Jan. Teaching the Class VIII (revision of 22 Oct. 1968) Vol. VI—276
31 Jan. Case Supervisor—Class VIII—The Basic Processes (revision of
2 Nov. 1968) Vol. VI—278
14 Feb. L10 Prerequisites 392
22 Feb. An Objective Rundown (revision of 2 Nov. 1957) 393
22 Feb. Use of Quad Dianetics (C/S Series 32RA-1R) (revision of
4Apr.1971-1) 377


1975 (cont.)
22 Feb. Quadruple Dianetics—Dangers of (C/S Series 36RB-1R)
(revision of 21 Apr. 1971-1 ) 383
24 Feb. Mutter TR (revision of 1 Oct. 1965) 395
27 Feb. Auditor’s Rights Modified (C/S Series 81R) (revision of
16 June 1972) 149
28 Feb. Green Form, S & D (addition to 10 Sept. 1968) Vol. VI—250
Mar. Dianetics Today 396
7 Mar. Ext and Ending Session 397
18 Mar. Meter Use in Qual (Cramming Series 15) 397
22 Mar. Short Hi-Lo TA Assessment C/S (C/S Series 53 RJ)
(revised reissue of 24 Nov. 1973) 398
25 Mar. Diet, Theory of a Natural Diet 401
29 Mar. Anti-biotics, Administering of 403
19 Apr. Out Basics and How to Get Them In 409
23 Apr. Vanishing Cream and False TA 414
23 Apr. Dry and Wet Hands Make False TA (revision of 23 Nov. 1973) 415
23 Apr. False TA Checklist (revision of 29 Feb. 1972) 417
30 May Johannesburg Confessional List—Revised (HCO PL) (revision
of 7 Apr. 1961) 419
10 June Drug Data (corrected reissue of 29 Aug. 1968) Vol. VI—244
June Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary 423
23 Oct. Technical Queries 424
26 Oct. “Failed” Cases (C/S Series 95) 426
26 Oct. PC Application Form for Any Major Auditing Action (HCO PL)
(revision of 4 Feb. 1970) Vol. VII—16


1976

1 Jan. The Auditor’s Code (HCO PL) (revision of 14 Oct. 1968) Vol. VI—269
27 July PTS Rundown and Vital Info RD Position Corrected 428
29 July PTS Rundown (revision of 9 Dec. 1971RA) 429
29 July The Vital Information Rundown—The Technical Breakthrough
of 1974 (revision of 6 Oct. 1974) 436
10 Aug. R/Ses, What They Mean 440
24 Oct. Delivery Repair Lists (C/S Series 96) 445
26 Oct. Auditing Reports, Falsifying of (C/S Series 97) 450
28 Oct. Auditing Folders, Omissions In Completeness
(C/S Series 98) 452
Subject Index 454
Alphabetical List of Titles 482

LONG CONTENTS



HCO B 1 Jan. 1972RA L IX HI-LO TA LIST REVISED, 1

Hi-Lo TA Assessment,

Word Clearing Series 30
HCO B 2 Jan. 1972 WCl COMES FIRST, 10

Don’t do Word Clearing Method 2 before Method 1, 10
Word Clearing Method 2 EP, 10

C/S Series 69 Addition
HCO B 3 Jan. 1972 C/SING CHECKLIST, 11

Go back in the folder to where the case was running well and come forward, 11

HCO B 7 Jan. 1972 TRAINING AND INTERNING STAFF AUDITORS, 12

Recruiting staff auditors, 12
Interne Supervisor, 12
Staff auditor trainee programming, 12
Interne Supervisor has authority over auditor trainee, 13
Sending auditors to upper orgs for training, 13
SH or AO program of auditor classification and interneships, 13
Interne Supervisor admin, 14
Paid students, 15
Part-time study on next level while auditing is a failure, 15

HCO B 14 Jan. 1972 STUDY CORRECTION LIST, 16 [CANCELED]

HCO B 20 Jan. 1972 PTS RD ADDITION, 19

The only reasons a PTS RD does not work, 19
Remedies for PTS Rundown errors, 19

HCO B 3 Feb. 1972 R6EW—OT III NO INTERFERENCE AREA, 20

Why there is a No Interference Area between R6EW and OT III, 20
Solo auditing set-up, 20
Drug Rundown is a must before Solo, 21
Grade Chart steps before Solo, 21
OCA/APA test, 22
Ideal Solo program, 22
Explanation of sequence of OT III, OT VII, OT IIIX, 23
Availability of auditing materials, 23

HCO B 15 Feb. 1972 FALSE TA ADDITION 2, 24

Wrong ways to get a pc to read between 2.0 and 3.0 on an E-Meter, 24
Commonest sources of low and high TA, 24

C/S Series 74
HCO B 16 Feb. 1972 TALKING THE TA DOWN MODIFIED, 25

Right way to handle high TA, 25
There is no need to talk a TA down; it is faster to directly locate the reason it is up, 25

HCO B 18 Feb. 1972 FALSE TA ADDITION 3, 26

The honesty of the auditor determines his results, 26
Low TAs, 26


Word Clearing Series 32R
HCO B 22 Feb. 1972 WORD CLEARING METHOD 4, 28 [REVISED]

Use of Word Clearing Method 4, 28
Word Clearing Method 4 procedure, 28
Supervisor’s use of Word Clearing Method 4, 29

C/S Series 71A
HCO B 24 Feb. 1972 WORD CLEARING OCAs, 30

Why question sheets for tests must not be word cleared, 30
Testing musts, 30 Examiner attest check, 30
Test line is a check on C/S and auditing quality, 31

Word Clearing Series 15R
HCO B 26 Feb. 1972 WORD CLEARING SERIES 15R, 32

Word clearing any words on any test at any time is a High Crime, 32
Foreign language persons, 32
Mis Us on tests, 32

26 Feb. 1972 LRH MODEL TAPE SESSIONS, 33

Honest TRs, 33
Result of poor TRs, 33
Use of LRH Model Auditing Tapes, 33

HCO B 29 Feb. 1972R FALSE TA CHECKLIST, 34 [REVISED]

Establishment Officer Series 5
HCO PL 13 Mar. 1972 PRODUCTION AND ESTABLISHMENT-ORDERS AND PRODUCTS, 37

People not knowing their products require constant orders, 37
Hat survey for orders, 37
Disestablishment, 38
Hatting for product, 38
Right direction to hat, 38
Steps to clear “product”, 39
“Quickie” Product Clearing, 39
Disagreements Check, 40
Product Officers, 40

HCO PL 16 Mar. 1972 WHAT IS A COURSE—HIGH CRIME, 41

Cause of Supervisor failure, 41
Course Super’s primary tech, 42
Reason for student queries, 42
Product of Supervisor, 43

Establishment Officer Series 11
HCO PL 23 Mar. 1972 FULL PRODUCT CLEARING LONG FORM, 44

TA and Product Clearing, 49

HCO B 20 Nov. 1971 HAS SPECIALIST AND ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER AUDITING PROGRAM (Revised), 50

HAS Rundown, 50

HCO B 27 Mar. 1972R COURSE SUPERVISOR CORRECTION LIST
—STUDY CORR LIST 2R, 52

Course Supervisor Correction Form—additional actions required, 59


HCO B 27 Mar. 1972RA AUDITOR CORRECTION LIST—AUDITOR RECOVERY
—STUDY CORR LIST 3RA, 60

Study Series 5
HCO B 30 Mar. 1972 PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN—FIRST
CRAMMING CORRECTION, 65 [REVISED]

Cramming a person is a waste of time if he never learned to study, 65
Primary Correction Rundown, 65
Auditing interlude, 65
Study tech section, 66
Cramming actions, 66

Expanded Dianetics Series 1
HCO B 31 Mar. 1972 EXPANDED DIANETICS SERIES 1, 68 [REVISED]

Expanded Dianetics vs. Standard Dianetics, 68
Expanded Dianetics is very specifically adjusted to the pc, 68
Expanded Dianetics training, 68
Hubbard Graduate Dianetic Specialist, 69
Charges for Expanded Dianetics, 69
Auditor prerequisite for Expanded Dianetics, 69

Expanded Dianetics Series 3RB
HCO B 2 Apr. 1972RB L3 EXD RB—EXPANDED DIANETICS REPAIR LIST, 70

Study Series 6
HCO B 3 Apr. 1972 PRIMARY RUNDOWN NOTE, 75

Primary Rundown handling of Study Tapes, 75

HCO B 4 Apr. 1972 TECH DIV PRIMARY RUNDOWN, 76 [REVISED]

Primary Rundown actions in HGC are case handling and Word Clearing Method 1, 76
Primary Rundown in Dept of Training, 76
Study Tapes and Student Hat, 76
Primary Rundown product, 77

Establishment Officer Series 14
HCO PL 4 Apr. 1972 ETHICS, 78

Exchange flows and out-ethics, 78
Criminality, 78
Ethics Tech Admin sequence, 78
Exchange and criminality, 79
Production, morale and exchange factor, 80
Exchange by Dynamics, 80
Conditions by Dynamics, 81

HCO PL 9 Apr. 1972 CORRECT DANGER CONDITION HANDLING, 82

Danger Formula, 82
First Dynamic Danger Formula, 82
Junior Danger Formula, 82
Trouble Area Assessment, 83
Trouble Area Short Form, 84
Ending a Danger Condition, 84

C/S Series 75,
Solo C/S Series 13
HCO B 10 Apr. 1972 PRE-OTS DON’T C/S, 85

Solo C/Sing line, 85
Solo auditing admin, 85
Worst features of a Pre-OT doing his own C/Sing, 86
Pre-OTs do not C/S their own folders, 86

Expanded Dianetics Series 1R
HCO B 15 Apr. 1972 EXPANDED DIANETICS SERIES 1R, 87

Expanded Dianetics vs. Standard Dianetics, 87

Expanded Dianetics is very specifically adjusted to the pc, 87
Expanded Dianetics training, 87
Hubbard Graduate Dianetic Specialist, 88
Charges for Expanded Dianetics, 88
Auditor prerequisite for Expanded Dianetics, 88

HCO B 16 Apr. 1972 PTS RD CORRECTION LIST, 89

C/S Series 76
HCO B 17 Apr. 1972 C/SING A PTS RUNDOWN, 91

The whole point of a PTS Rundown is to make a person not PTS any longer, 91
PTS results in illness and roller-coaster and is the cause of illness and roller-coaster, 91
Steps of handling PTS pc, 91
PTS data, 92
PTS situations, 92
End phenomenon of the PTS RD is attained when the person is well and stable, 92

C/S Series 77
HCO B 19 Apr. 1972 “QUICKIE” DEFINED, 93

Definitions of “quickie”, 93
Examples of quickie actions, 93
Complete is the reverse of quickie, 93
Necessity of clearing words in commands, 94
Remedies for the quickie impulse, 94

Expanded Dianetics Series 4
HCO B 20 Apr. 1972 SUPPRESSED PCS AND PTS TECH, 95

Characteristics of PTS persons, 95
Administrative tech of PTS Rundown, 95

C/S Series 78
HCO B 20 Apr. 1972 PRODUCT PURPOSE AND WHY AND WC ERROR
CORRECTION, 96

C/S must be sure all Why finding and Word Clearing papers and worksheets get into pc’s folders, 96
Listing out of session, 96
Self-auditing, 96
List error reaction, 97
Symptoms of out lists, 97
Alternate wordings for “PTS”, 97
Wrong lists or upset people can occur in an org where untrained people are also using meters, 97

C/S Series 79, Expanded Dianetics Series 5
HCO B 24 Apr. 1972 PTS INTERVIEWS, 98

PTS Interview questions, 98
Required actions of PTS Interview, 98

Study Series 8
HCO B 26 Apr. 1972 THE GLIB STUDENT, 99

Glib student can confront the words and ideas; he cannot confront the physical universe or people around him and so cannot apply, 99
Handling the glib student, 99

Executive Series 12
HCO PL 3 May 1972 ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES, 100

Danger Rundown, 3 May PL, 100
Definition of executive, 100
Responsibility of executives to handle out-ethics, 100
Ethics and organization, 100
Examples of ethics offenses, 101

Technical aspect of out-ethics, 101
Danger Rundown steps, 102
Step 1: Inform the person personally he is in Danger Condition, 102
Step 2: Ethics is gotten in by definition on the person, 102
Step 3: Ask the person what out-ethics situation he or she is involved in, 103
Step 4: Have the person work out how the out-ethics situation is a betrayal of the group, 103
Step 5: First Dynamic Danger Formula, 103
Step 6: Review the person and his stats and appearance and personal life, 104

HCO B 3 May 1972 HAVINGNESS, 105

Thetan’s relation to energy, 105
Dwindling spiral of the mest universe, 105
Remedy of havingness, 105

HCO B 4 May 1972 SIX BASIC PROCESSES, 107

Two-way Communication, 107
Elementary Straightwire, 107
Opening Procedure of 8-C, 107
Opening Procedure by Duplication, 108
Remedy of Havingness, 108
Spotting Spots, 108
Training required on the six basic processes, 108
Precision definition of communication lag, 108
“Value” of energy, 109
Duplication, 109
Opening Procedure by Duplication, 109
Auditor’s willingness to duplicate, 109
Training and duplication, 110
Goal of auditor and pc, 110

HCO B 5 May 1972R THE REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS, 112

Thetan cuts down knowingness to create a game, 112
Know to Mystery Scale described, 112
Game conditions, 113

HCO B 6 May 1972 REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS—THE PROCESS, 115

Definition of Remedy of Havingness, 115
Expanded GITA related to Remedy of Havingness, 115
How to run Remedy of Havingness, 116
Reason for dropped havingness, 117
End of Cycle Processing, 118

HCO B 7 May 1972 EXPANDED GITA, 120

Theory of Expanded GITA, 120
Item list for Expanded GITA, 120
Present Time Differentiation; Exteriorization by Scenery, 121
ARC Straight Wire using next-to-last list of Self Analysis in Scientology, 121
Run psychotic cases on Present Time Differentiation, 121

HCO B 8 May 1972 THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVINGNESS, 123

Indicators of dropped havingness, 123
Repair of Havingness vs. Remedy of Havingness, 124
Sacrifices and genetic entity, 125
Chronic somatics, 126

HCO B 10 May 1972 ROBOTISM, 127

Primary human failing is an inability to function as himself or contribute to group achievements, 127
Robot band of determinism scale, 127
Mechanism of needing orders, 127
Perception related to overts and withholds, 128

Overt products, 128
Slowness, 128
Group justice, 128
No real malice in the robot, 128
False reports, 129
Robot goes into morale declines easily, 129
Physical inertia, 129 PTS and robots, 129
Basic Why for needing orders, being inactive, incompetent and unproductive, 130
Remedy of robot condition, 130
End product of robotism handling, 130

Word Clearing Series 8RB
HCO B 30 June 1971 R STANDARD C/S FOR WORD CLEARING IN SESSION —METHOD 1, 131

Word Clearing Method 1 procedure, 132
Word Clearing Method 1 end phenomena, 132

Study Series 5R
HCO B 30 Mar. 1972R THE PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN REVISED, 133

When the Primary Correction Rundown is given, 133
Primary Correction Rundown checklist, 134

HCO B 4 Apr. 1972 PRIMARY RUNDOWN (REVISED), 135

Primary Rundown consists of word clearing and study tech; it makes a student super-literate, 135
Keynote of Primary Rundown is honesty, 135
Primary Rundown steps, 136
No Interference Zone, 137
Primary Correction Rundown takes care of people who have trouble on the PRD, 137
Students who are or have been on drugs need a Drug Rundown before tackling Word Clearing Method 1, 137

HCO B 15 Dec. 1968R L4BR—FOR ASSESSMENT OF ALL LISTING
ERRORS, 138

HCO B 3 June 1972R PTS RUNDOWN, FINAL STEP, 141

Can’t Have Rundown, 141
SPs are SPs because they deny Hav and enforce unwanted Hav, 141
PTS RD two-way comm question converted to Listing and Nulling, 142

Word Clearing Series 36
HCO B 9 June 1972 GRAMMAR, 143

Grammatical words and small words should be looked up in a simple grammar textbook, 143
Grammar textbooks, 143
Grammar Course before Word Clearing, 143

HCO B 10 June 1972 BYPASSED CHARGE, 144

Mechanism of BPC (By-Passed-Charge), 144

Data Series 26,
Establishment Officer Series 18
HCO PL 12 June 1972 LENGTH OF TIME TO EVALUATE, 145

Assessment for individual Why of evaluator taking a long time to evaluate, 145

C/S Series 80
HCO B 15 June 1972 “DOG PCs”, 147

Remedy for an auditor with “dog pcs”, 147
Remedy for a C/S who is agreeing there are “dog pcs”, 147
Errors behind “dog pcs”, 148


C/S Series 81R
HCO B 16 June 1972R AUDITOR’S RIGHTS MODIFIED, 149

Major Why of falling hours, incomplete programs and other confusions, 149
Auditor’s right to choose pcs modified, 149 “Dog pcs” are problems in repair, 149
Stats of C/Ses and auditors, D of P and Dir of Tech Services, 150
The road to truth is begun with honesty, 150

Word Clearing Series 37
HCO B 19 June 1972 DINKY DICTIONARIES, 151

Small dictionaries are very often a greater liability than they are a help, 151
Which are the best dictionaries, 151

Word Clearing Series 38
HCO B 21 June 1972 METHOD 5, 152

Word Clearing Method 5 is called Material Clearing, 152
Word Clearing Method 5 procedure, 152

Word Clearing Series 39
HCO B 21 June 1972 METHOD 6, 153

Word Clearing Method 6 is called Key Word Clearing, 153
Word Clearing Method 6 procedure, 153
Post trouble remedied by Word Clearing Method 6, 153

Word Clearing Series 40
HCO B 21 June 1972 METHOD 7, 154

Word Clearing Method 7 is reading aloud, 154
Word Clearing Method 7 procedure, 154

Word Clearing Series 41
HCO B 21 June 1972 METHOD 8, 155

Word Clearing Method 8 is an action used in the Primary Rundown, 155
Word Clearing Method 8 procedure, 155

HCO B 20 July 1972 PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN HANDLING, 157

Who PCRDs are given to, 157
The purpose of the PCRD is to get the person through the PRD, 157
Folder study, 157 Outlists, 157
Idle student, 158
Resistive students, 158
Pre-PCRD steps, 158
End phenomena of a Primary Correction Rundown, 159

HCO B 20 July 1972
DISTRACTIVE AND ADDITIVE QUESTIONS AND ORDERS, 160

Auditor distracting pc, 160
Auditor evaluation, 160
All auditors talk too much, 160
Muzzled auditing means stating only the Model Session patter and commands and TRs, 160

C/S Series 82,
Expanded Dianetics Series 6
HCO B 10 Aug. 1972 DIANETIC HCO B—INTEREST, 161

On Drugs and Evil Purposes or Intentions one does not ask the pc if he is interested in running the item, 161
Dianetic “no interest” items, 161

HCO B 13 Aug. 1972R FAST FLOW TRAINING, 162

Fast flow student, 162

Fast flow student passes courses by attestation, 162
Provisional certificate, 162
Provisional certificates expire after one year if not validated, 162
Fast flow prerequisites, 163
Non-PRDs, 163
Drug cases get Drug RD before Word Clearing Method 1 , 163
Fast flow student designation, 163

C/S Series 84
HCO B 16 Aug. 1972 FLUBLESS C/SING, 164

C/S makes sure tech courses are taught well, 164
C/S makes sure Qual has a Cramming Officer, 164
C/S standard handling of auditors, 164
Cramming, retread and retrain, 164
A falsified auditing report puts the auditor at once at retrain, 164
OT TR 0 and TR 0 are the keys to good auditing, 164
Electronic attest, 165

Word Clearing Series 42
HCO B 17 Aug. 1972 METHOD 4 NOTES, 166 [REVISED]

Break down the materials when doing Word Clearing Method 4, 166
Word Clearing Method 4 of tapes and books, 166
Errors in Word Clearing Method 4, 166

Word Clearing Series 43
HCO B 18 Aug. 1972 GRAMMAR DEFINITION, 167

Grammar is a systematic description of the ways in which words are used in a particular language, 167
Word classes, 167
Rules of grammar, 167
Types of grammars, 168

C/S Series 85,
Expanded Dianetics Series 7
HCO B 13 Sept. 1972 CATASTROPHES FROM AND REPAIR OF “NO INTEREST” ITEMS, 169

Drug Rundown can fail by asking for interest on items, 169
Don’t ask for interest on intentions, evil purposes and drug items, 169 Repair of “no interest” items, 169

Word Clearing Series 44
HCO B 6 Nov. 1972 ILLITERACY AND WORK, 170

Educating illiterate or semi-literate populations, 170
Example of educating a primitive culture, 170
Education mustn’t skip gradients in culture or in training, 171

HCO B 15 Nov. 1972 STUDENTS WHO SUCCEED, 172

Honesty of a student, 172
Ethics must be in to get tech in, 172
Justice and ethics, 172
Symptoms of students who are withholding, 173
Pilot courses, 173
Confessionals on students, 173
Honest student is the most successful student, 174

Integrity Processing Series 10R
HCO B 13 Dec. 1972R INTEGRITY PROCESSING QUESTIONS MUST BE
F/Ned, 175

Main danger of Integrity Processing is not probing a person’s past but failing to do so thoroughly, 175
Never leave an Integrity Processing question unflat, 175

How to prevent Integrity Processing being left unflat, 175

Integrity Processing Series 11R
HCO B 14 Dec. 1972R GENERALITIES WON’T DO, 176

Best way to “miss” Integrity Processing question is to let the pc indulge in generalities or “I thought........”, 176
Handling general withholds and other people’s withholds, 176
How to get withholds off an “irresponsible pc”, 176
“Don’t know” version of withhold pulling, 176

Integrity Processing Series 12R
HCO B 15 Dec. 1972R WITHHOLDS, MISSED AND PARTIAL, 178

Natterings, upsets, ARC breaks, critical tirades, lost students, ineffective motions are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds, 178
Knowledge to the average person is only this: a knowledge of his withholds, 178
Wild animal reaction that makes Man a cousin to the beasts, 178
Handling critical, upset, ARC breaky pc, 179

Integrity Processing Series 13
HCO B 16 Dec. 1972 HELP THE PC, 180

Use of steering in withhold pulling, 180
Pc is always willing to reveal, 180
If pc knew all the answer it wouldn’t read on the E-Meter, 180

Integrity Processing Series 14
HCO B 17 Dec. 1972 HAVINGNESS, 181

Havingness is the concept of being able to reach; no-havingness is the concept of not being able to reach, 181
Havingness must be run to get the benefit of having pulled most withholds, 181

Study Series 9
HCO B 4 Jan. 1973 CONFRONT, 182

Definitions of confront, 182
If one can confront he can be aware; if one is aware one can perceive and act, 182

HCO B 30 Mar. 1973 STEP FOUR—HANDLING ORIGINATIONS, 183

What is an origination of the preclear, 183
Three steps in handling an origin, 183

HCO B 5 Apr. 1973 AXIOM 28 AMENDED, 185

Axiom 28, 185
Formula of communication, 185

HCO B 7 Apr. 1973R GRADIENTS IN TRs, 186

How to do TRs, 186
Going over and over TR 0-4, 186

Cramming Series 10RA
HCO B 10 June 1973RA CRAMMING, 188

Qual does not take orders on what to do to correct, 188

HCO B 11 July 1973 ASSIST SUMMARY, 189

Medical examination and treatment and assists, 189
Causes of predisposition, precipitation and prolongation of injury and illness, 189
Physical facts of injuries, illnesses and stresses, 190
Role of assists, 190
Don’t confine handling of injuries to Touch Assist, 190
Actions of ministers, 191

Assist Summary steps, 191
Drug “five days” rule need not apply to assists, 192
Assist given over drugs, how to handle later, 192
Pc illness during grade auditing, 192
There is no conflict between minister and medical doctor, 192

Qual Flub Catch Series 4
HCO B 21 July 1973 RECOVERING STUDENTS AND PCS, 193

Five main reasons for student blows, 193
Reasons for pc blows, 194
Handling the blown student or pc, 194

HCO B 29 July 1973 ART, MORE ABOUT, 196

How good does a work of art have to be to be good, 196
Art for self-satisfaction vs. audience, 196
Technique of art, 197
Art to be good must have technical expertise itself adequate to produce an emotional impact, 198
What is technical expertise, 198
“Technical expertise adequate to produce an emotional impact” and “message”, 199
Art quality and form, 199
Living itself is an art form, 199

HCO B 30 July 1973 SCIENTOLOGY, CURRENT STATE OF THE SUBJECT AND MATERIALS, 201

Extent of Scientology materials, 201
Scientology archives, 201
Development of Scientology, 201
Uses of Scientology, 202
Scientology’s relation to healing, 203
Nutrition and biochemistry, 204
Physical ailments can resist spiritual improvement, 205
OT behavior, 206

HCO B 2 Aug. 1973 PEP, 207

Change of man’s diet, 207
Sugar vs. protein, 207
Result of heavy intake of sugar and carbohydrates, 207
Proper diet, 208

HCO B 10 Aug. 1973 PTS HANDLING, 209

Cause of illness, 209
Three basic actions of handling PTS conditions, 209
Relation of PTS person to psychotic, 209
Apparent reasons for illness besides being PTS, 209
Predisposition, precipitation and prolongation of illness, 210
PTS handling by steps, 210
PTS “unburdening”, 211

C/S Series 87
HCO B 15 Oct. 1973 NULLING AND F/Ning PREPARED LISTS, 213

Auditor outnesses causing a null prepared list, 213
The use of suppress and invalidate buttons and misunderstood word tech on the list, 213
A prepared list either reads or F/Ns, 213

HCO B 30 Aug. 1971RC PC COMPLETIONS—SECOND REVISION, 214 [REPLACED]

Pc completion points, 214

HCO B 11 Nov. 1973 PRECLEAR DECLARE? PROCEDURE, 218


Examiner Declare? procedure, 218

HCO B 15 Nov. 1973R FEAR OF PEOPLE LIST—R, 219

Terminals list, 219
Emotions list, 219
Handling steps, 220

HCO B 20 Nov. 1973 Reissued from 21st ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE TRAINING DRILLS, 221

Anti-Q and A TR, 221

C/S Series 89
HCO B 20 Nov. 1973 F/N WHAT YOU ASK OR PROGRAM, 222

Auditor Q and A, 222
The auditor must F/N the original action, 222
Results of auditor Q and A, 222
Results of C/S Q and A, 222

HCO B 21 Nov. 1973 THE CURE OF Q AND A—MAN’S DEADLIEST
DISEASE, 223

The disease of Q and A, 223
Administrator Q and A, 223
C/S Q and A, 223
Q and A remedy steps, 224

HCO B 23 Nov. 1973 DRY AND WET HANDS MAKE FALSE TA, 226 [REVISED]

TA depends on normally moist hands, 226
Use of hand cream for dry hands, 226
Use of anti-perspirants for wet hands, 227
F/N and false TA, 227
Conditions that make an auditor mess up a pc’s TA, 227

C/S Series 53RF
HCO B 24 Nov. 1973 SHORT HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT C/S, 228 [CANCELED]

HCO B 5 Dec. 1973 THE REASON FOR Q AND A, 230

What is meant by Q and A, 230
Q and A examples, 230
Q and A is simply postulate aberration, 230
State of person who Qs and As, 231
Body Q and A, 231
Cure for Q and A with a body, 232

C/S Series 90
HCO B 6 Dec. 1973 THE PRIMARY FAILURE, 233

Most common reason for failed sessions, 233
Remedy for an auditor who can’t get reads on lists, 233
Requirements for making a list read, 234
Primary cause of C/S failure, 234

HCO B 15 Dec. 1973 THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H AND CONTINUOUS OVERT WITH DATA ON DEGRADED BEINGS AND FALSE PTS CONDITIONS, 235

The continuous missed W/H, 235
The continuous overt, 235
Degraded beings, 23 6
Handling of continuous missed withhold and overt, 236
Motion slowness, 236
False PTS, 236


HCO B 6 Jan. 1974 ASSIST SUMMARY ADDITION, 237

Assist Summary addition steps, 237

HCO B 23 Jan. 1974 THE TECHNICAL BREAKTHROUGH OF 1973!
THE INTROSPECTION RD, 239 [REVISED]

What is a psychotic break, 239
Wrong indication and psychotic break, 239
Theory of Introspection Rundown, 240
Auditor requirements, 240
Steps of the Introspection Rundown, 240
End phenomena of Introspection Rundown, 241

HCO B 27 Jan. 1974 DIANETICS—R3R COMMANDS HAVE BACKGROUND DATA, 243

Basics of engram running, 243
Inadequacy of a completely rote system, 244

HCO B 11 Apr. 1971R L3RC—DIANETICS AND EXT RD REPAIR LIST, 245
[REVISED]

HCO B 23 Jan. 1974R THE TECHNICAL BREAKTHROUGH OF 1973!
THE INTROSPECTION RD, 249 [REVISED]

What is a psychotic break, 249
Wrong indication and psychotic break, 249
Theory of Introspection Rundown, 250
Auditor requirements, 250
Steps of the Introspection Rundown, 250
End phenomena of Introspection Rundown, 256

Expanded Dianetics Series 20
HCO B 15 Feb. 1974 SERVICE FACSIMILE THEORY AND EXPANDED DIANETICS, 257

Service Facs by Dynamics, 257
Service facsimile theory, 257
Service facsimile handling, 258

C/S Series 91
HCO B 17 Feb. 1974 MUTUAL OUT RUDS, 259

Definition of “mutual out ruds”, 259
C/S checks for mutual out ruds, 259
Handling of mutual out ruds, 259

HCO B 20 Feb. 1974 INTROSPECTION RD—ADDITIONAL ACTIONS, 260

Responsibility step, 260
Programming Introspection Rundown to fit the pc, 260
The cleared cannibal factor, 260
Isolation of person in psychotic break, 260
C/S action—cleared cannibal step, 261

HCO B 6 Mar. 1974 INTROSPECTION RD—SECOND ADDITION—INFORMATION TO C/SES—FIXATED ATTENTION, 262

Fixated attention case, 262
Introversion and attention, 262
Anatomy and remedy of fixated attention, 262
Steps of handling fixated attention, 262
Release from isolation after psychotic break, 263
Additional cleared cannibal step, 263
C/Sing and auditing psychos, 264
Integrity of rundowns, 264


HCO B 11 Apr. 1971RA L3RD—DIANETICS AND INT RD REPAIR LIST, 265

HCO B 17 Mar. 1974 TWC CHECKSHEETS—TWC, USING WRONG QUESTIONS, 270

Don’t use a listing question in two-way comm, 270
What two-way comm questions must be limited to, 270
Examples of correct and incorrect two-way comm questions, 270

HCO B 18 Mar. 1974 E-METERS—SENSITIVITY ERRORS, 271

An auditor must set the sensitivity of an E-Meter exactly right for each pc, 271
Too low sensitivity, 271
Too high sensitivity, 271
E-Meter sensitivity setting for individual cases, 271

HCO B 21 Mar. 1974 END PHENOMENA, 272

Definition of end phenomena, 272
Types of EPs, 272
Dianetic end phenomena, 272
Scientology end phenomena, 272
F/N abuse, 272
End phenomena errors, 272
OTs and EPs, 273
Remedy of auditor errors in handling end phenomena, 273

C/S Series 32RA
HCO B 4 Apr. 1971RA USE OF DIANETICS, 274

Tripling earlier Dianetics, 274
Full Flow Table, 274
Definitions of Flows 1, 2, 3 and 0, 274
Flow Zero command for the Introspection RD, 275
When to Triple narrative items or multiple somatic items, 275
Completing unfinished flows in Full Flow Dianetics, 275
Result of Full Flow Dianetics, 275
Offering FFD, 275
OT warning, 275

Expanded Dianetics Series 21
HCO B 28 Mar. 1974 EXPANDED DIANETICS DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE ORIGINAL LECTURES, 276

Expanded Dianetics programming, 276
Expanded Dianetics set-ups, 276
Pc trouble on engrams, 276
Ex Dn rundowns, 276
Class VIII C/S-6 list, 276
Intentions in AEI Treble Assessments, 277
Evil purposes, 277
R/S Handling, also called the Responsibility RD, 277
The Wants Handled Rundown, 277
The Multiple-Flow E. Purp Rundown, 277
Ex Dn program is designed for an individual, 278

C/S Series 23RA
HCO B 17 Dec. 1971R INTERIORIZATION SUMMARY, 279

Quads canceled, 279
When is Int RD unnecessary, 279
When is Int RD overrun, 280
Repair of Int RD, 280
Two-way comm step, 280
C/Sing Int RD, 280
Int RD is a remedy, 280
Disability of auditor in running Int RD, 281
What the C/S does to win, 281

C/S Series 53RG
HCO B 24 Nov. 1973 SHORT HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT C/S, 282 [CANCELED]

C/S Series 28RA
HCO B 7 Mar. 1971RA USE OF DIANETICS, 284

How to C/S a case for Triple Dianetics, 284
Dianetic Full Flow Table, 284
Int-Ext RD and Full Flow Table, 285
R3R flubs, 285
Results of Triple Dianetics, 285
Dianetic remedies and Triple Flows, 285

C/S Series 33RA
HCO B 5 Apr. 1971 RA TRIPLE RERUNS, 286

By-passed flows and mass, 286
The source of high TA, 286
Liability of rehabs, 286
Massy thetans, 286
Getting in all flows, 287
High TA and Triple Flows, 287
Pc not in trouble, 287
Pc in trouble, 287
Running Zero Flows, 288
Getting in Triple Flows—rehab or run, 288
Results of All Flows Rundown, 288

C/S Series 36RB
HCO B 21 Apr. 1971 RB DIANETICS, 289

Reason for TRs, 289
Rehabbing chains, 289
How to handle flubbed chains, 290
Use of L3RD, 290
Overrun and Full Flow Dianetics, 290
How to handle firefights, 291
Who can run Dianetics, Dianetic Triples, and Int-Ext RD, 291
C/S responsibility, 292
Risk involved in Full Flow Dianetics, 292
Introducing FFD, 292

Art Series 3
HCO B 10 Apr. 1974 STAGE MANNERS, 293

Basics of appearing before an audience, 293
Stage manners rules, 293
Stage manners drills, 294

HCO B 20 Apr. 1974 INTROSPECTION RD—THIRD ADDITION—ADDITIONAL INTROSPECTION RD STEPS, 295

Introspection RD has as its dominant flow, Flow 0, 295
Additional steps, 295
Introspection Rundown caution, 296

Expanded Dianetics Series 22
HCO B 23 Apr. 1974 EXPANDED DIANETICS REQUISITES, 297 [REVISED]

Ex Dn set-up checklist, 297

Art Series 4
HCO B 25 Apr. 1974 RHYTHM, 298

Definition of rhythm, 298
Six distinct types of rhythm in music, 298
Usage, 298
Repetition, 298

Rapport, 298
Impingement, 299
Rhythm in art forms, 299

HCO B 31 May 1974 UNHANDLED DRUGS AND ETHICS, 300

Drugs must be handled first in auditing, 300

Word Clearing Series 32RA
HCO B 22 Feb. 1972RA WORD CLEARING METHOD 4, 301

Use of Word Clearing Method 4, 301
Word Clearing Method 4 procedure, 301
Supervisor use of Word Clearing Method 4, 302

Word Clearing Series 53R
HCO B 8 July 1974R CLEAR TO F/N, 303

TA must be in normal range to start Word Clearing on meter, 303
All words must be F/Ned in Word Clearing on meter, 303
Word Clearing red tabs, 303

C/S Series 92R
HCO B 8 July 1974R WORD CLEARING ERRORS, 304

All words must be F/Ned, 304
Word Clearing worksheets must be placed in folders, 304
Case trouble and Word Clearing, 304
Word Clearing errors are red tabbed, 304
Handling of TA trouble at start of Word Clearing, 304

Word Clearing Series 42R
Tape Course Series 10
HCO B 17 Aug. 1972R METHOD 4 NOTES, 305

Too generalized a question in using Word Clearing Method 4 defeats its use, 305
Break down the materials, 305
Word Clearing Method 4 of tapes, 305
Word Clearing Method 4 of books, 305
Errors in Word Clearing Method 4, 305

Expanded Dianetics Series 23
HCO B 17 July 1974 XDN CASE B, 307

Further data on XDn Series 9, 307
Drug Rundown is a must before Ex Dn, 307
Headache and Int-Ext, 307

C/S Series 53RH
HCO B 24 Nov. 1973R SHORT HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT C/S, 308 [CANCELED]

C/S Series 93
HCO B 31 Aug. 1974 NEW GRADE CHART, 311

Changes in the Grade Chart, 311
Drug Rundown and Life Repair, 311
Expanded Dianetics, 311
Grade II, 311
Solo set-ups, 312
The full list of Grades showing where the various RDs now offered fit, 312
The Grade Chart and programming, 313

Word Clearing Series 54
HCO B 7 Sept. 1974 SUPERLITERACY AND THE CLEARED WORD, 314

Education and superliteracy, 314
What is superliteracy, 314
Action of superliterate illustrated, 316

Cleared words, 317

C/S Series 94
HCO B 25 Sept. 1974 REDUCTION OF REFUNDS—C/Ses AND OVERLOAD, 318

Overloaded C/Ses—cause of out tech and huge refund ratio, 318
Irreducible minimum C/S postings, 318
Additional types of C/Ses, 318
What is overload, 319

HCO B 26 Sept. 1974 HANDLING FLUBBED PCS, 320

Tech corrects its own flubbed pcs; it does not send them to Qual, 320
Tech action, 320
Red tag handling, 320
Qual action, 320

HCO PL 7 Apr. 1970RA GREEN FORM, 321

HCO B 6 Oct. 1974 THE VITAL INFORMATION RUNDOWN—THE TECHNICAL BREAKTHROUGH OF 1974, 327

Overt of withholding vital information, 327
Research, 327
Withholding vital information in orgs, 327
Peculiarity of mechanism of withholding vital information, 328
When the Vital Information Rundown is given, 328
Vital Info RD by steps, 328

HCO B 9 Dec. 1971R PTS RUNDOWN, 330 [REVISED]

PTS phenomena, 330
Who does PTS Rundown, 330
Only PTS situation that is serious and lasting and can cause a roller-coast it comes from having known the person before this life, 330
Four points of breakdown of the PTS Rundown, 331
PTS Rundown end phenomena, 331
The four parts of PTS Rundown, 331
Flows of PTS Rundown, 332
Re-dos if pc does not recover, 332
The commands of PTS Rundown, 332

Cramming Series 14
HCO B 15 Oct. 1974 CRAMMING OVER OUT RUDS, 334

Result of cramming over out ruds, 334
Don’t cram over out ruds, 334
Cramming Officer flubs, 334
Incomplete handling, 334
Maxim of Cramming, 335

HCO PL 19 Oct. 1974 THE DRAMATIZATION OF WITHHOLDS ON VITAL INFORMATION LINES, 336

Dramatization of withholds, 336
Vital information, 336
Different ways to dramatize withholds, 336
An org’s main product, 337
Remedy for the dramatization of withholds, 337

HCO B 9 Dec. 1971RA PTS RUNDOWN, 338

PTS phenomena, 338
Who does PTS Rundown, 338
Only PTS situation that is serious and lasting and can cause a roller-coaster comes from having known the person before this life, 339
Four points of breakdown of the PTS Rundown, 339
Behavior of PTS RD, 339

PTS Rundown end phenomena, 340
Flows of PTS RD, 340
PTS Rundown re-dos, 340
PTS Rundown references, 340
PTS Rundown steps, 340
Past S&Ds, 340
Past PTS Interviews, 342
New S&Ds (3 S&Ds), 342
Troubled/worried, 342
Been after, 343
Planets, 343 PTS
Rundown repair, 343

HCO B 1 Nov. 1974 ROCK SLAMS AND ROCK SLAMMERS, 344

Definition of rock slam, 344
Rock slammers, 344
Checklist to assist identification of R/Sers, 344
Pcs who R/S, 345
Rock slammer is different from someone with a rock slam, 345

HCO B 23 Jan. 1974RA THE TECHNICAL BREAKTHROUGH OF 1973! THE INTROSPECTION RD, 346

What is a psychotic break, 346
Wrong indication and psychotic break, 346
Theory of Introspection Rundown, 347
Auditor requirements, 347
Steps of the Introspection Rundown, 347
End phenomena of the Introspection Rundown, 353

HCO B 5 Nov. 1974 DRUGS, MORE ABOUT, 354

Withdrawal symptoms, 354
How to handle drug withdrawal symptoms, 354
Cal-Mag formula, 354
Cal-Mag replaces any tranquilizer, 355

C/S Series 53RI
HCO B 24 Nov. 1973RA SHORT HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT C/S, 356 [CANCELED]

HCO B 15 Nov. 1974 STUDENT REHABILITATION LIST, 359

HCO B 4 Aug. 1971R POST PURPOSE CLEARING, 363

Instant Purpose Clearing, 363
Full Post Purpose Clearing, 363
Admin of Post Purpose Clearing, 363
Post Purpose Clearing steps, 364

HCO B 1 Dec. 1974 WORD CLEARING LISTS FOR PREPARED LISTS, 366

List of prepared lists with their word clearing lists, 366

HCO B 8 Dec. 1974 TR 0—NOTES ON BLINKING, 369

There is no such thing as blinkless TR 0, 369
Points on confronting, 369

Integrity Processing Series 6RA
HCO B 9 Dec. 1974 EFFECTIVENESS OF OVERTS IN PROCESSING, 370

ARC breaks, 370
Why overts work, 370

Expanded Dianetics Series 22R
HCO B 23 Apr. 1974R EXPANDED DIANETICS REQUISITES, 372


Ex Dn set-up checklist, 372

HCO B 12 Jan. 1975 QUADS REINSTATED, 373

Quad Dianetics materials are reissued, 373
Quad rules, 3 73
Who to run on Quad, 373

C/S Series 28RA-1
HCO B 7 Mar. 1971 USE OF QUADRUPLE DIANETICS, 374

How to C/S a case for Quadruple Dianetics, 374
Dianetic Full Flow Table, 3 74
Int-Ext RD and Full Flow Table, 375
Auditor requirements for Quad Dianetics, 375
R3R flubs, 375
C/Sing Quad Dianetics, 376
Promotion of Quad Dianetics, 376
Upper level auditors, 376
Results of Quad Dianetics, 376
Dianetic Remedies, 3 76

C/S Series 32RA-1R
HCO B 4 Apr. 1971-1R USE OF QUAD DIANETICS, 377

Tripling earlier Dianetic items, 377
Quadrupling earlier Dianetic items, 377
Int Rundown, 377
Reason to handle missing flows, 377
Full Flow Table, 378
Definitions of Flows 1, 2, 3 and 0, 378
Flow Zero command, 3 78
When to triple or quad narrative items or multiple somatic items, 378
Completing unfinished flows in Full Flow Dianetics, 378
Result of Full Flow Dianetics, 379
Offering FFD, 3 79
Quadruple Dianetics on Clears and OTs, 379

C/S Series 33RA-1
HCO B 5 Apr. 1971 TRIPLE AND QUAD RERUNS, 380

By-passed flows and mass, 380
The source of high TA, 380
Liability of rehabs, 380
Massy thetans, 380
Getting in all flows, 381
High TA and Quad Flows, 381
Pc not in trouble, 382
Pc in trouble, 382
Running Zero Flows, 382
Getting in Zero Flows—rehab or run, 382
Results of All Flows Rundown, 382

C/S Series 36RB-1R
HCO B 21 Apr. 1971-1R QUADRUPLE DIANETICS—DANGERS OF, 383

Auditor errors in running Quad Dianetics, 383
Requirements to run Quad Dianetics, 383
Reason for TRs, 383
Rehabbing chains, 384
How to handle flubbed chains, 384
Use of L3RD, 384
Overrun and Full Flow Dianetics, 385
How to handle firefights, 385
Interiorization RD, 386
Who can run Dianetics, Dianetic Quads, and Int-Ext RD, 386
C/S responsibility, 386
Risk involved in Full Flow Dianetics, 386

Introducing FFD, 386

HCO B 16 Jan. 1975 PAST LIFE REMEDIES, 388

Imaginary incidents, 388
AESPs that “would make one unwilling to go earlier than this life”, 388
Drugs can prevent going backtrack, 388
Pc in recent shock of having died won’t go backtrack, 388
Remedy for invalidation of past lives, 388
Children as cases, 388
Unburdening cases of children, 389
How to handle pc stuck in upsetting incidents from movies or books, 389
Scientology Review action to make pc go backtrack, 389

HCO B 23 Jan. 1975 THE PURPOSE OF CLASS VIII, 391

Purpose of Class VIII Course, 391
The original Class VIII Course has returned, 391
Training and skill of a Class VIII auditor, 391
How a Class VIII gets in standard tech, 391
Class VIII handling of lower level auditors, 391

HCO B 14 Feb. 1975 L10 PREREQUISITES, 392

Prerequisites to L10 are a completed Drug RD and Expanded Grades, 392

HCO B 2 Nov. 1957RA AN OBJECTIVE RUNDOWN, 393

Objective vs. subjective processes, 393
Objective Rundown steps, 393

HCO B 1 Oct. 1965R MUTTER TR, 395

Purpose, commands, position and training stress of Mutter TR, 395
Note on TR 2 and TR 4, 395

HCO B 7 Mar. 1975 EXT AND ENDING SESSION, 397

How to end session when pc exteriorizes on a good win, 397

Cramming Series 15
HCO B 18 Mar. 1975 METER USE IN QUAL, 397

Cramming actions done in Qual must be done on a meter, 397

C/S Series 53RJ
HCO B 24 Nov. 1973RB SHORT HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT C/S, 398

HCO B 25 Mar. 1975 DIET, THEORY OF A NATURAL DIET, 401

Importance of food, 401
The human body, 401
Search for the natural diet of man, 401
The necessary first steps to discover man’s correct diet, 401
How to find the elements of a natural diet, 402 Food supply, 402

HCO B 29 Mar. 1975 ANTI-BIOTICS, ADMINISTERING OF, 403

Definition of anti-biotics, 403
Germs and virus, 403
Bringing down temperature with anti-biotics, 403
How to administer anti-biotics, 404
Anti-biotics and temperature, 404
The general rule when administering anti-biotics, 405
Anti-biotics taking effect, 405
Past maladministration of anti-biotics, 405
Person on anti-biotics is given vitamins before session, 405
Key procedure, 405 Side effects of anti-biotics, 405

Disease cycles, 406 Sulfa drugs, 406 Penicillin, 407
Oral penicillin is worthless, it has to be shot with a needle, 407
Types of anti-biotics, 407
Vitamins and anti-biotics, 407
Intestinal bacteria, 408

HCO B 19 Apr. 1975 OUT BASICS AND HOW TO GET THEM IN, 409

List of the out basics and references to correct them, 409
Auditing preclears in a bad and noisy environment, 409
Auditor not assessing and handling an ARC break that came up in session, 409
False reads on W/Hs and asking for some W/Hs more than once will ARC break the pc, 409
Auditing the pc over false TA, 409
Auditing over pc out of session, 410
Auditing the pc over Int-Ext misunderstoods, 410
Auditing the pc over misunderstoods on basic words, 410
Auditor calling the pc’s attention to the meter or TA or his hands in session, 410
Auditor F/Ning a question on something else, not the question asked, 410
Auditor carrying on past exterior and good win and asking “say or ask”, 410
Lack of knowledge of Flows, doing F0s on a Triple pc, 410
Auditor C/Sing in the chair, 411
Auditor doing 2WCs without a C/S, 411
False TA, 411
Auditor not getting false TA handled before session, 411
Auditor applying hand cream during a session, 411
Auditor overrunning due to false TA, 411
Auditor not writing down on worksheet what was done, 411
Auditor not writing down vital information in the worksheets, 412
Auditor having poor handwriting, illegible worksheets, 412
C/S not using the D of P for interview to get data after a failed session, 412
C/S repairing the pc instead of the auditor, 412
Pc doesn’t want auditing, 412
C/S agreeing with pc’s demands for the next Grade despite all contrary indicators, 412
C/S trying to fix “no EP” on one rundown by trying to run another rundown, 413
C/S failing to call for an FES when he doesn’t know after a failed rundown, 413
C/S not reading the worksheets or missing corny errors and not correcting the auditor, 413

HCO B 23 Apr. 1975 VANISHING CREAM AND FALSE TA, 414

Why vanishing cream doesn’t work, 414
Hand creams for dry hands, 414
A note on footplates, 414
False TA handling, 414
False TA must be handled before session, 414

HCO B 23 Nov. 1973R DRY AND WET HANDS MAKE FALSE TA, 415

TA depends on normally moist hands, 415
Use of hand cream for dry hands, 415
Use of anti-perspirant for wet hands, 416
F/N and false TA, 416
Conditions that make an auditor mess up a pc’s TA, 416

HCO B 29 Feb. 1972RA FALSE TA CHECKLIST, 417

HCO PL 7 Apr. 1961 RA JOHANNESBURG CONFESSIONAL LIST
—REVISED, 419

Joburg Confessional List, 419

HCO B 23 Oct. 1975 TECHNICAL QUERIES, 424

Cause of technical queries, 424
Handle technical queries by reference and cramming, 424

C/S Series 95
HCO B 26 Oct. 1975 “FAILED” CASES, 426


There are no failed cases; there are only failed C/Ses and auditors, 426
Prepared lists clear up “failed cases”, 426
Auditors who can’t assess lists, 426
What it takes to make a real auditor, 426
Source of out tech, 426
Test of C/Ses and auditors, 427

HCO B 27 July 1976 PTS RUNDOWN AND VITAL INFO RD POSITION
CORRECTED, 427-A

Restricting PTS handling and Vital Info RD to Expanded Dianetics is a false position, 428
The actual position on the grade chart or in classes of the PTS Rundown, 428

HCO B 9 Dec. 1971RB PTS RUNDOWN, 429

PTS phenomena, 429
Who does PTS Rundown, 429
Only PTS situation that is serious and lasting and can cause a roller-coaster comes from having known the person before this life, 430
Four points of breakdown of the PTS Rundown, 430
The prerequisites for a PTS RD, 430
PTS RD is not restricted to Ex Dn but is a separate RD developed before Ex Dn, 430
Behavior of PTS RD, 431
PTS Rundown end phenomena, 431
Flows of PTS RD, 431
PTS Rundown re-dos, 431
PTS Rundown references, 431
PTS Rundown steps, 432
Past S&Ds, 432
Past PTS Interviews, 432
New S&Ds (3 S&Ds), 432
Troubled/worried, 432
Been after, 433
Planets, 434
PTS Rundown repair, 434

HCO B 6 Oct. 1974R THE VITAL INFORMATION RUNDOWN THE TECHNICAL BREAKTHROUGH OF 1974, 435

Overt of withholding vital information, 435
Research, 435
Withholding vital information in orgs, 435
Peculiarity of mechanism of withholding vital information, 436
When the Vital Information Rundown is given, 436
The Prerequisite for public is Drug RD, 436
Vital Info RD by steps, 436

HCO B 10 Aug. 1976 R/SES, WHAT THEY MEAN, 440

The term was taken from a process in the ‘50s, 440
A “Rockslam” 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, 440
One must always report a rockslam in the auditing report, 440
The rockslam is the most important needle manifestation, 440
You don’t ever indicate rockslams or theta bops to the pc, 441
Rocket read, 441
A rockslam means a hidden evil intention on the subject or question under discussion or auditing, 441
Two things underlie insanity, 441
One rockslam doesn’t make a psychotic, 442
When R/Ses most easily turn on, 442
How you can turn off an R/S and mistakenly think it is handled, 442
What then DOES HANDLE an R/S?, 443
Expanded Dianetics handling of R/Ses, 443
What do you do when you see an R/S, 443

C/S Series 96
HCO B 24 Oct. 1976 DELIVERY REPAIR LISTS, 445

There’s nothing wrong with your CF, your pc, your student, staff member or your delivery that a prepared list won’t handle, 445
The “Prepared Lists” system, 445
The only reason ever found for prepared lists not working, 445
Qual “Okay to Audit” Checksheets, 445
A C/S must know what lists to use, 446
Prepared lists for preclears, 446
Prepared lists for students, 447
Prepared lists for staffs, 448
Word lists for prepared lists, 449
Translated lists for non-English speaking orgs, 449

C/S Series 97
HCO B 20 Oct. 1976 AUDITING REPORTS, FALSIFYING OF, 450

There are many ways of falsifying an auditing report, 450
The person whose auditing reports have been falsified is easy to spot in folders and reports, 450
The penalty for knowingly falsifying an auditing report, 451

C/S Series 98
HCO B 28 Oct. 1976 AUDITING FOLDERS, OMISSIONS IN
COMPLETENESS, 452

Omissions from folders and complete loss of folders is a very serious matter, 452
The commonest (and most senseless) omissions from folders, 452
Loss of a pc’s folder and omissions from a pc’s folder shall be actionable by a Committee of Evidence, 453



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JANUARY 1972RA
REVISED & REISSUED AS HCO B 20 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo
Auditors CANCELS
Class III BTB OF 1 JANUARY 1972R
and above SAME TITLE


LIX HI-LO TA LIST REVISED

(Cancels earlier list HCO Bs 17 Feb 71
and 22 Feb 71 and 25 Feb 71 and 3 March 71
and 13 March 71 and 1 Jan 72.)


This assessment has been developed to detect all the reasons for high and low TA. There is nothing unusual about the processes necessary to handle these points. This is the full list and is used when a C/S Series 53RI has been done and the high or low TA persists.

Interiorization or a flubbed Interiorization R/D that must be run with WENT IN is the usual reason. Listing errors and out rudiments are another reason.

The list is assessed Method 5. Handle the reads in the order given on HCO B 10 June 71, C/S Series 44R. Any reading questions must be carried to F/N by major action or 2-Way Comm. Can be taken to full F/Ning list.

Must be done by an Auditor who can make a list read with Cramming on TR 1 and Cramming on HCO Bs 28 Feb 71 C/S Series 24, 9 June 71 C/S Series 41, 20 Dec 71 C/S Series 72, 15 June 72 C/S Series 80, 15 Oct 73 C/S Series 87, 20 Nov 73 C/S Series 89, 6 Dec 73 C/S Series 90 and BTB 16 June 71R, Issue I (formerly HCO B 16 June 71 R, Issue II).

HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT

1A. IS YOUR INT R/D UNFLAT? _________
If the pc has had an Int R/D, do an Int R/D Correction List and handle the reads. (HCO B 29 Oct 71, Revised 14 May 74.) If the pc has never had an Int R/D, then give him a standard Int R/D providing you have checked out on the Int-Ext pack and have drilled the procedure.

2A. WAS YOUR INT R/D MESSED UP? _________
Int R/D Correction List.

3A. IS YOUR INT R/D OVERRUN? _________
Int R/D Correction List.

4A. HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED OVER EXTERIOR? _________
Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

5A. ARE YOU TRAPPED? _________
Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

6A. YOU WENT IN. _________
Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

7A. GO IN. _________
Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

8A. ARE YOU OUT AND CAN'T GET IN? _________
Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

9A. ARE YOU IN AND CAN'T GET OUT? _________
Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

10A ARE YOU URGENTLY TRYING TO LEAVE? _________
Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

11A DO YOU WANT TO GET OUT? _________
Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

12A WERE YOU KICKED OUT OF SPACES? _________
Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

13A YOU CAN'T GO. _________
Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

_________

1B. IS THERE A LIST ERROR? _________
Do an L4BR on the earliest lists you can find that have not been corrected. Lacking these, do an L4BR in general. You can go over an L4BR several times handling each read to F/N until the whole L4BR gives nothing but F/Ns.

2B. HAS A LIST BEEN OVERLISTED? _________
Find out which and handle with an L4BR.

3B. WERE YOU GIVEN A WRONG ITEM? _________
L4BR and handle.

4B. ARE YOU UPSET WITH GIVING ITEMS TO THE AUDITOR? _________
L4BR and handle.

5B. WERE YOU GIVEN A WRONG INDICATION? _________
L4BR and handle.

6B. WERE YOU GIVEN A WRONG WHY? _________
L4BR on the Why Finding. Get the correct Why.

7B. HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN A WRONG PTS ITEM? _________
L4BR on that PTS Interview. Watch for earlier out PTS Interviews and if they exist, L4BR the earliest one. Watch for earlier S&Ds and if out, correct the earliest of each kind with an L4BR.

8B. ARE YOU NOT SATISFIED WITH AN ITEM FOUND ON
THE LIST? _________
L4BR. Correct the List.

9B. HAVE READING ITEMS BEEN LEFT CHARGED UP? _________
L4BR and handle if L&N lists otherwise spot them and clean them by taking to F/N.
_________

1C. DO YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF WITHHOLD? _________
Pull it (them) E/S to F/N. Use "Who" if discreditable.

2C. ARE YOU WITHHOLDING SOMETHING? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N. Use "Who" if discreditable.

3C. IS ANOTHER WITHHOLDING SOMETHING FROM YOU? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

4C. ARE OTHERS WITHHOLDING SOMETHING FROM OTHERS? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

5C. HAS ANOTHER COMMITTED OVERTS ON YOU? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

6C. HAVE YOU COMMITTED ANY OVERTS? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

7C. HAVE OTHERS COMMITTED OVERTS ON OTHERS? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

8C. ARE YOU NOT-ISING OVERTS? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

9C. YOU'RE NOT SAYING? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

1OC HAVE YOU COMMITTED CRIMES? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

11C ARE YOU COMMITTING CRIMES IN PT? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

12C ARE YOU PROTESTING? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

13C ARE YOU HIDING? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

14C YOU DON'T LIKE IT. _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

15C ARE THERE UNDISCLOSED PROBLEMS? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

16C IS THERE A LIE? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

I 7C ARE THERE CONSIDERATIONS NOT MENTIONED? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

18C DO YOU HAVE OPINIONS YOU DON'T DARE SAY? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

19C ARE YOU HERE FOR UNDISCLOSED REASONS? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

20C ARE YOU NOT TELLING YOUR AUDITOR YOUR COG-
NITIONS? _________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

21C ARE YOU WITHHOLDING YOUR ACTUAL CASE STATE? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

22C ARE YOU UNWILLING TO TALK TO THE AUDITOR? _________
2wc on things he can't say E/S to F/N.

23C. ARE THERE DISAGREEMENTS? _________
Run 2wc E/S to F/N: Fl. Tell me about others' disagreements with you. F2. Tell me about your disagreements with others. F3. Tell me about others' disagreements with others.

24C HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED OVER AN ARC BREAK? _________
PROBLEM? _________
WITHHOLD? _________
Indicate it and handle E/S to F/N.

25C DO YOU FEEL SAD? _________
Handle the ARC Break as an ARC Break of Long Duration.

26C DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK? _________
Handle the ARC Break.

27C DO YOU FEEL UPSET? _________
Handle the ARC Break.

28C DO YOU FEEL RUSHED? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

29C DO YOU FEEL TIRED? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

30C YOU CAN'T GET IT. _________
Find out what and 2wc E/S to F/N.

_________

1D. ARE YOU TAKING OR SMOKING DRUGS? _________
2wc to F/N. Rehab releases on each "Drug" taken to F/N. If pc has had a Drug R/D, do L3RD on it and handle. Program the pc for a Drug R/D or verification of it if it is incomplete or there are "No Interest" items.

2D. DID YOU ONCE TAKE DRUGS? _________
2wc to F/N. Rehab releases on each drug to F/N. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for Drug R/D or verification if incomplete.

3D. HAVE YOU TAKEN LSD? _________
2wc to F/N. Drug Rehabs. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for full Drug R/D or verification if unflat.

4D. HAVE YOU DRUNK ALCOHOL? _________
2wc to F/N. Drug/Alcohol Rehabs. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for full Drug R/D or verification if unflat.

5D. HAVE YOU SMOKED POT? _________
2wc to F/N. Drug Rehabs. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for full Drug R/D or verification if unflat.

6D. ARE YOU TAKING MEDICINE? _________
2wc to F/N. Drug/Medicine Rehabs. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for full Drug R/D or verification if unflat.

7D. DID YOU ONCE TAKE MEDICINE? _________
2wc to F/N. Drug/Medicine Rehabs. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for full Drug R/D or verification if unflat.

1E. IS THERE AN ENGRAM IN RESTIMULATION? _________
Find out which and do L3RD and handle per its instructions.

2E. ARE THERE UNFLAT CHAINS? _________
Find out what chains and L3RD on each.

3E. DO YOU HAVE A STUCK PICTURE? _________
Indicate it. Do an L3RD on it. You can also unstick it by having him recall a time before it and recall a time after it. D/L if necessary. C/S can order Pictures and Masses Remedy Dn done after this list is handled—if necessary.

4E. DO YOU HAVE PICTURES IN RESTIMULATION? _________
L3RD and handle. Pictures and Masses Remedy Dn.

5E. DO YOU HAVE MASSES IN RESTIMULATION? _________
L3RD and handle. Pictures and Masses Remedy Dn.

6E. HAS THE SAME ENGRAM BEEN RUN TWICE? _________
L3RD and handle.

7E. YOU CAN'T SEE ENGRAMS TOO WELL. _________
Do L3RD Method 5 and handle. Program for L3RD Rundown if necessary.

8E. IS IT INVISIBLE? _________
Spot the invisible field or picture. L3RD on it and handle.

9E. IS IT ALL BLACK? _________
Spot the black field or picture. L3RD on it and handle.

10E HAS THERE BEEN A LOSS? _________
Do L3RD on it and handle. Run it out R3R Triple if not run out and still not handled.

11E HAVE YOU LOST ANYTHING? _________
Do L3RD on it and handle. If not yet run out and still unhandled run R3R Triple.
_________

1F. HAS THE SAME THING BEEN RUN TWICE? _________
Clean up any protest and inval and rehab to F/N.

2F. HAS THE SAME ACTION BEEN DONE BY ANOTHER AUDI-
TOR? _________
Clean up any protest and inval and rehab to F/N.

_________

1G. ARE YOU DOING SOMETHING WITH THE MIND BETWEEN
SESSIONS? _________
Find out what it is. If Yoga or Mystic exercises or some such, 2wc E/S to first time done, find out what upset had occurred before that and if TA now down, do L1C on that period of pc's life.

2G. ARE YOU INVOLVED IN SOME OTHER PRACTICE? _________
Find out what it is. If Yoga or Mystic exercises or some such, 2wc E/S to first time done, L1C on the prior upset or period of pc's life just before that.

1H. ARE THERE WORD CLEARING ERRORS? _________
Do a Word Clearing Correction List, handle all reads.

2H. ARE THERE STUDY ERRORS? _________
2wc E/S to F/N and add a Student Rehabilitation List (HCO B 15 Nov 74) or full Study Correction List (BTB 4 Feb 72RC) to the pc's Program.
_________

1I. HAVE YOU EVER HAD TROUBLE WITH YOUR TA OR F/Ns? _________
Use HCOBs 24 Oct 71, 12 Nov 71, 18 Feb 72, 29 Feb 72, 23 Nov 73, all on False TA. Then clean up the bypassed charge with 1) Assess for best read a) TA worries b) F/N worries. 2) Then 2wc times he has worried about (item) E/S to F/N. 3) Rehab any overruns due to False TA obscuring F/Ns.

2I. HAVE YOU HAD A FALSE TA? Handle as in 1I. _________

3I. ARE YOU USING THE WRONG SIZED CANS? Handle as in 1I. _________

4I. DO YOUR HANDS GET TIRED IN AUDITING? Handle as in 1I. _________

5I. ARE YOUR HANDS DRY? Handle as in 1I. _________

6I. ARE YOUR FEET DRY? Handle as in 1I. _________

7I. ARE YOUR HANDS WET? Handle as in 1I. _________

8I. ARE YOUR FEET WET? Handle as in 1I. _________

9I. DO YOU LOOSEN YOUR GRIP ON THE CANS? Handle as in 1I. _________

10I ARE YOU USING THE WRONG HAND CREAM? Handle as in 1I _________

_________

1J. HAVE YOU BEEN SELF AUDITING? _________
2wc to first time. L1C on the prior upset or if prior upset was in auditing use the appropriate correction list and an L1C on that time.

2J. WAS A WRONG OVERRUN FOUND? _________
Correct it to F/N by indication and rehabbing the right overrun.

3J. HAS THERE BEEN AN OVERRUN IN LIFE? _________
Locate, indicate, rehab to F/N.

4J. HAS THERE BEEN AN OVERRUN IN AUDITING? _________
Locate, indicate, rehab to F/N.

5J. HAS THERE BEEN SOMETHING WRONG WITH F/Ns? _________
Indicate. 2wc E/S to F/N. Rehab if necessary.

6J. HAVE F/Ns BEEN OVERRUN? _________
Indicate. 2wc E/S to F/N. Rehab if necessary.

7J. HAVE F/Ns NOT BEEN INDICATED? _________
Indicate. 2wc E/S to F/N. Rehab if necessary.

8J. HAVE F/Ns BEEN MISSED? _________
Indicate. 2wc E/S to F/N. Rehab if necessary.

9J. HAVE AUDITING QUESTIONS NOT BEEN UNDERSTOOD? _________
2wc, get them properly understood with Word Clearing, E/S if needed to F/N.

1OJ HAVE ITEMS NOT REALLY READ? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

11J DID YOU SAY SOMETHING MUST HAVE READ? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

12J WERE YOU STILL UPSET WHEN SOMEBODY THOUGHT IT
WAS HANDLED? _________
Find and handle to F/N.

13J HAVE YOU HAD BAD AUDITING? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

14J ARE THERE INCOMPLETE ACTIONS? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

15J HAS THERE BEEN ANY INVALIDATION? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

16J HAS THERE BEEN ANY EVALUATION? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

17J COULDN'T YOU GET AUDITING? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

18J HAVE THERE BEEN INTERRUPTIONS? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

19J DOES YOUR AUDITOR OVERWHELM YOU? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

20J DO YOU FEEL ATTACKED? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

21J ARE YOU SCARED OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN AUDIT-
ING? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

22J ARE YOU TALKING TO OTHERS ABOUT YOUR CASE? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

23J ARE YOU LISTENING TO OTHERS TALK ABOUT THEIR
CASES? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

24J HAVE YOU BEEN LOOKING AT OR LISTENING TO TECH
MATERIALS YOU SHOULDN'T? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.

25J ARE YOU WAITING FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN? _________
2wc E/S to F/N.
_________

1K. SOME SORT OF CAN'T HAVE? _________
Find correct Havingness process and remedy.

2K. IS YOUR HAVINGNESS LOW? _________
Find correct Havingness process and remedy.

_________

1L. IS SOMEONE OR SOMETHING HOSTILE TO YOU? _________
Check for SP with a PTS Interview or get a full PTS R/D programmed.

2L. ARE YOU PTS? _________
PTS Interview or get a full PTS R/D programmed.

3L. ARE YOU CONNECTED TO SOMEONE HOSTILE TO DIA-
NETICS OR SCIENTOLOGY? _________
PTS Interview or get a full PTS R/D programmed.

4L. DO YOU FEEL SUPPRESSED? _________
PTS Interview or get a full PTS R/D programmed.

_________

1M. HAS SOMETHING GONE ON TOO LONG? _________
Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N on each (or date to blow, locate to blow if qualified).

2M. YOU WENT ON BY A RELEASE POINT? _________
Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.

3M. HAS SOMETHING BEEN OVERRUN? _________
Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.

4M. THE AUDITOR KEPT ON GOING. _________
Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.

5M. HAS THERE BEEN ANY OVER-REPAIR? _________
Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.

6M. ARE YOU PUZZLED ABOUT WHY THE AUDITOR KEEPS
ON? _________
Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.

7M. ARE THERE STOPS? _________
Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.

_________

1N. HAVE YOU SEPARATED OUT? _________
2wc E/S to F/N. Then Triple Expanded Grade Two or L10 on Advance Program.

2N. ARE YOU SOMEBODY ELSE? _________
2wc E/S to F/N. Program for LX Lists.

3N. DO YOU THINK SOMETHING ELSE IS WRONG? _________
2wc to find what. Note BD item. If BD item is covered by one of the other questions on the list, handle per instructions. Otherwise, GF M5 and handle.

4N. ARE YOU PHYSICALLY ILL? _________
2wc to find what. Note BD item. 2wc to F/N and get further C/S instructions for handling if necessary.

_________

1O. ARE WE REPAIRING A TA THAT ISN'T HIGH? _________
Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct, then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first. If False TA, handle per 1I above.

2O. ARE WE REPAIRING A TA THAT ISN'T LOW? _________
Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct, then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first. If False TA, handle per 1I above.

3O. IS THE METER FAULTY? _________
Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct, then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first.

4O. IS THERE NOTHING WRONG? _________
Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct, then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first.

_________

1P. WAS THERE A FALSE EXAM REPORT? _________
Indicate and 2wc to F/N.

2P. HAVE YOU HAD TO WAIT AT THE EXAMINER? _________
Indicate and 2wc to F/N.

3P. HAVE YOU BEEN UPSET BY THE EXAMINER? _________
Indicate and 2wc to F/N.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: nt .rd
Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 JANUARY 1972
Remimeo

Word Clearing Series 30


WC1 COMES FIRST


Don't try to Word Clear Materials by Word Clearing Method 2 before the person has had a Word Clear Method 1.

Actual experience shows that doing WC2 without WC1 restimulates earlier charge on words that have been misunderstood in the past.

When a person has not had Word Clear Method I and tries to do Word Clear Method 2 on materials, it can go very slowly, the student (due to earlier charge on words) can become quite misemotional.

Using Method 3 (going back to find the misunderstood word) is all right. And using common ordinary "Look up, don't go past a misunderstood word” is all right.

METHOD 2 EP

The End Phenomena (what occurs at the end) of Word Clearing Method 2 is a continuing F/N on the materials.

When the person is constantly F/Ning on the materials being word cleared Method 2, that is the time to end off. The "EP" has been reached.

When the word clearer forces the student to go on beyond this, the reads gotten are often false or are from protest.

Reads that are false come from cognitions (realizations) on the material. Protest reads come from just plain annoyance with having to go on.

When the EP of 2 is reached on a specific set of materials, the student is then permitted to go on by himself, looking up words he doesn't know or going back to find one that was missed.

A person who enters a new subject or a new branch of a subject should be given WC2 on it. A person who begins a higher level of a subject should be given WC2 on it.

If thereafter there is any bog or failure to understand or apply or pass an exam on the subject, a WC Correction List can be done on it and the bog found and handled.

This EP is only valid if the person has had WC Method 1 before the WC Method 2 was begun.

The EP of Method 2 can be many times repeated on different subjects or branches of subjects.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JANUARY 1972

Remimeo
Auditors
Interns
C/Ses

C/S Series 69 ADDITION



C/SING CHECKLIST

(If a copy of C/S Series 69 is
posted on the wall, also post this.)


Nothing in this checklist for C/Sing relieves the auditor or C/S from full knowledge of the entire C/S Series. Nothing in the C/S Series is changed by this checklist.

ADDITION

No. 10. Add. The time-honored way of seeing what has to be repaired in a Case not running well is:

GO BACK IN THE FOLDER TO WHERE THE CASE WAS RUNNING WELL AND COME FORWARD.

The major error or departure is in the very next session after that. The bugs after the high point should be repaired as the fast action to set the case going again.

The repair and handling of bogged cases is the finest skill of a C/S. Really it is why he is there.

To do this he has to know the C/S Series thoroughly, know all the materials of all levels he is C/Sing better than the auditor.

The use of prepared lists, WC Correction List, Green Form, C/S 53, Hi-Lo TA, GF 40 RR, Int-Ext Corr List, L1C and others, including "Have Examiner ask the pc what happened in session" are used to get information and correct as well as folder studies. KNOW BEFORE YOU GO.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH:nt rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JANUARY 1972
Remimeo
EDs
HAS
Dept 1
Qual Secs
Interne Supers
Ds of P
Cramming officers
C/Ses

TRAINING AND INTERNING STAFF AUDITORS


First and foremost WHEN YOU START OUT TO TRAIN AN AUDITOR REALLY HONESTLY DO IT.

Don't monkey about with it, or half do it, or brush it off. Actually GET IT DONE. Get a finished capable able to audit in high volume with high quality AUDITOR.

Each auditor is an individual. You can't train a mass of auditors. You can train individual auditors. This has to be kept in sight despite having a lot of students in a class.

In other words you take this person and push him on through and get the job of training DONE.

HCO

To begin a staff auditor trainee is selected because he wants to be an auditor, has a fair study record, has NO serious Ethics history and No psychiatric background. If you violate these points you will not get an auditor and if you select one with an actual insane history you will be violating the Auditor's Code.

HCO Dept I is the recruiting point for auditors. If HCO fails, it's up to the D of P or even the Executive Director to get auditor trainees.

In recruiting staff auditors it is done 1 for 1 with Admin hirings.

Usually already existing staff and Dianetic Course or Academy students are the personnel pools for auditor trainees.

When field auditors are brought into the org who have never done org interneships they go this same route, regardless of their class. If already classed, such as VIII, they are simply faster to make into staff auditors.

INTERNE SUPERVISOR

The moment someone is designated as a staff auditor trainee he comes under the Interne Supervisor. He remains under the control of the Interne Supervisor throughout his entire span as long as he is in the org and until he has his final HGC okay to audit for the class of that org.

If the org sends him off for higher classes, he is again under the Interne Supervisor.

The Interne Supervisor is in Qual Division V. In a small org it is combined with Cramming Officer. In a tiny org it is combined with Cramming Officer and Qual Sec. But if this last is done there must also be a word clearer-programmer in Qual.

PROGRAMMED

The moment the trainee comes under the Interne Super he is PROGRAMMED.

The Programming is standard. It is varied only to take account of what the trainee

has already done in the way of Basic Staff Hat, Staff Status, word clearing and formal courses in auditing.

All trainees into an org begin at the bottom regardless of class.

A typical standard program would be:

WC1 .

WC2 earliest materials read or heard.

Staff Status I.

Basic Staff Hat (Vol 0 OEC).

SS II Tech Div.

Problems Of Work WC2 star rate and clay demo.

This HCOB.

Interne HCOBs and P/Ls.

Student Hat.

HDC in the Dianetics Course (no auditing required for provisional cert for a staff trainee).

HDC Interne Pack in Interneship for preliminary okay to audit Dianetics.

Dianetic Auditing as an Interne under D of P and/or C/S.

High Hour Flubless Record achieved on Dianetics resulting in final HGC okay to audit Dianetics—a fully validated Dianetic Cert.

Academy 0 to IV study to Provisional Class IV full time on Academy.

0-IV Interne Pack study.

0-IV preliminary HGC okay to audit. Auditing under D of P and/or C/S.

High Hour Flubless Record achieved on 0-IV resulting in final HGC okay to audit and fully validated HGC Class IV.

In a Class IV org the program would be just as above.

AUTHORITY

All this time, the trainee's top boss is the Interne Supervisor. This does not diminish the authority of a Course Super over the trainee when he is on a course or the Cramming Officer when he is in Cramming.

When he has his final HGC okay for Dianetics he could be off the Interneship if he were just to go on with Dianetics. But in an org this has its limitations. A C/S has trouble getting a program done where an auditor cannot fly ruds or do a correction list so it is best to carry on to Class IV HGC final okay to audit.

UPPER ORGS

In a Saint Hill or an Advanced Org the standard program goes right on up as follows.

In a Class IV org where a staff auditor is sent to a higher org, he comes again under his own org Interne Supervisor even though he is gone. It used to be that the Staff Training Officer kept track of students gone to a higher org for training but this has not worked. It is best that the Interne Super carries on and keeps track of him and gets him DONE and back.


Before a trainee is sent at org expense he has to sign a five-year contract beginning the five years after he returns. He is liable for full cost personally if contract broken plus penalty charges.

Class V in the SHSBC.

Class VI in the SHSBC.

Class VII SHSBC. His previous org Interneship is credited and he goes into Power auditing. If no previous Interneship he does the whole trip as above up to this point.

Class V, VI, VII Interne Pack under upper org Interne Super.

Class V, VI, VII Interne auditing under D of P of upper org.

High Hour Flubless auditing resulting in final HGC ok to audit in upper org and validated cert.

Class VIII Course.

Class IX Course.

Class VIII and IX Interneship Pack under Interne Super of the Class VIII org.

Class VIII and IX Auditing under D of P of higher org.

High Hour Flubless auditing resulting in an HGC okay to audit and fully validated Class IX certificate.

Special C/S Course including AO lines.

C/S Interneship in the higher org.

Flubless C/Sing resulting in an HGC okay to C/S.

Class X Course.

Class X Interne Pack.

Class X Auditing under D of P.

High Hour Flubless Class X auditing resulting in a Class X HGC okay to audit and a fully validated certificate.

Class XI and XII Course.

Class XI and XII Interne Pack.

Class XI and XII Auditing under D of P.

High Hour Flubless Class XI and XII auditing resulting in an HGC okay to audit Class XI and XII and fully validated cert.

Flag Class XII and Solo C/S Course.

Flag Programming and repair of all omissions under Interne Super.

Flubless C/Sing on all lines.

HIGHER ORG

Where a trainee for an org goes to a higher org he is under the Interne Super of the higher org to whom the Interne Super of the lower org can write. This line is to speed up such trainees.


ADMIN

To get such points DONE, accurate admin is vital.

A checklist of all points in the above program is made up with the trainee's name on it and is kept up, with dates by the Interne Supervisor. This is kept in an Auditor Interne File, which files are kept by the Interne Supervisor. Thus at any time he can catch up any fall-off-the-lines and get the trainee going again.

A vertical Auditor Trainee Progress Board is kept by the Interne Supervisor. This has a space under each of the headings, left to right. Boxes along the top, left to right, serve to indicate the exact action the trainee is doing.

The trainee's name is on a tab that is pinned to the space. The name tab is newly dated each time it is moved to the right. Thus the Interne Super can chase up any faltering student.

Various bugs occur—the student is held in the HGC as an auditor because of HGC hours stat. The course gets flubby and 3 weeks becomes 4. Or somebody has illegally put the student on a special project and he's off the course. HCO begins to use the students as a personnel pool, etc, etc. Or the student bogs for lack of cramming or case repair.

The Interne Super's stat is COMPLETIONS of steps on the board. One point for each left to right move of a trainee's name.

Thus the Interne Super has a vested interest in recruiting trainees or his stats will collapse.

PAID STUDENTS

It is wise to greatly prefer that students pay for their training before being recruited.

Purely for free services have a bad history in orgs.

As this Interneship is ALSO the same Interneship for paying students only a portion should be staff trainees as such. The difference is that the staff trainee must be contracted to the org and must continue on in the HGC.

Only the very best, most ethical fast study trainees should ever be sent to a higher org. The percentage of losses is too high otherwise. It is too hard on the org's income otherwise.

If somebody else just must go to a higher org, let him pay his own way. Don't make your org a subject of freeloading. It hurts your own pay.

PART TIME

Part-time study, by which an HGC auditor part-time studies the next level while still auditing IS A COMPLETE FAILURE. By actual record they just never make it.

Do the steps fully with full attention on each while it is being done. Don't have the trainee finishing the last one and doing the next one. You'll rarely get a product.

Sharply and efficiently and crisply get each step of the horizontal board full and industriously DONE each in turn.

And you'll make splendid auditors and make them fast.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder



LRH: ne.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JANUARY 1972

Remimeo

STUDY CORRECTION LIST


Ref: HCO B 9 Nov 67 Revision of Remedy A, Remedy B and S and Ds
HCO B 14 Aug 68 Remedy B—Environment and "New Style"
HCO B 23 Nov 69 Student Rescue Intensive
HCO B 30 June 71 W/C Series 8RR
HCO B 12 Oct 71 Method No. 2 Word Clearing Form
HCO B 21 July 71 Word Clearing Correction List
HCO B 1 Dec 71 Rising Scale Processing Issue III
HCO B 1 Dec 71 Effort Processing Issue IV
HCO B 9 Dec 71 PTS Rundown
HCO B 1 Aug 68 The Laws of Listing and Nulling
HCO B 19 Mar 71 List-1-C
HCO B 1 Dec 71 Triple Ruds Long Duration Issue II
HCO B 19 Jan 66 Danger Conditions—Technical Data for Review Auditors



1. Has there been an upset about study? _________

Fly all ruds triple, "In study has there been______?"

2. Has there been a Misunderstood Word? _________

Find it, get it looked up and correct it.

3. Have there been upsets in getting Words Cleared up? _________

WC Corr List and handle.

4. Have there been misunderstood subjects? _________

Give person Word Clear 1 or get the Word Clear 1 already done redone with the missing subjects added to the WC 1 Standard C/S.

5. Have you ever been punished because you wouldn't learn? _________

R3R Narrative Triple.

6. Have you been taught by someone you didn't like or hated? _________

PTS Rundown with an additional S&D in step (a); L&N "Who has tried to teach you that you didn't like?" + L&N "Who have you taught that you didn't like?" Use remaining PTS steps on the names.

7. Have you ever gotten in trouble because you knew something? _________

R3R Triple.

8. Would knowledge make you too powerful? _________

Run (1) "What have you done with knowledge?" (2) "What have you withheld?" Alternate repetitive. (By an upper level auditor, Evil Purpose RD or L9S as case may R/S.)


9. Have you studied the same subject more than once? _________

"Why did you have to study the same subject more than once?" 2wc E/S to F/N.

10. Have you failed to complete courses you took? _________

2wc "What courses have you failed to complete?" E/S to F/N. Followed by WC 1 Actions on courses named.

11. Have you continued to study a subject you had already grasped? _________

Find the point of win. Rehab it. (Upper level auditor, date locate point of win.)

12. Do you try to get out of classrooms or schools? _________

R3R Triple on Fl "Locate a time when you were made to go to school or class." F2 "Locate a time when you made someone go to school or class." F3 "Locate a time when another made others go to school or class." R3R. (Quad would be F0, "Locate a time when you made yourself go to school or class."—F0 not necessary.)

13. Are you trying to do something else with study? _________

L&N to BD F/N item, "What are you trying to do with study?" (Upper level auditor, date to blow locate to blow item.)

14. Have you pretended to have studied things you hadn't? _________

2wc E/S to F/N.

15. Have you pretended to have qualifications you did not actually attain? _________

2wc E/S to F/N.

16. Have you ever lied to a teacher? _________

2wc E/S to F/N.

17. Have you ever cheated on an exam? _________

2wc E/S to F/N.

18. Have you ever committed overts on students? _________

2wc E/S to F/N.

19. Have you ever damaged study materials or books? _________

2wc E/S to F/N.

20. Have you ever failed to apply what you learned? _________

2wc E/S to F/N.

21. Have there been upsets in study? _________

L1C "On study _______" each reading item to F/N.


22. Are you trying to solve some Mystery? _________

L&N "What Mystery are you trying to solve?" to BD F/N item. (Upper level auditor date to blow locate to blow. )

23. Has anyone ever considered that you were stupid? _________

PTS RD. Step (a) add L&N "Who has considered you stupid or mentally retarded?" L&N "Whom have you considered stupid?" L&N "Whom have others considered stupid?" Then handle as in PTS RD.

24. Do you have bad eyesight or eyestrain? _________

Effort Processing and Rising Scale. (Upper level auditors, if this persists, L10.)

25. Are you trying to forget something? _________

L&N "What are you trying to forget?" to BD F/N item. (Upper level auditors then date to blow, locate to blow.)

26. Would someone else win if you did become educated? _________

2wc to F/N. (In extreme cases showing misemotion on this add to PTS RD (a).)

27. Do you have disagreements in study?

2wc E/S to F/N then "What do you agree with in study?" 2wc E/S to F/N.

28. Do you invalidate yourself in study? _________

2wc to F/N followed by "What confusion came before that?" 2wc E/S to F/N.

29. There is some other reason not given? _________

2wc to F/N.

30. There was really nothing wrong with study in the first place? _________

Indicate to pc.

31. Repairing study was an unnecessary action. _________

Indicate to pc. Rehab when he felt okay about study.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.ih
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[This HCO B was canceled by HCO B 4 February 1972, Study Correction List Revised, which was revised four times, the most recent revision being BTB 4 February 1972RD, Study Correction List Revised, which may be found as number 7 in the Study Series, Volume IX, page 329.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JANUARY 1972

Remimeo
PTS RD ADDITION
(Refers to PTS RD HCOB 9 Dec 71)


The only reasons a PTS RD does not work are:

C/S Error: 1. Not doing one at all.

C/S Error: 2. Doing one in the middle of another RD.

C/S Error: 3. Doing one without set-up.

C/S Error: 4. The person was not PTS—which is to say was not chronically ill or roller coaster and the items didn't read.

Auditor Error: 5. The RD was badly run auditor-wise. R3R was bad, metering poor, ruds not correctly or fully done.

Auditor & C/S Error: 6. The RD was quickie, only doing step (a) and brushing

C/S Error: 7. Even though the whole RD was done fully, there remained on the case an undetected additional person or thing to which the pc was PTS.

The rules of PTS are

A PERSON WHO ROLLER COASTERS IS ALWAYS PTS.

A PERSON WHO IS CHRONICALLY ILL ALWAYS IS PTS.

A PTS RUNDOWN THAT DOES NOT WORK HAS NOT BEEN DONE AS PER 1 TO 7 ABOVE.

The remedies to the above are

1. Do it.

2. Pgm it in correct sequence.

3. Set the case up properly so it is running well and past errors handled.

4. Establish how well the person holds his gains before Pgming one. If any Q at all, do the RD.

5. Cram the auditor on TRs, Metering, R3R drills and ruds. Do L4B, GF Method 5 Handle, L3B on the pc and redo accordingly.

6. Complete the RD.

7. 2wc "What is your attention on?" to F/N. On PTS RD fly all ruds single; L&N "On the PTS Rundown what being or thing was missed?"; R3R Triple on it; fly all ruds and overts on it triple; if all not very okay now 2wc "What other subject or people might have been overlooked on the PTS RD?" Handle with R3R Triple and Ruds Triple plus overts.

A PTS RD always works. If it works with a relapse there is an error in it as in the numbered paras above.

THIS IS VITAL TECH TO THE PC. IT MAKES THE MOST DIFFICULT CASES FLY IF IT IS DONE RIGHT.

LRH:mes.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1972
Remimeo
Franchise
Registrars IMPORTANT
BPI
Advance Mag

R6EW—OT III NO INTERFERENCE AREA


Note: (The following HCO B is broadly released despite the fact that it contains technical terms and upper level tech programs. A person who is taking this route has a right to know where he should go and where he shouldn't.

The amount of improvement a person can receive is so great that it takes a long series of actions to do it. As for "handling bad mental conditions" this is too simple and is not the business we are in. Just by handling the current upsets, problems, overts and withholds of a person in an hour's session, Scientology can make more case advance than was possible in any past century. So there is a vast difference between handling disturbed people and obtaining all the advance of which a person is capable of obtaining.

The data in this HCO B is issued to straighten out a current error being made in routing some cases.)

A long series of tests and many case results have for some time demonstrated that there is a NO INTERFERENCE AREA between R6EW and OT III.

A study of many cases and their results demonstrated conclusively that one does NOT audit Dianetics or Lower Scientology Grades on a pre-clear or pre-OT (Operating Thetan) AFTER he has begun Solo VI (the 1st Solo step) or BEFORE he has reached OT III (a higher Solo step per grade chart).

Upsets of varying degree were found in ALL cases tampered with in the NO INTERFERENCE AREA.

Repair actions to repair errors made by the Solo Auditor are all that can be beneficially audited on a person between R6EW and OT III.

Even the powerful L10, when done between R6EW and OT III will fail. Above and below the No Interference Area L10 is fantastically successful.

Nothing is superior to the Solo Grades.

THEREFORE, it is vital that a case be fully set up before beginning actual Solo Auditing.

For information, the following list, taken from HCO B 8 Jan 72, Issue II, is what constitutes a "set-up".

1. C/S Series 54 (former injuries, illnesses, etc., run out by Dianetics) completed?

2. GF40XRR (Resistive Cases List) assessed? Engrams of it handled?

3. Dianetics Full Flow Table run? To Dn Completion?

4. Full Drug, Alcohol, medicine handling done?

5. Dianetics ran well? To End Phenomena?

6. All Grades run, single, triple or Expanded?

7. Green Form (case repair) items handled?

8. Attained End Phenomena of each grade?

9. Interiorization Rundown done? INT is okay?

10. C/S Series 53 (any abnormal Tone Arm positions) handled?

11. Power to End Phenomena. Single? Triple? Power Plus?

12. Tone Arm Range okay?

13. Power, no illness after?

14. Power, no ethics troubles after?

15. Success stories okay?

16. Director of Processing Interview okay? Pc not wanting something handled?

17. Graph of Oxford Capacity Analysis Personality Test (or American Personality Analysis Test) with no point below middle of graph?

A. Pc set up and okay to go to R6EW Solo?

B. Pc needs further set-up and repair before Solo?

The above is a checklist used by Solo Course Case Supervisors. (It is NOT the program sequence by which the case is handled. This is given in the Grade Chart.) These are the points checked.

Once onto Solo, whether these points are in or not, that's it, HANDS OFF.

Once on Solo the pc is into the Non Interference Area. He may not have Dianetics or Grades. He may only have the lists and repairs given to Solo Auditors.

Of all these actions a full thorough drug-medicine-alcohol rundown is the most important. People who have been on heavy drugs, pot, etc or who have been alcoholics get things turned on in their banks and sometimes become terrified of them and will not Solo. They are unable to confront their pictures.

The remedy is to have a thorough drug-alcohol-medicine rundown.

The ONLY people who can't Solo are these poor devils who got onto these psychiatric type drugs.

These can be handled by a competent drug rundown.

The ideal program appears on the Grade Chart, displayed in most orgs and often sent out.

The chart has many symbols on it. A full glossary of these symbols and terms exists in HCO B 20 Aug 71, Issue II, "Classification and Gradation Chart, Abbreviations Explained", which should be posted alongside the chart.

A fast summary of the steps would be

C/S 54 (handling illnesses, accidents, injuries)

Dianetics

ARC Straightwire

OBJECTIVE Processes

Grades 0-IV

POWER

POWER PLUS.

Into this program can be placed the engram handling GF40RR for resistive cases, past practices, etc.

A Drug Rundown would occur in the area of Dianetics.

An Interiorization-Exteriorization Rundown would be given after the pc exteriorized. This usually occurs early on in processing and has to be handled.

A C/S 53 (for TA misbehavior) could be given anywhere.

The actual program run on the pc varies according to what the Case Supervisor requires, but it follows the Grade Chart.

TEST

The Oxford Capacity Analysis (OCA) or the American Personality Analysis (APA) is a graph which shows desirable and undesirable characteristics in a case.

The points on the graph are moved up by processing. And Dianetics and Scientology processes below R6EW are very capable of moving these points into desirable range.

Above R6EW, the first Solo step, the graph can change but the person is moving out of the normal range of humanity and the Solo grades are not designed to change a human test graph and in fact these tests do not measure the OT band of abilities.

The test graph should be in normal range before Solo is begun.

Auditing below Solo is quite capable of handling the graph points and bringing them up to desirable range.

SOLO PROGRAM

The Ideal Solo Program is as follows:

1. Set-up done and all items on the checklist okay.

2. Good training as a Solo Auditor. Can include the Professional Route of Class VI. Or the Social Counselor Course plus Solo. Or (at this time) the Solo Course only. One Solo Audits as well as he is trained and no better.

3. R6EW Solo Auditing to End Phenomena and attest.

4. Clearing Course Solo to CLEAR.

5. Operating Thetan I to attest.

6. Operating Thetan II to attest.

7. Operating Thetan III to attest.

8. Operating Thetan VII (audited by an auditor level) to attest.

9. OT III Expanded to attest.

10. OT IV.

11. OTV.

12. OT VI.

13. OT VIII as released.

After 7 above (OT III) or after 9 above (OT III Expanded) one can run more Dianetics, Expanded Grades, GF40, the famous L10 or do any other case action. One cannot profitably do these actions between Solo R6 and OT III. That's just the way the bank is.

You will note that "OT VII" is apparently out of sequence. It originally went OT III, OT IV, OT V, OT VI, OT VII. Then it was found that there was a level OT III Expanded. So it can go OT III, OT VII, OT IIIX, OT IV, OT V, OT VI or it can go OT III, OT IV, OT V, OT VI, OT VII, OT IIIX. One gets the most out of it by taking VII after OT III and then OT IV, OT V and OT VI really bite. Many persons were too nervous of OT III to do it well until a drug rundown and OT VII were done. Others thought OT III was endless and OT VII handled that.

The actual materials of these levels are held under tight security at Advanced Orgs because when they are shown to persons who haven't moved up the grades, they usually cave in. Thus the materials are only available in Advanced Orgs.

AVAILABILITY

Auditing at levels below Power is available from field auditors, Franchises and Scientology Orgs.

Power is available at Saint Hill Orgs in LA, Saint Hill UK, and Denmark.

All Solo levels are only available at Advanced Organizations.

A person goes from Field Auditor to Franchise to Scientology Org to a Saint Hill Org to an Advanced Org to obtain auditing of the whole Grade Chart.

Going from Clear back to lower grades—or from an Advanced Org back to a Franchise within the No Interference band—is liable to upset his case as it is being run out of sequence. He could go to a Franchise or a Scientology Org after OT III for Dianetics, Drug Rundown or other actions but not between R6 and OT III.

Processing and the mind is a technical subject. In Dianetics and Scientology, the answers have been found.

Like all technical material, you can't apply it poorly or backwards and expect results.

I try-and very successfully in most cases—to hold the lines straight and keep the materials purely and workably applied.

In the past year alone, fantastic tech advances have been made and are available in terms of refined application within the existing framework of the Grade Chart.

But the fundamentals do not change, the progress of the person up the Grade Chart must be regular and on course. Otherwise he will not receive full benefits.

It is my job to do all I can to make sure that full benefit is received. This is not always easy to do on a rather aberrated planet. But if it weren't so aberrated we wouldn't be here doing something about it. Right?


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:ne.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 FEBRUARY 1972

Remimeo
All Tech
Qual Terminals


FALSE TA ADDITION 2

Reference: HCO B 24 Oct 71 False TA
HCO B 12 Nov 71 False TA Addition
C/S Series 53 HI-LO TA Assessment
Int Ext Correction List



There is an infinity of wrong ways to get a pc to read between 2.0 and 3.0 on an E-Meter.

One method would be to shoot him. Dead bodies read between 2.0 and 3.0.

Another way is to throw the trim knob off.

Yet another wrong way is to use HAND CREAM to make the TA go lower and call "F/Ns" at 4.0 on an actual read.

An auditor who is not very expert is apt to find strange ways to do things because the usual is beyond his skill.

A GOOD auditor handles low and high TAs with HCO B 24 Oct 71 and Addition 12 Nov 71 and this HCO B "False TA", C/S Series 53 and the Hi-Lo TA Assessment.

The commonest sources of high TA are PROTEST, OVERRUN and out INTERIORIZATION RD and too big or too small cans.

The commonest sources of low TA are overwhelming auditor TRs or wet sweaty hands.

The subject is not open to experimentation. If a pc's TA is low or high and you don't correct it with the usual remedies mentioned above, the pc goes into the soup.

GOOD AUDITORS KNOW THEIR TECH AND USE IT TO REMEDY HIGH AND LOW TAs.

GOOD AUDITORS DO HONEST WORKSHEETS AND HONEST AUDITING.

BE A GOOD AUDITOR.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder



LRH: ne.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 FEBRUARY 1972
Remimeo
All Tech
Terminals C/S Series 74
All Auditors
Franchise
TALKING THE TA DOWN MODIFIED


The expertise of talking the TA down should be preserved. It is a skill.

But we have had high and low TAs solved for nearly a year and don't have to talk them down anymore as a constant action.

Auditors SHOULD know how to do it, and then use it as a rare action.

The right way to handle a high TA is to:

Do HCO B 24 Oct 71, HCO B 12 Nov 71, HCO B 15 Feb 72, each named FALSE TA if it has not been done by the auditor on the pc.

THEN if TA is high don't talk it down or do unusual solutions, do a C/S Series 53 or a Hi-Lo TA Assessment and handle. The Int-Ext Correction List is done as indicated and so is the Word Clearing Correction List.

As far as a C/S is concerned, when the pc's TA is seen to be high at session start, he should order as follows: "Check as per False TA HCO Bs" then when that is done he orders "C/S Series 53 Assess and return to me". Or "Hi-Lo TA Assessment and return to me". He then rapidly C/Ses the required actions.

He should have a standing order with all his auditors:

IF TA IS HIGH OR LOW
AT SESSION START DO
NOT CONTINUE THE
SESSION BUT SEND FOR
A C/S.

An auditor should not in fact talk a TA down, we know now, as he may be auditing over an Out Interiorization Rundown, either not done or botched.

It therefore saves time if other auditing is not done when the TA is high.

In general practice it will now be considered standard for an auditor, Dianetic or upper class, to not start a session over a high TA but to call for a C/S.

And where there is no C/S it will be considered standard for an auditor, seeing a high TA, to at once do a C/S 53 Method 5 (assessing it all), and then handling.

THERE ARE EXACT
REASONS FOR A TA
BEING HIGH AND
THESE TODAY ARE
EASILY HANDLED.

There is no need to talk a TA down. It is faster to directly locate the reason it is up.

Smoothly handling such situations is the mark of an expert.



LRH:ne.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 FEBRUARY 1972
Issue I

Remimeo


FALSE TA ADDITION 3

(There are now four False TA HCO Bs including this one.
These were issued as more data was uncovered.)
HCO B 24 Oct 71 False TA
HCO B 12 Nov 71 False TA Addition
HCO B 15 Feb 72 False TA Addition 2
and this one
HCO B 18 Feb 72 False TA Addition 3


A meter is a meter.

Meters are used to measure water, natural gas, and many other things.

An E meter is used to measure a pc.

If you rig a meter up so as to falsify its reads you get a wrong result.

You could rig up a water meter so it read that twice as much water had flowed and then sit around and wonder all week why the swimming pool never filled up.

The ACCURACY of a meter depends upon its being honestly set up and honestly used.

The HONESTY of the auditor determines his results.

The whole field of psychotherapy was dishonest from the days of witch doctors to psychiatry. Falsified data came from lack of knowledge of the mind. This made its practitioners DISHONEST.

We do not and must not follow that fatal road.

The technology we have WORKS to definite positive predictable results.

Results are obtained if the auditor has honestly studied and understood his materials and honestly applies them.

Falsifying study leads to falsifying meters and this gives bad results on pcs.

HONEST use of the materials and the meter gives an honest result.

One who does not know his materials and who cannot do his drills then thinks he has to make a meter cheat.

HONEST use of the meter by an HONEST auditor is the route to GOOD RESULTS.

LOW TAs

A bad practice has arisen to "beat" the low TA.


This is to have the pc wipe his hands every few minutes to get the TA up above 2.0.

Not only does this distract the pc and yank him out of session, but it is by inference putting his attention on the meter, a thing a good auditor does NOT do in a formal session. The pc's attention must be on his own case in a session, not on the meter or his hands.

An answer to low TA because of wet hands is foot plates.

But the best answer is to get the pc up scale so he doesn't have perspiring hands.

Overwhelming TRs is the commonest reason for low TAs. Not all the hand wiping in the world will cure poor TRs.

Some auditors "spook" (leap off the road like a horse frightened by something blowing along) at the very thought of high or low TAs. This is because they haven't got the TRs to handle a low TA nor the tech to handle a high one.

Making a meter read falsely low with cream or falsely high with talcum powder or wiping hands continually will not handle the pc's CASE.

That is what the auditor is there to do, not make his session look good!

The funniest one I have ever heard was a Solo auditor who had high TA trouble. So he used to fill up a bathtub with scalding water, fill the bathroom full of clouds of steam and then sit in the bath, holding onto his electrodes "Solo auditing".

It gave him a lower TA but it sure didn't give him any case result.

We maybe ought to have a contest as to who can come up with the most comical actual instances of falsifying meter reads.

One "auditor" "solved it" by just calling F/Ns whenever she got tired of the pc regardless of TA position. After a year or more of this she saw the light and put herself in Ethics.

The funny part is that her co-auditor had been doing the same thing on her!

HONEST TA IS THE BEST POLICY.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH: ne.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 FEBRUARY 1972

Remimeo (Revised 26 March 1972
All Supervisors Changes in this type style)
Student's Hat
HPCSC Word Clearing Series 32R
Mini Crse
Super Crse URGENT- IMPORTANT- URGENT
Word Clearing
Crse Vital for all Supervisors,
Est Off Crse Est-Os, and Cramming Officers
Dept 13 Personnel
WORD CLEARING METHOD 4

Tech and Admin Cramming Officers, Word Clearers and Course Supervisors use Method 4 Word Clearing when fishing for a misunderstood word. E.g. Cramming Officers use it to fish for misunderstood words concerning what the person is being crammed on. Word Clearers use it on Interns when the Intern needs a retrain or retread or even if the Intern is sent to Cramming. Course Supervisors use it in the Classroom CONTINUOUSLY ON Non-F/N STUDENTS or queries.

The whole idea is the person requiring the Method 4 Word Clearing has a Cramming Order or is not an F/Ning student because of confusion as a result of a misunderstood word, as per Word Clearing Series 16R or omitted materials.

Method 4 fishes for the misunderstood word, finds it, clears it, looks for another in the area until there are no more, at which point one should get F/N VGIs, then moves to another area, handles that—eventually the misunderstoods that resulted in the Cramming Order or non-F/N student are handled.

It requires no C/S OK for it to be done. Method 1 is not a prerequisite to Method 4.

E-Meter Drill No. 21 is the E-Meter Drill to be drilled on Method 4. It's the method of fishing for a cognition.

Requires proper application of TRs and metering. All Supervisors, Est-Os, and Dept 13 personnel to check out on, drill, and apply this tech AS IT IS VITAL STUDY TECH.


METHOD 4 WORD CLEARING


1. Give person the cans, state, ''I am not auditing you. ''

2. Ask while watching the meter:

"Is there any part of what you're studying you did not fully get?''

Trace the read. Use "fishing for a cog'' drill (per HCO B 25 June 70, Iss III) if needed.

If no read the question may be varied, e.g.

''Is there any part of the materials you're studying you disagree with?''

or ''Is there any part of what you're studying you feel you could not apply?''

or "In (material being checked) is there anything you didn't understand?"

Let the student tell you briefly. Do NOT tell him the data.

Verify that his study Pack is complete as the data might have been omitted. Also he might never have read the pack at all.

If the data was missing do not go on to Step 3. See that he gets the complete pack and reads it Then repeat Method 4

I f the person just has not read the materials do not go on to 3 but get him to read the materials. Then repeat Method 4.

3. Get what it is then ask:

''What word was misunderstood just before that?''

Meter reads, Word Clearer finds the word, never accepting a confusion but finds the word giving the read (SF, F, LF, BD), gets it looked up in a dictionary and used in sentences until it can be seen from the sentences that the student now understands the word. This enables Method 4 to be done on a high or low TA as the word found doesn't have to be taken to F/N, just cleared to where it's obvious understanding has been attained on the word. If you did get an F/N on clearing the word, that's fine; now look for another.

4. Repeat 2 & 3 until the materials are fully cleared up and any and all misunderstoods or confusions handled.

5. If the action bogs when used in the classroom the student must be sent to Qual for handling and Supervisor to Cramming on TRs and metering and drilling on this procedure.

The correct action is a WC CORRECTION LIST DONE ON THE STUDENT AND HANDLED.

Of course if the above Question F/Ns on asking, there would be no misunderstoods on the material being checked, but the person is in Cramming, not an F/Ning student or whatever, so there obviously are misunderstood words to be found and handled.

Look at HCO PL 16 Feb 72 "The Purpose of the Dept of Personnel Enhancement". It says this Dept "reaches and looks for business all over the org and brings it in". So someone with stats down—student or post stats, confusion about what to do, overloaded, can't seem to handle it, how do you do this, etc, etc, are all indicators of misunderstood words as the person is saying confusion, confusion. Well, underneath the confusion is a misunderstood word just as Word Clearing 16R says.

Method 4 Word Clearing is what is used in doing and achieving the purpose of the Dept of Personnel Enhancement, HCO PL 16 Feb 72.

One of the ways the Word Clearers in this Dept do the job is using Method 4 Word Clearing.

METHOD 4 IS USED BY COURSE SUPERVISORS TO HANDLE ALL STUDENT QUERIES ABOUT CONTENTS OF COURSE MATERIALS.

The reason students ask questions about "What is meant'' is because of omitted pack materials from their checksheet, failure to read what they have OR BECAUSE OF A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD JUST BEFORE THEY GOT CONFUSED.

The Super has to know only where the materials are and BE SMART ENOUGH TO DO METHOD 4 INSTEAD OF GlVING THE STUDENT ALTER-ISED ANSWERS THAT STOP SCIENTOLOGY WORKING.

Word Clearing, especially Method 4, is how to get in HIGH CRIME HCO PL 7 Feb 1965, Reissued 15 June 70, "KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING''

SUCCESSFUL COURSE SUPERVISION AND SUCCESSFUL CRAMMING REQUIRE THIS ACTION BE FULLY KNOWN AND U - S - E - D.

**K *E *E *P**
**S *C *l *E *N * T*O *L *O *G * Y**
**W *O *R *K *l *N *G**



L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:sb.bh
Copyright ©1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 FEBRUARY 1972
Remimeo
Div 6 Personnel
Tech Personnel C/S Series 71A
Qual Personnel


WORD CLEARING OCAs


An illegal practice has been uncovered in which the words on the Oxford Capacity Analysis, American Personality Analysis and other tests have been word cleared by testers and Directors of Processing.

Example: Pc does an OCA (or any test) that shows a state of case in July. He gets auditing. He takes another test that shows what the auditing did by August. If somewhere along this line a test I/C or D of P word clears him on the test, the test-will change. Entering this variable wipes out any possibility of establishing what the auditing did for the case.

Example: If a child is measured as to height and then fed certain foods to see if he will grow and then someone changes or stretches the tape by which he was measured, you can't find out if the food did any good.

In science this is known as holding a constant.

We don't give a hoot in hell if the pc understands the test or not. The next time he takes it he'll probably have the same misunderstoods but he'll have a change of opinion or even have a new cleverness or better memory and the test will change.

Therefore none of these things may ever be done:

1. Never tell the pc the right answers to a test.

2. Never tell a pc to look up words on a test he doesn't understand.

3. Never word clear the question sheet for a pc on any test.

4. Never answer a pc's question as to what a question means.

DO THESE THINGS

A. Be sure any test person grasps this HCO B fully so he knows what a test is and why we test people.

B. Never let a person who falsely reports routinely near a test line.

C. Safeguard test answer sheets from being known or seen by unauthorized personnel.

D. Use 2nd test and 3rd test question sheets, each different from the 1st one. (Tests are issued this way.)

E. Give other tests (Aptitude or OTIS etc) to compare with the second or third OCA or APA if it is in doubt to see if the OCA has been "word cleared" or falsified.

F. Groove in Examiners: Give a meter check on ALL ATTESTS at the Examiner. "Do you have any doubts or reservations concerning attesting to (whatever the attest is) ?" Note any INSTANT read (a latent surge can occur as a protest). This
question is asked before the question asking him if he wants to attest. E.g. "Do you have any doubts or reservations concerning attesting to Word Clearing Method I complete?" No instant read. Then ask the attest question "Would you like to attest to______?"

Never let an Examiner permit any attest or pass to even be asked for if the meter tone arm is high or low or not F/Ning. If an INSTANT read is gotten on the first question above, the Examiner does not ask the second question, and sends the folder back to the C/S.

G. Require a meter check at Success with the TA position and needle behavior noted on the Success form. Those with high or low TA and/or not F/Ning are not valid success stories. The success person makes the meter check after the story is written, notes it without pc seeing it and smiles and acks. He does not refuse the story as it will ARC Break the pc. But he must call it to the attention of the Dist Sec and Qual Sec that a false attestation and poor result came from Div IV and it must be taken off Div IV's stat.

H. Both Examiner and Success must know of the False TA HCO Bs so they don't put the pc on wrong cans or use cans when the auditor used footplates.

This safeguards our test line.

The test line is a check on C/S and auditing quality. We are not trying to find out if Dianetics and Scientology work. We know that. We are trying to find out by test, Examiner and Success if it is being properly taught and applied in Div IV and Dept of Pers Enhancement.

HONESTY is a primary requirement on test lines. PR types that falsify to attain status or seem good fellows need not apply for these posts and shouldn't be on them.

THE PC OR STUDENT DEEP DOWN KNOWS WHETHER HE HAS MADE IT OR NOT.

If you or tests tell him he's made it when he hasn't he will get a false opinion of you and doubt you.

If you tell him he hasn't made it when he has he will get a false opinion of you.

He will think you don't know your business and blow.

SANITY is basically HONESTY and TRUTH.

When false data or altered data is entered this is ABERRATION.

So be honest and run a sane D of P, Examiner, Success and TEST line.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: ne.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 FEBRUARY 1972

Remimeo


Word Clearing Series 15R

(Cancels HCO B 21 Aug 71, the original
WC Series 15 by a Testing personnel)

Reference HCO B 19 Dec 71, C/S Series 71,
"D of P Operates by OCAs"

HCO B 24 Feb 72, C/S Series 71
Additional



WORD CLEARING ANY WORDS ON ANY TEST AT ANY TIME IS A HIGH CRIME.

It suppresses tech results and obscures them.

The whole of HCO B 24 Feb 72, C/S Series 71A, explains fully why one never word clears tests or even tells a person being tested to use a dictionary.


FOREIGN LANGUAGE PERSONS

When testing persons who speak a different language than that in which the test is written, GET A TRANSLATED TEST INTO THEIR LANGUAGE OR TRANSLATE THE TEST WITHOUT ANY WORD CLEARING.


MIS Us ON TESTS

Where a person has a misunderstood word on a test, it usually remains misunderstood on the second test. Thus the test remains VALID as nothing has changed in it.

If the person's IQ rises during processing he may very well also figure out the misunderstood word now on the second test and improve the graph. But that is a valid PROCESSING result, not a false one introduced by clearing test words.


SUMMARY

Auditing works when properly done and it does not need a side action of word clearing a test to better the graph.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: ne.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

LRH MODEL AUDITING TAPES
26 February 1972

"These tapes were made to be used. They are practical demonstrations of real live TRs.

"Some orgs have their own ideas about TRs, consider TRs as demonstrated in these tapes to be 'old—we don't do it that way any more' and have substituted their own versions such as a rote TR-4 'Thank you I'll repeat the auditing command.' 'Thank you I'll repeat the auditing command.'

"That is NOT TR-4.

"The TRs are exactly as given in HCO B 16 Aug 1971, Issue II, 'Training Drills Modernized' [Vol. VII-348]. PAB 151 'Handling Originations' [Vol. III -370] further amplifies this, clearly points out that TR-4 is NOT a rote command, and gives examples of its correct use. The LRH Model Auditing Tapes are models of the correct use of TRs. They are not open to interpretation by supervisors. Any opinion that they are the 'old' way of doing TRs and not to be used in modern auditing comes under the heading of Technical Degrade and is an ethics offense.

"Poor TRs throw pcs out of session, cause student blows from courses, bring about ARC Breaks and an inability to handle people and situations in life. TRs are therefore a most vital and basic skill.

"They can be mastered but only by an honest study of the TRs HCO B, getting all misunderstood words on the HCO B cleared, listening to the LRH Model Auditing tapes without one's own preconceived ideas of what TRs should sound like and without interpretation by others, and then by a very honest drilling of each TR from Zero on up.

"Only those auditors or students who glossed over TRs 0-3 without mastering them would ever demand or expect a rote command to be substituted for real TR-4.

"It's all in the HCO B and correctly demonstrated in the LRH Model Auditing tapes. So how about getting them read, listened to and applied and watch the resulting upsurge in personnel effectiveness and soaring student and auditing stats!"

L. RON HUBBARD

"Honest TRs"
LRH ED 180 Int
3 September 1972


** 7202C26 LRH/MTS-1 CCH: Steps 1-4 Demo [5707C07 FC-15]

** 7202C26 LRH/MTS-2 Demo of an Assist [5911C09 1MACC-2]

* * 7202C26 L R H/MTS-3 Patching Up Two 3 DXX Cases
[6205C16 SH TVD-5 A&B]

** 7202C26 LRH/MTS-4 Check on "What" Questions and Havingness Probe
[6205C23 SH TVD-6]

** 7202C26 LRH/MTS-5 Fish and Fumble—Checking Dirty Needles
[6205C23 SH TVD-7]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 FEBRUARY 1972R

REVISED 23 NOVEMBER 1973
Remimeo
All Levels
All Auditors
All Tech Checksheets

FALSE TA CHECKLIST

Ref: HCO B 24 Oct 71 False TA
HCO B 12 Nov 71 False TA Addition
HCO B 15 Feb 72 False TA Addition 2
HCO B 18 Feb 72 False TA Addition 3
HCO B 24 Jan 73 Examiner and False TA
HCO B 24 Nov 73 C/S 53RF
HCO B 23 Nov 73 Dry and Wet Hands
Make False TA

The following are the items to be checked by an auditor on any pc. It need only be done once unless the check itself is suspected false, or if conditions of the pc's hands, etc change.

The checklist is kept in the pc folder and is entered on the folder summary as an action done.

The value of operating with correct can size should not be underestimated, the reference HCO Bs state why.

The auditor signs and answers the following points on the checklist, and gets answers from the pc where needed.
_________

R-Factor to pc: "We are going to check the cans and adjust them to get the best accuracy."

1. Is the meter charged fully? _________

2. Is the meter trimmed correctly? _________

3. Are the leads connected to the meter and cans? _________

4. Are the cans rusty? _________

5. Are pc's hands excessively dry requiring vanishing cream? _________

6. Are the pc's hands excessively wet requiring powder? _________

7. The pc is NOT being told continually to wipe his hands? _________

8. The pc's grip on the cans is NOT being continually checked by the
auditor in a way that interrupts the pc? _________

9. TA position on large cans? _________
Size approx 4 7/8 inches by 2 5/8 inches or 12 1/2 cm by 7 cm

10. TA position on medium cans? _________
Size approx 3 3/4 inches by 2 1/8 inches or 9 cm by 5 cm

11. TA position on small cans? _________
Size approx 2 inches by 1 3/16 inches or 5 cm by 3 cm

12. Are the cans too large for pc? _________


13. Are the cans too small for pc? _________

14. Are the cans just right in size? _________

15. Are the cans cold? _________

16. Are the pc's hands dry or calloused? _________

17. Does the pc have arthritic hands? _________

18. TA position on foot plates? _________

(Foot plates are used and TA checked on them when the answer to
16 & 17 is affirmative.)

19. Are the pc's feet calloused or excessively wet or dry? _________

20. Does the pc loosen his grip on the cans? _________

21. Check the pc's grip, does he hold the cans correctly? (See E-Meter
Drill 5.) _________

22. Is the pc hot? _________

22a. Is the pc well slept? _________

23. Is the pc cold? _________

23a. Is the pc hungry? _________

24. Is it too late at night? _________

25. Is auditing being done not in the pc's normal regular awake hours? _________

26. Are there rings on the pc's hands? _________

27. Is the pc wearing tight shoes? _________

28. Is the pc wearing tight clothes? _________

29. Is it actually chronic High or Low TA case condition? _________

30. Has the pc gone into despair over his TA? _________

The handling of these points is stated in the reference HCO Bs.

The handling of high or low TA after checking these points is by C/S 53RF, Short Hi-Lo TA Assessment C/S.

The way to be sure of a C/S 53RF or Hi-Lo TA list is by continued assessment and handling of these lists until an F/N on assessment is gotten.

So standard tech handles the high and low TA. The C/S Series gives more data on the subject.


Compiled by Flag XIIs
for
Training & Services Bureau
LRH:BL:JW:clb.rd
Copyright ©1972, 1973 Revised by
by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Founder

ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER SERIES LECTURES
Flagship Apollo
1—6 March 1972


** 7203C01 ESTO-1 Estos Instant Hat, Part I
** 7203C01 ESTO-2 Estos Instant Hat, Part II
** 7203C02 ESTO-3 Evaluation and Handling of Personnel, Part I
** 7203C02 ESTO-4 Evaluation and Handling of Personnel, Part II
** 7203C03 ESTO-5 Handling Personnel, Part I
** 7203C03 ESTO-6 Handling Personnel, Part II
** 7203C04 ESTO-7 Hold the Form of the Org, Part I
** 7203C04 ESTO-8 Hold the Form of the Org, Part II
** 7203C05 ESTO-9 Revision of the Product/Org System, Part I
** 7203C05 ESTO-10 Revision of the Product/Org System, Part II
** 7203C06 ESTO-11 F/Ning Staff Members, Part I
** 7203C06 ESTO-12 F/Ning Staff Members, Part II

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 MARCH 1972

Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 5


PRODUCTION AND ESTABLISHMENT
ORDERS AND PRODUCTS

The situation one often finds in an org, after one has, to some degree, conquered Dev-T, is that PEOPLE REQUIRE ORDERS.

For years I wondered why this was so. Well, I found it.

WHEN PEOPLE DO NOT CLEARLY KNOW WHAT THEIR PRODUCTS ARE THEY REQUIRE CONSTANT ORDERS.

To the Establishment Officer, this reflects most visibly in trying to get Program targets DONE.

Some people have to be ordered and ordered and ordered and threatened and howled at. Then, in a bewildered way, they do a target, sometimes half, sometimes nearly all.

Behind this apparent blankness lies an omitted datum. When they're like that they don't know what their product is or what it adds up to. Or they think it's something else or should be.

That blankness can invite overts.

It is very seldom that malice or resentment or refusal to work lies behind the inaction. People are seldom that way.

They usually just don't understand what's wanted or why.

Because they don't know what a PRODUCT is!

A whole Ad Council of a downstat org was unable even to define the word.

They had required orders, orders, orders and even then didn't carry them out.

HAT SURVEY FOR ORDERS

A staff member who requires orders may also think that any order is a policy and lasts forever. If you look into hats you will even find casual "close the door" type of orders, given on one occasion to fit one circumstance, are converted over into STANDING (continual) ORDERS that forever keep a certain door closed.

An Est O surveying the hats of a unit may very well find all manner of such oddities.

It is a standard Est O action to survey hats.

In hats you will find despatches giving specific orders or quoted remarks preserved instead of notes on what one has to know to produce a product.

In auditors' hats, directions for 1 specific pc in 1960, never published and from no tape or correct source, held onto like death like it was to be applied to every pc in the world!

A dishwashing hat may have orders in it but not how to wash dishes rapidly and well.

This is all a symptom of a unit or activity that does not know what its products are.

DISESTABLISHMENT

Where you find lots of orders kicking around, you will also find disestablishment by by-pass, command channels not held and staff members like to take their orders from anyone but those in authority—any passerby could give them orders.
This is rampant where an executive has not been well on post.

By counting such orders up and seeing who they are from one can determine the unhattedness of staff, their org bd weaknesses and principally their lack of knowledge of their products.

HATTING FOR PRODUCT

If an Est O is to hat so as to get the staff member to get his product out, then the Est O has to know how to clear up "products".

Now an Est O is an Establishment Officer? There are product officers. The Product of an Est O is the Establishment. Then what is he doing with Products?

Well, if he doesn't hat so staff members get out Products then the org will be a turmoil, unhappy and downstat.

Production is the basis of morale.

Hattedness is a basic of 3rd Dynamic sanity.

But if you don't HAT SO AS TO GET THE STAFF MEMBER YOU ARE HATTING PRODUCING YOU WILL HAT AND HAT AND IT WILL ALL BE IN VAIN. The person won't stay hatted unless he is hatted so as to be able to produce.

The Product Officer should be working to get the products out.

So if you don't hat for the product then the staff member will be tom between two sets of orders, the Est O's and the Product Officer’s.

Only when you hat to get product will you get agreement with product officers.

If you are in disagreement with product officers, then the Est O is not hatting to get production.

RIGHT WAY TO

There is a right direction to hat. All others are incorrect.

1. CLEAR UP WHAT THE PRODUCT IS FOR THE POST. AND HAT FROM THERE.

2. HAT FROM THE TOP OF THE DIVISION (OR ORG) DOWN.

These are the two right directions.

All other directions are wrong.

These two data are so important that the failure of an Est O can often be traced to violation of them.

You can have a senior Exec going almost livid, resisting being hatted unless you hat by 1st establishing what the product is. If PRODUCT is first addressed and cleaned up then you can also hat from the top down.

If this is not done, the staff will not know where they are going or why and you will get silly unusual situations like "A11 right. So you're the Establishment Officer. Well, I give up. The division can have 2l/2 hours a day Establishment time and then get the hell out of here so some work can be done . . . !" "Man, you got these people all tied up, stats are down! Can't you understand ...."

Well, if you don't do one and two above you’ll run into the most unusual messes and "solutions" you ever heard of, go sailing off policy and as an Est O wind up at your desk doing Admin instead of getting your job done in the Division. And an Est O who is not on his feet working in the Division is worth very little to anyone.

So see where the basic errors lead and

Hat on Product before doing anything else and

Hat from the top down.

STEPS TO CLEAR "PRODUCT"

This is a general rundown of the sequence by which Product is cleared and re-cleared and re-cleared again.

This can be checklisted for any Exec or staff member and should be with name and date and kept in the person's "Est O file folder" for eventual handing to his new Est O when the person is transferred out of the division or in Personnel Files if he goes elsewhere.

1. Clear the word PRODUCT.

2. Get what the Product or Products of the post should be. Get it or any number of products he has fully fully stated, not brushed off.

3. Clear up the subject of Exchange. (See HCO PL 27 Nov 71 Exec Series 3 and HCO PL 3 Dec 71 Exec Series 4.)

4. Exchange of the product Internal in the org. For what valuable?

5. Exchange External of the valuable with another group or public. For what valuable? (Person must come to F/N VGIs on these above actions before proceeding or he goes to an auditor to get his mis Us and out ruds very fully handled.)

6. Does he want the product? Clean this up fully to F/N VGIs or yourself get E/S to F/N or get an auditor to unsnarl this.

7. Can he get the products (in 2 above) out? How will he? What's he need to know? Get him fully settled on this point.

8. Will it be in volume? What volume? Is that enough to bother with or will it have to be a greater volume? Or is he being optimistic? What's real? What's viable?

9. What quality is necessary? What would he have to do to attain that? To attain it in volume?

10. Can he get others to want the product or products (as in 2 above)? What would he have to do to do this?

11. How do his products fit into the unit or section or department or division or the org? Get this all traced.

12. Now trace the blocks or barriers he may believe are on this line. Get what HE can do about these.

13. What does he have to have to get his product out? (Alert for unreasonable have to have before he can do blocks.)

14. Now does he feel he can get his product or products out?


Signature of Est O or Clearer.

NOW he really can be hatted.

________


BRUSH-OFF

Quickie handling is a very very bad fault. "Quickie" means a brush-off "lick and a promise" like wiping the windshield on the driver's side when really one would have to work at it to get a whole clean car.

So don't "quickie" Product. If this is poorly done on them there goes the old balloon. Hatting won't be possible.

Orders will have to be poured in on this terminal. Dev-T will generate. Overt products will occur, not good ones. And it won't be worthwhile.

DISAGREEMENT

There can be a lot of disagreement amongst Product Officers and Est Os on what products are to be hammered out.

In such a case, or in any case, one can get a Disagreements Check done in Dept of Personnel Enhancement (who should look up how to do one).

This is a somewhat extreme way to settle an argument and should only be a "when all else fails".

It is best to take the whole product pattern of the org apart with the person, STARTING FROM THE BIGGEST PRODUCT OF THE ORG AND WORKING BACK TO THE PERSON'S PRODUCT.

Almost always there will be an outpoint in reasoning.

An Exec who only wants GI can be a trial as he is violating EXCHANGE. As an org is paid usually before it delivers, it is easy to get the org in trouble by backlogs or bad repute for non-delivery. An org that has credit payments due it that aren't paid maybe didn't deliver. But Div III may soften up collections for some reason like that and then where would the org be?

Vol 0 of the OEC Course gives an excellent background of how a basic org works. As one goes to higher orgs, lower orgs are depended upon to continue to flow upward to them. (See HCO PL 9 Mar 72, Issue I, Finance Series 11, "Income Flows and Pools".)

A study of Vol 0 OEC and a full understanding of its basic flows and adapting these to higher orgs will unsnarl a lot of odd ideas about Product.

The Est O has to be very clear on these points or he could mis-hat a person.

Usually however this is very obvious.

PRODUCT OFFICERS

Heads of Orgs and divisions have had to organize so long they get stuck in it.

They will try to order the Est O.

This comes about because they do not know their products or the Est O is not following 1 and 2 above and does not know his own product.

The Product Officer may try to treat the Est O as a sort of "organizing officer" or a "program officer" if

A. The Est O is not hatting to get production.

B. The Product Officer is not cleared on Product.

So it comes back to the 1 and 2 first mentioned.

You can look over it now and see that if one is not doing these two things, Dev-T, non-viability and orders will occur.

So where you have Dev-T, down stats and orders flying around you know one thing that will resolve it:

SOMETHING WILL HAVE TO BE IRONED OUT ABOUT PRODUCT.

When it all looks impossible, go to this point and get to work on 1 & 2.

LRH:ne.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[This HCO PL is modified by HCO PL 9 May 1974, Prod-Org, Esto and Older Systems Reconciled, which is in the Management Series 1970-1974, page 438.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 MARCH 1972
Issue V
Remimeo
Cse Supers
Cse Super
Checksheets HIGH CRIME
LRH Comm to
Enforce
WHAT IS A COURSE
HIGH CRIME


The amendment HCO PL 26 Jan 72 What is a Course PL is CANCELED.

The Original WHAT IS A COURSE PL, HCOPL 16 Mar 71, is restored AS WRITTEN.

The added script line in the 26 Jan 72 revision is canceled as not written by myself and is a false datum.

The incorrect line states ''to be on the ball one should be oneself fully trained on the level one is supervising. It is by far preferable to be a Class VIII with full grasp of Standard Tech.''

This is an alter-is of Study Tech.

Careful investigation has found that WHEN SUPERVISORS FAIL THEY FAIL BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE OF SCN STUDY TECH AND FAILURE TO USE IT.

In Course Supervision it is OUT TECH to fail to know and USE Study Tech.

If an auditor were to say, "I have to know all about minds but I don't have to know anything about TRs, Meters or processes," you would think he was as crazy as a psychiatrist !

He would become so involved with the figure-figure of the patient he WOULD NOT KNOW HOW TO HANDLE HIM.

A Super who does not know or use Study Tech as a tech and does not heavily apply it to get the student through is an OUT TECH Super.

The real WHY of any failed or blowing students or students who cannot or do not apply the data is

WHY: THE COURSE SUPERVISOR DOES NOT KNOW OR USE STUDY TECH BUT THINKS HE HAS TO KNOW THE SUBJECT TAUGHT SO HE CAN TEACH IT.

Example: A Course Super standing staring at his Class. One half his students not using demo kits, one student listening to a tape and reading an HCO B at the same time but doping off, one third of the students boiling off. Challenged about this states, "But I don't know the materials they are studying."

If a railway engineer were to say, "I have to know all the tech of building a railroad and not how to run this train," you'd think he was batty.

If a housewife said, "I can't run my house because I have never taken a course on how to run my husband's business," you'd think she was crazy.

A Course Super who does not respect, know and USE Study Tech on his students is guilty of practicing OUT TECH.

If an auditor did not know how to start and stop a session, how to read a meter, his TRs, his processes or handle a session he would have nothing but failed preclears.

IN THE SAME FRAME OF REFERENCE, A COURSE SUPER WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO START AND STOP A STUDENT, CLEAR WORDS, ENFORCE DEMOS AND DOES NOT GET STUDY TECH APPLIED CONTINUALLY WILL HAVE FAILED STUDENTS.

A Course Super's primary tech is Study Tech and its application to a student. If he can keep that student on the rails and F/Nng and rapidly covering his materials he is doing the WHOLE JOB OF SUPERVISING.

It is therefore a High Crime for a person to Supervise a Course who does not know, apply and continually use his Study Tech on every individual student.

It is also a HIGH CRIME for a Director of Training or a Tech Sec or an Est O to have anyone supervising without FULL USE OF STUDY TECH.

Just as it's a HIGH CRIME to continue to use HGC auditors who smash up pcs through non-use of Auditing Tech, it is a HIGH CRIME to continue to use Course Supervisors who do not know that Study Tech exists, that it is a tech and that it is the "tools of his trade" and who does not use it and thus smashes up students.

The society knows nothing about Study Tech. It thinks a teacher "teaches the subject and must know the subject!" Thus it alter-ises the subject, almost never makes a competent person and routine school teaching is looked upon by Industry as a huge failure. All manner of unusual solutions are in progress in every country to remedy this inability of students to learn.

WE MUST NOT CONTINUE TO INHERIT THE IDIOCY THAT A TEACHER ONLY HAS TO KNOW THE SUBJECT AND KNOW NOTHING ABOUT STUDY TECH.

It is Study Tech that gets the student of any subject through.

The thing that breaks the Super down is ignorance of just ONE point:

A STUDENT WITH A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD WILL POUR OUT A TORRENT OF QUERIES ABOUT THE SUBJECT!

The Super is a complete ignorant fool if he answers one of these questions. The Super's knowledge of the subject is not what is needed! If the Super knew and practiced Misunderstood Word tech he'd know that student has misunderstood words and he would find and handle. HE WOULD NOT ANSWER OR EVEN TRY TO ANSWER THOSE QUERIES. It would do NO good if he did. This query-happy student has passed by a Mis-U word !

Such a student can get misemotional. He is upset. He thinks data is being denied him. He wants to blow.

What kind of a Super is it that doesn't grab a meter and find the word? An SP? Or What?

Just like an "auditor" is not an auditor who lets pcs blow without handling so is a Super no Super at all who cannot handle a student with Study Tech.

So let's knock off the wog world inheritance and get on the ball and REALIZE STUDY TECH IS THE TECH A SUPER KNOWS AND USES.

Just because a Super was himself mistaught by old Mrs. Zilch in the third grade— who knew arithmetic but not how to teach a subject—is no reason he has to go on laying an egg in a Scientology classroom.

A Course Super is a technician, a specialist in Study Tech.

And just to help it out, IT IS A HIGH CRIME TO FAIL TO USE STUDY TECH IN A CLASSROOM.

Any time a student blows or later fails to be able to apply his data, the Super who taught him will be Comm Eved for OUT TECH.

We must have no blows and no failures.

The product of a Super is a Graduate from his course who knows and can successfully apply the subject that was taught.

This is his true stat. Points measure only quantity. The record of the individual student measures quality. The Exchange value of the student after a course (not his fee) measures viability.

It may be a crazy planet. Course Supers don't have to teach crazy courses where Study Tech is not used.

WHAT IS A COURSE is answered by one where the elements of the original HCO PL 16 Mar 71 are in use AND:

Where Study Tech is in full and continual application to every student in that course!


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 MARCH 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 11


FULL PRODUCT CLEARING
LONG FORM

(Reference HCO P/L 13 Mar 72
Est O Series No. 5)

MUST BE DONE ON AN EST O
BEFORE HE DOES IT ON STAFF.

If you ask some people what their product is, you usually get a DOINGNESS.

There are three conditions of existence. They are BE, DO and HAVE.

All products fall under HAVE.

The oddities you will get instead of a proper product are many.

Thus it is possible to "clear products" without any real result.

PRODUCT CLEARING FORM

_____________________ _____________________
Org Person's Name

_____________________
Date

_____________________
Post

The 14 Points of Est O Series 5 are done in this fashion, with a meter used to check words.

STEP ONE

DO NOT TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT THE PERSON KNOWS WHAT "PRODUCT" MEANS. GET IT AND EVERY WORD IN THE DEFINITION LOOKED UP.

(a) Clear the Word PRODUCT. Dictionaries give a variety of definitions. Make sure you get a useable definition that the person understands AND WHICH HE UNDERSTANDS ALL THE WORDS IN. He can be hung up on "that" or "is" in the definition itself believe it or not.

(b) Have the person USE the word PRODUCT 10 times in sentences of his own invention and use it correctly each time.

(c) Now clear up BE, DO, HAVE, the Conditions of Existence. People often think a BE is a product or a DO. It is always something someone can HAVE.

Clear the words BE, DO, HAVE by dictionary, especially HAVE.

(d) Write these on a sheet of paper

BE
DO
HAVE.

Tell the person to name a product out in the world (a car, a book, a cured dog, etc).

Put an arrow into the word DO if he gives you a "do", into BE if he

gives you a "be" instead of a HAVE.

Mark HAVE with an arrow each time he gives a right HAVE product.

When he can rapidly name a product that is something that one can HAVE, without a comm lag, go on to next step.

(e) Clear up this question on a meter Method 4 (see HCO B 22 Feb 72, Word Clearing Series 32, "Word Clearing Method 4"):

"Have I used any word so far you did not understand?"

Get it clean.

(f) Now give the person a copy of HCO P/L 29 October 70 Org Series 10.

Have him read the policy letter.

(g) Clear by Method 4 Word Clearing this question:

"Are there any words in the policy letter you did not understand?"

Get it cleaned up. If there were any, have him reread the policy letter until he says he has it.

(h) Drill the pc on Products 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Write:

Product 1 Product 2

Product 3 Product 4

on a sheet of paper.

Let him retain and consult the HCO P/L 29 Oct 70 Org Series 10.

Put the point of your pen on one of the products (Product 1 or 2 or 3 or 4) and say, "Name a Product 1." "Name a Product 3." "Name a Product 4." "Name a Product 2." Do this until pc has it.

Now take the P/L away from him and repeat the drill.

When your Product 1, etc is all blacked up with ball-point spots and the person is quick at it, thank him. Tell him he has it and go on to next step.

STEP TWO

(a) Look up the hat and org board of the post of the person being product cleared and get some idea of what the post's product would have to be to fit in with the rest of the scene. It won't necessarily be in former hat write-ups. What the post produces must be worked out. Write down what it possibly may be.

(b) Get the person to tell you what his post produces. Have him work the wording around until it is totally satisfactory to him and is not incorrect by Step 2 (a).

Be very careful indeed that you don't get a wrong product or you could throw the whole line-up of the org out.

Beware of "a high stat" or "a bonus" or "GI" as these are items received in Exchange, not the person's produced product.

Once more resort to BE
DO
HAVE

to be sure he is not giving a doingness. And point this out until he actually has a HAVE.

Write down the product on the worksheet.

(c) Ask if there are any more products to the post. If the person is wearing several hats, he would have a product for each hat. List each hat and get the product of each hat written after it.

(d) Now take the principal product of the post and see if it is really three products of different degrees or kinds. (Example: an auditor has [A] A well pc [one who has been gotten over a psychosomatic illness] [B] A person who is physically active and well and will continue to be well, and [C] A being with greatly increased abilities. A Super has [A] A trained student, [B] A Course graduate, [C] A person who successfully applies the skills taught.) (Note: The above are rough wordings.)

The A, B, C you will notice fit roughly into (A) BE, (B) DO, (C) HAVE.
If the person has trouble with this, write BE, DO, HAVE on the worksheet.

(e) Find out if the person has had these confused one with another or if he is trying for A when his product was C, or any other mix-up.

See if he has to first get a BE, then a DO to finally achieve a HAVE. When he has all this straight he should cognite on what product he is going for on his post, with VGIs.

(f) Tell the person that's it for the step and verify the products with a Product Officer. (Be sure it's a Product Officer who has had his Product Clearing. If this is THE Product Officer of the org, see if it compares to the Valuable Final Products of an Org [see HCO P/L 8 Nov 73RA, revised 9 Mar 74, "The VFPs and GDSs of the Divisions of an Org''] .) If the products are not all right check the person on a Meter for Mis Us and do steps 1 and 2 again. If okay, proceed to Step 3.

STEP THREE

(a) Give the person HCO P/L 27 Nov 71, Executive Series No. 3 and HCO P/L 3 Dec 71 Executive Series 4. Have him read them.

(b) Return and do Method 4 on the P/Ls and clean up any Misunderstood Word. If these are found and looked up and used, then have the person read the P/Ls again.

(c) Now that the person has it, exchange objects with him. Have him now explain exchange until he sees clearly what it is.

STEP FOUR

(a) Now write his product on the left-hand side of your worksheet and draw an arrow from it to the right:

His Product ------------------------>
And one to the left below it <------------------------

Have him tell you what, internally in the org, he could get in exchange for producing his product and getting it out.

Have him clear up why he might not get that.

(b) Have him look at a worksheet picture:

Overt Act-------------------> Injury
Injury <---------------------- Overt Act
SELF No Product-----------------> OTHERS
Nothing <------------------- Nothing

as a cycle. Be sure he grasps that.

(c) Have him look at a worksheet picture:
Overt Product --------------------> Upset
Upset <------------------------------ Overt

And have him grasp that cycle.

(d) Now have him draw various such cycles having to do with the products he has been getting out. Such as:

Bad product ----------------> Dissatisfied
Bad feelings <--------------- Ethics

But using various versions of products.

Do this until he has it untangled and feels good.
(e) Have him write down his product on the left, arrow to the right, what comes back on the right and what occurs on the left.

If he has this now, tell him that's fine.

STEP FIVE

(All in Big Clay Demos)

(a) Have him work out what theft is in terms of Exchange, and arrows.

(b) Have him show how his product contributes to the org's product.

(c) Have him work out how the org's product as relates to his division is then exchanged with society outside the org and Scn and what society exchanges back to the org.

(d) Have him work out how his product contributes to org's product outward and outside the org and Scn and then from the society outside back to the org and org back to him.

This may have more than two vias each way.

(e) Have him work out the combined staff products into an org product and then out into the society and then the exchange back into the org and to CLOs and upper management and to org staff.

(f) When the Demos are all okay and BIG tell him that's fine and go on to next step.

STEP SIX

(Metered)

(a) Find out if person wants his product? (not the Exchange).

If not find out who might suppress it? and E/S times.

Who might invalidate it? and earlier times.

2wc it to F/N Cog VGIs.

(b) Establish now if the person wants his product.

(If bogs turn over to a C/S and auditor for ruds and completion.)

STEP SEVEN

(Metered)

(a) Can the person get his product out?

(b) Handle by 2wc E/S to F/N.

STEP EIGHT

(Metered)

(a) What will his product be in volume?

Is that enough to bother about or will it have to be in greater volume?

What would be viable as to volume?

Clean up RUSHED or Failures.

To F/N Cog VGIs.
STEP NINE

(Metered)

(a) What quality would be necessary?

Get various degrees of quality stated.

What would he have to do to attain that quality?

What volume could he attain?

What would he have to do to attain that?

To F/N Cog VGIs.

STEP TEN

(Metered)

(a) Can he get others to want the products he put out?

What would he have to do to attain this?

STEP ELEVEN

(In BIG Clay)

(This is a progressive Clay Demo
added to at each step!)

(a) How does his product or products fit into the framework of his section? Requires he work out the section product if his is not it. Then fit his to it.

(b) How does his product fit into the Department? Requires he work out the Department's product and fit his to it if his is not the Dept's product.

(c) How does his product fit into the Division's products? He will have to work out the Div's product or consult HCO P/L 8 Nov 73FA revised 9 Mar 74, "The VFPs and GDSs of the Divisions of an Org".

(d) How does the Division's Product exchange with the Public? And for what?

(e) What happens to the org on this exchange?

STEP TWELVE

(In Big Clay)

(a) What blocks might he encounter in getting out his product?

(b) What can HE do about these?

STEP THIRTEEN

(2 wc)

(a) What does he have to have to get his product out? (Beware of too much have before he can do. Get him to cut it back so he is more causative.)

STEP FOURTEEN

(Written by Pc)

(a) What is his product on the 1st Dynamic—self?

How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(b) What is his product on the 2nd Dynamic—family and sex?

How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(c) What is his product on the 3rd Dynamic—Groups?

How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(d) What is his product on the 4th Dynamic—Mankind?

How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(e) What is his product on the 5th Dynamic—animal and vegetable kingdom?

How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(f) What is his product on the 6th Dynamic—the Universe of Matter, Energy, Space and Time?

How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(g) What is his product on the 7th Dynamic—beings as spirits—thetans?

How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(h) What is his product on the 8th Dynamic—God or the Infinite or religion?

How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(i) What is his post Product?

(j) Can he get it out now?


Est O or Product Clearer


Note this long form has to be run on leading executives and eventually on all staff. The short form in Est O Series 5, 14 points, series as a rapid action. Where there is any hang-up on the short form, send the person to an auditor. Where there is a hang-up on the long form, send the person to an auditor. The auditing action is to fly ruds on the RD and assess any key words the pc is upset about and do an 18 button prepcheck carrying each prepcheck button to F/N.

TA

Where the TA is already high do not attempt the short or long form.

Where the person turns on a rockslam check for rings on the hands. If so, remove rings. Note if R/S continues.

In either case the person should be programmed for TA trouble with C/S 53RRR and handled, and then given a GF40RR Method 3 (F/Ning each Question that reads) and then running the engrams with drugs run first.

Product Clearing is best done after Word Clearing No. 1 is successfully done.

An Est O who can use a meter and Method 4 WCing and knows Clay Demoing can do it.

HCO Bulletins are planned to be issued on this RD to handle it on rough ones or repair it as needed in the hands of an expert auditor.


LRH: mes.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[This HCO PL is modified by HCO PL 9 May 1974, Prod-Org, Esto and Older Systems Reconciled, which is in the Management Series 1970-1974, page 438.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 NOVEMBER 1971
(Revises HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1971
ISSUE 1)
Remimeo
Div IV HGC
Dept 13
Revised 24 MARCH 1972
With W/Clearing Corrn List and
Study Corrn List Added)



HAS SPECIALIST AND ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER
AUDITING PROGRAM (Revised)

(Reference HCO PL 20 Aug 71,
Issue I, “HAS TROUBLES”)

(This Program has been revised to
improve results and stability.)


The HAS (HCO Area Secretary), any HCO Executive Secretary, HCO Cope Officer, HCO Org Officer, Tech Establishment Officer, any HAS Deputy OR any Executive or Divisional Head or staff member who shows a tendency to transfer or unstabilize staff members or who fails to hat others, must be processed especially in order to be totally stable on post.

The HAS and Establishment Officers are peculiarly subject to efforts to unstabilize them. These require the Program to be done in any case whether stable or not.

Executives or staff members who show signs of obsessive transfer of the staff or org are also greatly benefited.

The HAS Specialist Rundown consists of processes which increase the ability to hold a position.

THE RUNDOWN MAY ONLY BE DONE WHEN NO EXISTING AUDITING PROGRAM IS ONLY PARTIALLY DONE. COMPLETE THE EXISTING CYCLE FIRST.

HAS RUNDOWN

Action 1. C/S Series 53RRR Handle _________

Action 2. Word Clearing Corrn List Handle _________

Action 3. Study Corn List Handle _________

Action 4. GF M5 Handle _________

Action 5. TR Course to Full EP _________

Action 6. Admin TRs or Upper Indoc if Admin TRs not available _________

Action 7. GF 40XRR Method 3 _________

Action 8. C/S Series 54 and Handle _________
(Includes GF 40 Engrams)

Action 9. L3B on Early Dn 1-80 to F/N List _________

Action 10. PTS RD Steps A, B, C, D _________

WARNING: RUN ONLY IF REQUIRED PER READS IN 3 OR 7 ABOVE.

Action 11. CCHs (Run or verify and rehab) _________

Action 12. Hold It Still. (HCO B 23 July 71, Page 2 Version B.) _________
(Run or verify and rehab.)

Action 13. Start—Change—Stop (SCS) on an object. (Run or _________
verify and rehab. )

Action 14. Start—Change—Stop. (Run or verify and rehab.) _________

Action 15. Op Pro By Dup (Book and Bottle). (Run or verify _________
and rehab.)

Action 16. Effort Processing. _________

Action 17. Rising Scale. _________

Action 18. Verify Int RD, run if not run in No.1 or date to blow _________
locate to blow if not done.

Action 19. Fly all ruds and overts recently. _________

Action 20. Program for further auditing in own org on Grade _________
Chart.

_________

Caution: Do not repeat Processes already done on the pc.

PACK: HCO B 20 Nov 71 (Revising HCO B 20 Aug 71, Issue II, Checklist) is auditor’s checksheet for the above, giving all materials. It is done by Tr and Serv Aide. Packs can be locally assembled or procured from CLO A/CS-2. Most of these materials occur in Level I PABs SHSBC.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: nt .sb .mes.rd
Copyright © 1971, 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED














[The 24 March 1972 revision added Actions 2, 3, 9 and 10, and added “and Establishment Officer” to the title. ]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MARCH 1972R
Issue II
REVISED 3 DECEMBER 1974
Remimeo



COURSE SUPERVISOR CORRECTION LIST
STUDY CORR LIST 2R

(Reference LRH ED 174 INT)


The Supervisor Correction List is designed to help locate the individual reasons a supervisor has for not fully applying the study tech in supervision.

The list is normally done in Qual but may also be done by a D/T on his supervisors. It merely assists a D/T or Qual Personnel in finding why the supervisor is not using study tech.

The list is assessed Method Five and handled as indicated. A second bracket in the handling shows the further actions to be done after the list has been F/Ned on all reading items.

NAME: DATE:______________

AUDITOR: __________________________________________________________

0. DID YOU GO THROUGH EACH STUDY TAPE ONCE CLEARING EVERY DEFINITION OF EACH WORD AND THEN LISTEN TO IT FOR UNDERSTANDING AND A THIRD TIME IF THERE WERE ANY MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS ON THE SECOND AND DID YOU DO THE SAME ON THE STUDENT HAT?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Pgm for PRD or PRD retread.)

00. DO YOU HAVE A REASON YOU ARE NOT USING THE STUDY TECH?
(L&N “What reason do you have for not using study tech?’’) (Pgm for PRD retread or PRD after Cramming on the Why.)

000. HAS A WRONG WHY BEEN FOUND FOR YOUR NOT USING STUDY TECH?
(L4BR and handle. Find the right Why.) (Pgm for PRD retread or PRD after Cramming on the Why.)

0000. HAVE YOU DONE ALL THESE THINGS ALREADY AND STILL HAVE TROUBLE WITH STUDY?
(Do Student Rehabilitation List HCO B 15 Nov 74.)

00000. HASN’T A WORD CLEARING CORRECTION LIST BEEN DONE?
(Get it done. )

1. DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK ON COURSE?
(Find what, ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N.)

2. DO YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH SUPERVISION?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

3. DO YOU HAVE OVERTS ON STUDENTS?
(Get them, E/S to F/N.)

4. DO YOU HAVE OVERTS ON STUDY?
(Get them, E/S to F/N.)

5. ARE YOU SUPERVISING OVER WITHHOLDS?
(Pull them, E/S to F/N.)

6. ARE YOU AFRAID OF BEING FOUND OUT?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

7. DID YOU FALSIFY YOUR STATS?
(2wc E/S to F/N) (Get them corrected.)

8. HAVE YOU NEVER DONE A SUPERVISOR’S COURSE?
(Get the W/H off to F/N.) (Get person onto supervisor course.)

9. HAVE YOU NEVER STUDIED THE STUDY TECH?
(Get the W/H off to F/N.) (Get it studied.)

10. HAVE YOU NEVER LISTENED TO THE STUDY TAPES?
(Get the W/H off to F/N.) (Get them studied.)

11. DO YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOODS ON THE STUDY MATERIALS? (Method 4 word clear.) (And retread.)

12. DON’T YOU KNOW HOW TO SUPERVISE?
(Find out what areas he doesn’t know. WC Method 4.) (And retread. )

13. DOING OTHER WORK IN CLASS TIME?
(Get the W/H off E/S to F/N.)

14. ARE YOU AFRAID OF CONSEQUENCES?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

15. ARE YOU AFRAID OF TEACHING THEM WRONG?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

16. HAS THE STUDY TECH NOT WORKED ON YOU?
(Find what didn’t work, correct it to F/N and a win.)

17. DON’T YOU KNOW IF THE SUPERVISOR TECH WORKS?
(Find misunderstoods and handle.)

18. DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD KNOW THE MATERIALS INSTEAD OF STUDY TECH?
(2wc E/S considerations to F/N.) (Find what study tech he didn’t understand, word clear Method 4.)

19. ARE YOU UNABLE TO REFER STUDENTS TO THEIR MATERIALS? (Find why and handle. E.g. no materials, materials out of order, thinks he has to know the materials instead of the study tech.)

20. ARE YOU GlVING VERBAL TECH?
(Get off the W/H E/S to F/N. Find out why he felt he had to do it and clean it up.( (Forbid it and make it an Ethics offense.)

21. ARE YOU INTERPRETING BULLETINS?
(Get off the W/H E/S to F/M Find out why he felt he had to do it and clean it up.) (Forbid it and make it an Ethics offense.)

22. DO YOU FAIL TO MAKE MATERIALS AVAILABLE?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Pgm for Vital Info R/D.)

23. DON’T YOU HAVE THE COURSE MATERIALS?
(Find out what he could do about that, 2wc to F/N.)

24 . DON’T YOU KNOW HOW TO GET THE MATERIALS?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Hat on relevant materials.)

25. DON’T KNOW WORD CLEARING TECH?
(Get the W/H off to F/N.) (Find out if ever studied it in the first place. If not get it studied, if so clean up misunderstoods.)

26. NEVER USING M9?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

27. CAN’T USE A METER?
(Get the W/H off to F/N.) (Cram and drill on metering.)

28. USING NO STUDY LISTS?
(2wc E/S to F/M)

29. AFRAID OF DOING IT WRONG?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

30. TRs NOT GOOD ENOUGH?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Method 4 TRs HCO B, TRs including Admin TRs.)

31. INTERRUPTING STUDENTS WHO ARE F/Ning.
(2wc E/S to F/N 3-way Help/3-way Failed Help.)

32. CAN’T CONFRONT STUDENTS?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (2 hrs confronting full classroom of students. )

33. CAN’T CONFRONT A CLASSROOM?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (2 hrs confronting classroom, reach and withdraw from a classroom.)

34. DON’T LIKE PEOPLE?
(O/W on people.)

35. DON’T LIKE STUDENTS?
(O/W on students.)

36. USING DURESS ON STUDENTS?
(2wc E/S to F/M Find Why by L&N)

37. HAD LOSSES ON HELPING STUDENTS?
(3-way Help, 3-way Failed Help.)

38. DON’T BELIEVE STUDENTS CAN BE HELPED?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

39. CONSIDER IT IS WRONG TO CONTROL STUDENTS?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Objective processes especially SCS.)

40. 3RD PARTYING STUDENTS?
(Handle as an overt E/S to F/N)

41. OVERWHELMED BY LOTS OF STUDENTS?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (2 hrs confront on classroom full of students. )

42. AFRAID THAT IF STUDENTS GRADUATED WOULD HAVE NO MORE STUDENTS?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

43. AFRAID STUDENTS WILL KNOW MORE THAN YOU DO?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

44. DON’T FEEL THE SUBJECT BEING SUPERVISED IS IMPORTANT? (2wc E/S to F/N.)

45. NEGLECTING STUDENTS WHO ARE BOGGED?
(2wc to find out why. Handle the out rud or confusion to F/N )

46. THINKING CERTAIN STUDENTS ARE DOG STUDENTS AND SO NOT HELPING?
(Triple Ruds and Overts on students. 3 May PL if he hasn’t had one. WC M4 on super materials.)

47. HAVE OUTNESSES IN OWN STUDY?
(Student Rehabilitation List.)

48. HAVE MISUNDERSTOODS ON STUDY TECH?
(Method 4.) (And retread.)

49. HAVE MISUNDERSTOODS ON SUPERVISOR MATERIALS?
(Method 4.) (And retread.)

50. DON’T KNOW THE PRODUCT OF A SUPERVISOR?
(Product R/D.)

51. WORKING FOR SOME OTHER PRODUCT?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

52. DON’T KNOW THE PRODUCT OF THE COURSE?
(Product R/D.)

53. DON’T KNOW HOW TO TELL WHEN THE PRODUCT IS ATTAINED? (Product R/D.)

54 . WORD CLEARING TECH DIDN’T WORK ON YOU?
(Word Clearing Correction List.)

55. DO YOU HAVE SOME OTHER IDEAS ON WHAT A SUPERVISOR SHOULD DO?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

56. WOULD YOU HAVE TO BE SOMEONE ELSE IN ORDER TO SUPERVISE?
(L&N Who else would you have to be to supervise?)

57. DO YOU HAVE FIXED IDEAS ON HOW TO SUPERVISE?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

58. SHOULD YOU REALLY BE DOING SOMETHING ELSE?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

59. DO YOU HAVE DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE STUDY TECH? (Method 4 Word Clearing Tech.)

60. DO YOU HAVE DISAGREEMENTS WITH COURSE SUPERVISOR POLICY?
(2wc disagreements with course supervisor policy. 2wc agreements with course supervisor policy.)

61. ARE YOU TRYING TO BE SOMETHING ELSE?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

62. DON’T YOU REALLY WANT TO BE A SUPERVISOR?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

63. ARE YOU ON STAFF TO GET YOUR CASE HANDLED?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

64. SHOULDN’T YOU BE HERE?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

65. ARE YOU PHYSICALLY UNWELL?
(Find what wrong, 2wc E/S to F/N.) (Medical, etc.)

66. DO YOU GET UPSET BY STUDENT MISEMOTION?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Also TRs.)

67. DO YOU CONSIDER STUDENTS HAVE TO BE FORCED TO STUDY? (2wc E/S considerations to F/N.)

68. HAVE YOU HAD LOSSES AS A SUPERVISOR?
(Find what supervisor couldn’t handle, Method 4 word clear relevant materials.)

69. DO YOU LACK PATIENCE?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

70. DO YOU CONSIDER STUDENT’S ABILITY IS NATIVE AND CANNOT BE REGULATED BY STUDY TECH?
(2wc E/S considerations to F/N.)

71. DON’T YOU KNOW HOW TO HANDLE STUDENTS’ QUESTIONS? (Method 4 WC Series 32R.) (And drill.)

72. ARE YOU SUPERVISING FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE?
(L&N What purpose do you have for supervising? R3R Triple if an E. Purp. )

73. CAN’T TELL WHEN STUDENT IS BOGGED OR NOT F/Ning?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (TRs and obnosis drills and Tone Scale drills. )

74. CAN’T FIND WHY STUDENTS BOG?
(Method 4.) (And restudy study tapes, demo each reason for student bog with supervisor handling, drill.)

75. SOMEBODY SAID YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO SUPERVISE?
(PTS Interview. Inval and Eval.)

76. HAVE YOU ENCOUNTERED A SUPPRESSIVE STUDENT?
(PTS Interview.)

77. IS SOMEBODY PREVENTING YOU FROM SUPERVISING?
(L&N Who is preventing you from supervising? Triple Ruds and Overts on the terminal.)

78. DO YOU HAVE TOO MANY STUDENTS TO SUPERVISE FULLY? (2wc E/S to F/N.) (Also handle with Est-O if true.)

79. ARE YOU DOUBLE HATTED WITH ANOTHER POST?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Also handle with Tech O/O.)

80. ARE YOU GETTING CROSS ORDERS?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Handle with Tech O/O if true.)

81. ARE YOU EXPERIMENTING WITH STUDY METHODS?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

82. ARE SOME STUDENTS NOT WORTH SUPERVISING?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

83. DOES IT GIVE YOU MORE STATUS IF YOU ANSWER THE STUDENTS’ QUESTIONS?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

84. ARE YOU TRYING TO BE IMPORTANT?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

85. ARE YOU TRYING TO BE INTERESTING?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

86. ARE YOU BEING TOLD TO DO SOMETHING ELSE?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Also hatting actions.)

87. ARE YOU TOO TIRED TO SUPERVISE?
(Find out why. 2wc E/S to F/N.) (Get person to get enough sleep.)

88. DON’T YOU BELIEVE THE STUDENT WILL MAKE IT?
(2wc E/S considerations to F/N.)

89. ARE SOME STUDENTS BOUND TO FAIL ANYWAY?
(2wc E/S considerations to F/N.)

90. IS IT AN OVERT TO MAKE SOMEBODY MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE? (2wc E/S to F/N.) (Pgm for Vital Info R/D.)

91. WOULD IT MAKE YOU LESS POWERFUL IF OTHERS KNEW MORE?
(How? 2wc E/S to F/N.) (Pgm for Ex Dn.)

92. DOES THE STUDY TECH CONFLICT WITH WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW ABOUT TEACHING?
(Find out what other ideas person has about teaching E/S to F/N. Student Rehab List on his early studies. )

93. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE USE OF DEMOS?
(Word clear demo materials.) (Then get it used to a win.)

94. ARE YOU NOT REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPETENCE OF THE STUDENT AFTER HE GRADUATES?
(Product R/D.)

95. ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO TEACH SOMETHING ELSE?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

96. HAVE YOU NOT REALLY STARTED ON POST?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Get person instant hatted and onto post.)

97. ARE YOU LEAVING POST? (2wc E/S to F/N.)

98. ARE YOU ON DRUGS? (Find what—rehab.)

99. ARE YOU BEING AGREEABLE TO THE STUDENTS?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

100. ARE YOU TRYING TO BE POPULAR?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

101. ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE YOURSELF RIGHT?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

102. ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE THAT STUDENTS DON’T KNOW?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

103. ARE YOU WORKING FOR A STATISTIC RATHER THAN FOR A PRODUCT?
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

104. HAVE YOU NOT STUDIED NEW ISSUES ON COURSE SUPERVISION?
(Get the W/H off to F/N.) (Get checked out on all neglected issues.) (Get Qual high crime policy in.)

105. DON’T YOU HAVE ANY SUPERVISOR MATERIALS TO REFER TO?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Handle through D of T.)

106. MATERIALS WERE MISSING FROM COURSE SUPERVISOR COURSE?
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Find what was missing and get it-studied.)

107. HAVE YOU BEEN CONFRONTED WITH SITUATIONS NOT COVERED BY STUDY TECH?
(Find out what situations, Method 4 word clear tech on relevant materials as something was missed.)

108. IS THERE SOME OTHER REASON YOU CAN’T APPLY STUDY TECH?
(Find out what. Student Rehab List if not done. ) (Word clear and drill relevant materials.)

Handle each reading item to F/N as noted. Then fill in attached form for further actions to be done.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH: nt.rd
Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HCO B 27 March 72R, Issue II
Attachment



COURSE SUPERVISOR CORRECTION FORM

ADDITIONAL ACTIONS REQUIRED



TO: DIR CORRECTION Date:_________________


PART A. The following additional training actions are to be done on this supervisor.


1. Done_________

2. Done_________

3. Done_________

4. Done_________

5. Done_________


PART B: The following corrective actions must also be done regarding course outnesses found.

1. Done_________

2. Done_________

3. Done_________

4. Done_________

5. Done_________



___________________________
Auditor



Handling completed:___________________________
Dir Correction





L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: nt.rd
Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MARCH 1972RA
Issue III
REVISED & REISSUED 17 DECEMBER 1974
Remimeo
CANCELS
BTB OF 27 MARCH 1972R
Issue III

Study Corr List 3RA

AUDITOR CORRECTION LIST
AUDITOR RECOVERY

Reference: LRH ED 257 INT
“DELIVERY REPAIR LISTS”

The list is assessed Method Five and handled as indicated. A second bracket in the handling shows the further actions to be done after the list has been F/Ned on all reading items.

NAME: DATE: _________

AUDITOR: ____________________________________________

1. AS AN AUDITOR HAVE YOU HAD AN ARC BREAK. _________
(ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N.)
2. AS AN AUDITOR HAVE YOU HAD A PROBLEM. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
3. AS AN AUDITOR, HAS A W/H BEEN MISSED. _________
(Pull it, 2wc E/S to F/N.)
4. GIVEN A WRONG WHY. _________
(L4BR & Handle.)
5. GIVEN A WRONG WHY FOR AUDITING FAILURES. _________
(L4BR & Handle.)
6. CRAMMING GAVE A WRONG WHY. _________
(L4BR & Handle.)
7. GIVEN A WRONG ETHICS CONDITION. _________
(L4BR & Handle.)
8. PROBLEMS WITH PCS. _________
(Do C/S Series 50, HCO B 15 July 71.)
9. W/Hs ABOUT PCS. _________
(Pull them, 2wc E/S to F/N.)
10. NEVER AUDITED. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
11. OVERTS ON PCS. _________
(Pull them, 2wc E/S to F/N.)
12. NO HELP FROM A D OF P. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
13. TROUBLE WITH TECH SERVICES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
14. UPSET WITH A C/S. _________
TECH SEC. _________
SENIOR EXEC. _________
(ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N.)
15. PTS TO SOMEONE IN THE ENVIRONMENT. _________
(L4BR & Handle.)
16. TOLD YOU WERE PTS AND YOU WEREN’T. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N. L4BR if any trouble.)
17. AUDITING WITHOUT STUDYING THE FOLDER AND
UNDERSTANDING THE PC’S CASE. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
18. AUDITING WITHOUT AN FES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
19. BREAKING THE AUDITOR’S CODE. _________
(2wc what E/S to F/N.)
20. AUDITING A WRONG C/S. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
21. AUDITING A WRONG PROGRAM. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
22. HAD SOME SORT OF OUT ETHICS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
23. DISCUSSING PCS’ CASES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
24. LOSSES ON PCS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
25. WERE YOU TAKEN OFF AUDITING. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
26. A PC YOU FAILED TO HELP. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (3-Way Help/3-Way Failed Help.)
27. AUDITING AN NCG. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
28. COULDN’T HELP A PC. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (3-Way Help/3-Way Failed Help.)
29. AN EARLIER TIME YOU FAILED TO HELP. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
30. COULDN’T SOLVE IT. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
31. AUDITING A PC OVER AN: ARC BREAK. _________
(ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N.)
PROBLEM . _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
W/H. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
OVERT. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
OUT ETHICS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
32. DIDN’T GET ALL OF THE WITHHOLDS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
33. AUDITED UNSESSIONABLE PCS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
34. CAN’T GET A PC IN SESSION. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
35. MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS IN AUDITING. _________
(Find & clear them, each to F/N.)

36. MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS IN DIANETICS & SCIEN- _________
TOLOGY.
(Find & clear them, each to F/N.)
37. COULDN’T UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICAL TERMS. _________
(Find & clear them, each to F/N.)
38. AN EARLIER SIMILAR SUBJECT WAS MISUNDER- _________
STOOD.
(2wc, find what word in the subject was Mis-U & clear it up.
Clear each word to F/N.)
39. WAS YOUR TRAINING INADEQUATE. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N & STUDENT REHAB LIST.)
40. RUSHED THROUGH COURSES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N & STUDENT REHAB LIST.)
41. SEEKING STATUS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
42. YOU HAD DISAGREEMENTS. _________
(Find out what, find the Mis-U words & clear to F/N.)
43. EARLIER PRACTICE IN YOUR ROAD. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Pgm for GF40 Handling.)
44. OUT 2D. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
45. OUT 2D WITH PCS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
46. EVALUATION. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
47. INVALIDATION. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
48. AFRAID OF AUDITING SOMEONE. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Fear of People RD.)
49. FORCED A PC TO RUN A PROCESS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
50. TROUBLE WITH: TR 0. TR 1. TR 2. TR 3 . TR 4. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
51. YOUR TRS WERE INVALIDATED. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N. Rehab any win.)
52. COULDN’T GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
53. DISINTERESTED. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle any out ruds.)
54. FALSELY PASSED TRS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
55. FLUBBED COMMANDS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
56. NOT AUDITING FOR THE PC. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
57. DIDN’T WRITE IT DOWN ON THE W/S. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
58. FALSIFIED A W/S. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
59. AUDITING FOR SPECIAL FAVORS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
60. COLLECTED FALSE BONUSES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
61. COULDN’T GET PAID. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
62. COULDN’T MASTER AN E-METER. _________
(2wc, find out what he didn’t understand about it and clean
up to F/N.)
63. METER IN THE WRONG PLACE. _________
(2wc, find out what was wrong and correct to F/N.)
64. DIDN’T STARRATE PROCESSES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
65. NOT ENOUGH DRILLING ON PROCESSES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
66. DIDN’T WANT THE LIST TO READ. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
67. COULDN’T GET READS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
68. WEREN’T SURE OF E-METER READS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
69. CAN’T TELL AN F/N. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
70. WORRIED ABOUT TA. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
71. CALLED F/Ns ABOVE 3. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
72. CALLED F/Ns BELOW 2. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
73. COULDN’T F/N A LIST. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
74. SAID THE LIST F/NED WHEN IT DIDN’T. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
75. COULDN’T TELL AN R/S. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
76. TROUBLE WITH ASSESSMENT. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
77. TROUBLE WITH L&N. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
78. NOBODY TO AUDIT. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
79. PREVENTED FROM AUDITING. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
80. FORCED TO AUDIT UNDER BAD CIRCUMSTANCES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
81. DOG CASES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N. Pull all W/Hs.)
82. RABBITED. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
83. GOT DESPERATE. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
84. SQUIRRELING. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
85. TRIED UNUSUAL SOLUTIONS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
86. AUDITING WITHOUT A METER. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)

87. COFFEE SHOP AUDITING. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
88. USING NON-STANDARD PROCESSES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
89. USING CONFIDENTIAL PROCESSES ON LOWER LEVEL
PCS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
90. MOONLIGHTING. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
91. AUDITING ORG PCS OUTSIDE THE ORG. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
92. C/SING IN THE CHAIR. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
93. AUDITING WITHOUT A C/S. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N, handle as a W/H.)
94. NOT GETTING ANY CRAMMING. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
95. AVOIDING CRAMMING. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
96. SHOULD BE RETRAINED. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N. STUDENT REHAB LIST.)
97. WAS TOLD TO RETRAIN WHEN IT WASN’T WARRANTED. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)
98. TECH DOESN’T WORK FOR YOU. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.) (Note for further handling by Qual.)
99. TECH DOESN’T WORK ON YOU. _________
(C/S 53RI. GF M5 and handle.)
100. SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR EYESIGHT. _________
(2wc what E/S to F/N.)
101. RESTIM. _________
(C/S 53RI.)
102. TROUBLE WITH YOUR OWN CASE. _________
(C/S 53RI.)
103. SOMETHING ELSE WRONG. _________
(2wc what & if no joy GF M5 & handle.)


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: clb .nt.rd
Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 MARCH 1972

Remimeo Study Series 5
Qual Secs
IMPORTANT

Dept of Personnel Enhancement



PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN
FIRST CRAMMING CORRECTION


As it is obviously a waste of Cramming time to cram an auditor, student or staff member who has not known how to study (see LRH ED 174 Int 29 Mar 72 for data on this), it is vital that HIS FIRST CRAMMING ACTION is done in the Dept of Personnel Enhancement.

This department must be staffed and set up to do (a) Programming, (b) Word Clearing No. 1, (c) Word Clearing No. 2, (d) Word Clearing No. 4, (e) Word Clearing Correction Lists, (f) Int Ext Correction Lists, (g) Tape Word Clearing with footpedal operated tape players, (h) Good quality Study Tape sets, (i) Student Packs, (j) Demo Kits, (k) Clay table large size, (l) Product Clearing, (m) Post Purpose Clearing, (n) Product and Student Corrections.

All the staff of this Dept MUST do this complete rundown rapidly on themselves. Otherwise their actions will be flubby as they probably will not be able to grasp their own special rundowns unless this program has been followed by themselves. BUT THIS ACTION MAY NOT BE USED TO PREVENT ACTIVE PRODUCTION BY D OF PE staff on doing this Rundown.

PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN

1. Case repair to handle high or low TAs or upsets. THIS STEP IS NOT DONE IF THE TA IS USUALLY BETWEEN 2 and 3 in auditing.

This would consist of a C/S 53RRR and handle, a GF Method 5 and handle, a GF40RR Method 3 and handle, plus any special actions to complete an incomplete auditing cycle or repair it.

At this stage any auditing should be done only on thoroughly cleared commands (each word no matter how small) and assessment lists should be done only after clearing each word on the prepared list (but not spoken as a full question).

2. WORD CLEARING NUMBER 1 to full EP, using the WC Correction List at any sign of somatics or bad Exam report after a word clearing session.

3. FIND THE WHY he did not use the Study Tech in the first place. There will be an individual WHY. (See Data Series P/Ls.) It is seldom only Misunderstood words. (See LRH ED 174 Int for some examples.) Handle this WHY. It may require processing.

AUDITING INTERLUDE

4. The WHY is HANDLED in auditing sessions as indicated. May require objective processes or hidden standards. The Handling of the Why is directly related to the WHY that was found.

5. THE STUDY CORRECTION LIST is handled. This is HCO B 4 Feb 72 (revising HCO B 14 Jan 72). This prepared list is assessed Method 5 (all lines assessed) and then the reads are handled from the best to the least. THE END PRODUCT AT THIS STAGE IS A PERSON WHOSE CASE AND PAST ARE NOT IN THE ROAD OF HIS STUDYING.

STUDY TECH SECTION

6. STUDY TAPES. (a) One time through picking up and looking up every word even faintly in doubt of or when not understanding, going back to find the word that was missed. (b) Then going through the Study Tapes for content with Method 4 at the End of each tape. If it reads on any misunderstood clear it up, then replay the tape. In this way get the Study Tapes fully known without Misunderstood ideas or words. (c) Check M4 at the end of this action and if there is any misunderstood idea or query of any kind then handle it per M4 and have the person do all the tapes again. The End product of this action is fully known Study Tapes with F/N VGIs.

7. STUDENT HAT. (a) Have the person go through each P/L or HCO B in the Student Hat with this cycle: Each time a misunderstood word is found even in the middle of the page, do the whole P/L again. Complete the whole hat in this way. (b) Then go through the whole hat again starrate checked out and using Demo Kit. At each point where a new misunderstood idea or word turns up do the whole P/L. If any misunderstoods show up on this second run through, the whole Hat must be done again. (c) Have the student do a BIG proper Clay Demo of some study materials. (d) Check if the student can now use a Demo Kit while he is doing his own studies and get any WHY he cannot and Handle. The End product here is a STUDENT WHO CAN AND WILL USE STUDY TECH IN STUDYING AND WHO WILL STUDY AND STUDY PROPERLY.

8. Verify the WHY found in 3 above and see if it is all okay now. If not find new WHY and rehandle.

9. WORD CLEAR 2 first Dianetic or Scientology materials ever heard or read. (a) Find which it was. (b) WC2 it.

10. Find what queries and questions the person has about Admin or Tech. Do WC M4 on each one.

11. Send the person to Cramming to get the specific Cramming order, Tech or Admin, carried out.

12. Report the Course Super and D of T who “trained him” to the Ethics Officer for action.
_________

It is obviously senseless to Cram someone (and proven by actual experience) whose Study Tech is out and whose misunderstood words and omitted study will not let him retain anything anyway. He will just go on goofing. That has been amply proven.

Cramming can assess a Student Correction List HCO B 27 Mar 72, Issue I, or a Supervisor Correction List HCO B 27 Mar 72, Issue II, or an Auditor Correction List HCO B 27 Mar 72, Issue III, or a C/S Correction List HCO B 27 Mar 72, Issue IV, or an Executive Correction List HCO B 27 Mar 72, Issue V, and these will catch any Personnel Enhancement flub and other classroom reasons.

Things found on such lists should be reported to the Ethics Officer for handling.

Qual is after all the CORRECTION DIVISION. And correction usually cannot be accomplished without Ethics back-up.

At first glance this is a lot to do for a student or staff member. BUT IF IT IS NOT DONE YOU DO NOT HAVE A STUDENT OR A STAFF MEMBER.

Students and staff members must be charged for all this, the staff member usually on just a debit invoice but which comes due and owing on his departure, the student for cash through the Registrar. Do not fail to make these charges as you are rewarding a downstat who should have done it right in the first place and who didn’t.

So don’t run up a big Dept of Pers Enhancement Payroll that is never used to get the exchange.

Also DO NOT BACKLOG or you can tie up a whole org and keep its stats in the basement BY NOT RAPIDLY DOING THESE ACTIONS TO TOTAL END PRODUCT.

If you don’t get the End Product all the work is wasted.

The Commonest Error in word clearing or auditing is a FAILURE TO USE CORRECTION LISTS. WC Corr List, WC Series 35, has been the most needed and most neglected list in orgs.

_________


As Study Tech is the material which tells HOW to study, the technique of study is not applied to IT. Thus it becomes unknown easily and goes out very easily.

Without it, I assure you, an org will get nowhere.

Thus this action of the Dept of PE is a vital action and done well it will keep the org alive.

BE SURE TO DO THIS WELL AND GET A CASH EXCHANGE FOR THIS VITAL SERVICE!


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: mes.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[The above HCO B has been corrected per HCO B 3 April 1972, Issue III, Re: Study Series 5, the entire text of which says, “ ‘HCO B of 30 March 1972, IMPORTANT, Dept of Personnel Enhancement, Primary Correction Rundown First Cramming Correction’ is STUDY SERIES 5. Correct your copy to read ‘Study Series 5’.”]




EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURES
Flagship Apollo
30 March—7 April 1972


** 7203C30 SO XDN- 1 Expanded Dianetics
** 7204C07A SO XDN-2 Expanded Dianetics and Word Clearing
** 7204C07B SO XDN-3 Auditor Administration
** 7204C07C SO XDN-4 Illness Breakthrough

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

Remimeo HCO BULLETIN OF 31 MARCH 1972
Central Orgs
London
Washington
Los Angeles
Denmark Expanded Dianetics Series 1
Sydney



EXPANDED DIANETICS is that branch of Dianetics which uses Dianetics in special ways for specific purposes.

It is not HSDC Dianetics. Its position on the Grade Chart would be regulated by the use to which it is put. It could be below Standard Dianetics, just above Standard Dianetics or above OT III in the OT Scales.

It uses Dianetics to change an Oxford Capacity Analysis (or an American Personality Analysis) and is run directly against these analysis graphs and the “Science of Survival Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation”.

EXPANDED DIANETICS IS NOT THE SAME AS STANDARD DIANETICS.

The HSDC is qualified to run Standard Dianetics. He is not authorized to run EXPANDED DIANETICS without special training.

DO NOT MIX EXPANDED DIANETICS INTO STANDARD DIANETICS.

It often happens that one technology’s skills are mingled with another’s. The result is that neither then work.

Standard Dianetics will go right on producing results.

The main difference between these two branches is that Standard Dianetics is very general in application. Expanded Dianetics is very specifically adjusted to the pc.

Some pcs, particularly heavy drug cases, or who have been given injurious psychiatric treatment or who are physically disabled or who are chronically ill or who have had trouble running engrams (to name a few) require a specially adapted technology.

A very good Dianetic or Dianetic and Class IV auditor preferably HSDC & Class VI can be specially trained to run Dianetics against the OCA or the Chart of Human Evaluation.

STUDY

(Subject to Change)

This training would consist of:

1. HSDC
2. STANDARD DIANETIC INTERNE HGC OK TO AUDIT
3. PRIMARY RD HCOB 30 Mar 72
4. Social Counselor Cse or Ruds Flying or Class IV
5. Full Word Clearer Rating
6. FESing

7. Programming
8. Expanded Dianetic Tapes and HCOBs
9. C/S Folder Study
10. Active Auditing on the skills taught
11. C/Sing Expanded Dianetics.

CERTIFICATE

The Certificate would be HUBBARD GRADUATE DIANETIC SPECIALIST.

The Certificate Level is above Standard Dianetics HSDC and if the person is a Class IV is just above Class IV.

It would be greatly preferable if the person were an HSDC and a Class IV as word clearing and rudiments would be easier to learn but Class IV is not required at this time.

CHARGES

Hours of Expanded Dianetics, because of the skills required, should be at least half again or double as much as Standard Dianetic Auditing.

The cost of the Course would be the same as the HSDC Course and additional to it plus Interne fees.

PREREQUISITE

HSDC and Dianetic Interneship minimum with a successful period of Standard Dianetic Auditing as an auditor. Optimum is also a Class IV or VI.

Case gain as a Dianetic pc.

DEVELOPMENT

This Course is under development as this is written and neither the Course nor Expanded Dianetic Auditing may be sold by an org unless it has an Expanded Dianetic Specialist, to be specific, an HGDS.

WHEN RELEASED THE COURSE WILL BE TAUGHT IN CENTRAL ORGS (LONDON, WASHINGTON, LOS ANGELES, JOHANNESBURG, DENMARK AND SYDNEY AND SHs). IT IS THE SPECIAL COURSE THE CONTINENTAL CENTRAL ORG TEACHES.

The HCOBs relating to Expanded Dianetics will be released as a part of this series so that orgs will have them when it comes time for them to acquire the tapes and teach this course.

In the meanwhile these orgs should be making HSDCs and Class IVs.

PERSONS NOT TRAINED ON IT MAY NOT RUN IT OR USE IT REGARDLESS OF CLASS.

To repeat, Expanded Dianetics does not replace Standard Dianetics or any other Class and is itself and is used for its own specific purposes on special cases.


LRH:nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 APRIL 1972RB
Issue II
(REVISED 17 MARCH 1974)
Remimeo
Ex Dn Chkshts
I M P O R T A N T

Expanded Dianetics Series 3RB

L3 EXD RB
EXPANDED DIANETICS REPAIR LIST


This list includes the most frequent Exp Dianetic & R3R errors.

A high or low TA and a bogged case can result from failures to erase a chain of incidents.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REPAIR A CHAIN OR ENGRAM WITHOUT USING THIS LIST as it can have different or several errors.

REMEMBER TO CLEAR EACH WORD ON THIS LIST. IF A QUESTION READS AND THE PC SAYS HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND IT, CLEAR IT AND REASSESS (don’t explain it and take it as it read on a misunderstood not on a fact).

RUNNING PCS ON EXP DIANETICS WITHOUT A FULL AND COMPLETE DN C/S I INDOCTRINATION IS A FOOLISH ACTION.

TAKE ANY READ FOUND TO F/N BY FULL REPAIR OF IT PER THE INSTRUCTIONS.

1. There was an Earlier Similar incident. _________
Indicate it, flatten the chain.

2. There was no Earlier Similar incident. _________
Indicate it. Determine if the chain is flat or if the last incident
needs to be run through again. Complete the chain to F/N by
indication or D/L if needed, or by flattening it.

3. There was an earlier beginning. _________
Indicate it. Handle with R3R and complete the chain.

4. There was no earlier beginning. _________
Indicate it. Complete the chain with R3R ABCD on last incident
if unflat.

5. An F/N was indicated too soon. _________
Indicate it. Flatten the last incident.

6. An F/N was indicated too late. _________
Indicate it. Spot the flat point, indicate the overrun, D/L if
necessary.


7. An F/N was not indicated at all. _________
Indicate it. Spot the flat point, indicate the overrun, D/L if
necessary.

8. There was no charge on an item in the first place. _________
Indicate it, and that it shouldn’t have been run, D/L if necessary.

9. Jumped chains. _________
Indicate it. Reorient to the original chain, spot flat point and
indicate the overrun, D/L if necessary, or flatten the chain.

10. Flubbed commands. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

11. Didn’t have a command. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

12. Misunderstood on the command. _________
Find it and clear it.

13. Incident should be run through one more time. _________
Indicate it. ABCD on the incident, flatten the chain.

14. Too late on the chain. _________
Indicate it. Get the Earlier Similar incident and complete the
chain with R3R.

14A Wrong Flow. _________
Indicate it. Run it the way pc feels it should be run.

15. Incident gone more solid. _________
Indicate it. Check for earlier incident or earlier beginning and
complete the chain.

16. Stopped running an incident that was erasing. _________
Indicate it. ABCD on the incident and erase it.

17. Went past basic on a chain. _________
Indicate it, D/L if necessary.

18. An earlier misrun incident restimulated. _________
Indicate it. Find out what it was and do an L-3RD on it.

19. Two or more incidents got confused. _________
Indicate it, sort it out with an L-3RD on it.

20. An implant was restimulated. _________
Indicate it, if no joy do an L-3RD on the time of the
restimulation.

21. The incident was really an implant. _________
Indicate it, D/L if necessary or L-3RD on it.


22. Wrong Item. _________
Indicate it was a wrong item and that all other actions
connected with it were wrong. If it is from an L&N list or if any
question or difficulty, L-4BR.

22A It was really your attitudes to it that should have been run. _________
Indicate it. List the attitudes, R3R triple and exhaust the list.

22B It was really the emotions connected with it that should have been run _________
Indicate it. List the emotions, R3R triple and exhaust the list.

22C It was really your intentions that should have been run. _________
Indicate it. List the intentions, R3R triple and exhaust the list.

23. Not your item. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

24. Not your incident. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N. L-3RD if any trouble.

25. Same thing run twice. _________
Indicate it. Spot the first flat point, indicate the overrun, D/L if
necessary, or run out the session.

26. There was a wrong date. _________
Indicate it. Get the correct date and flatten the incident if unflat.

27. There was no date for the incident. _________
Indicate it. Get the date and flatten the incident if unflat.

28. It was a false date. _________
Indicate it. Get the correct date and flatten the incident if unflat.

29. There was an incorrect duration. _________
Indicate it. Get the correct duration and flatten the incident if unflat.

30. No duration was found for the incident. _________
Indicate it. Get the duration and flatten the incident if unflat.

31. There was a false duration. _________
Indicate it. Get the correct duration and flatten the incident if unflat.

32. An earlier Dianetic upset was restimulated. _________
Locate what it was, indicate it. Sort it out with an L-3RD if necessary.

33. An earlier ARC Break on engrams was restimulated. _________
Indicate it. Sort it out with an L-3RD, ARCU CDEINR or an L-1C
as applicable, or run out the session.

34. There was an ARC Break in the incident. _________
Indicate it. Flatten the incident if unflat. ARCU CDEINR at that
time if necessary.


34A Destructive impulse been missed. _________
Get it. It should BD F/N. If this turns into a listing action complete
the list to BD F/N item.

35. You were protesting. _________
Indicate it, clean it up E/S to F/N.

36. Auditor demanded more than you could see. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N. L-1C if necessary, or run out the session.

37. Auditor refused to accept what you were saying. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N. L-1C if necessary, or run out the session.

38. You were prevented from running an incident. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N. Flatten the incident if unflat. L-1C if
necessary, or run out the session.

39. You were distracted while running an incident. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N. Flatten the incident if unflat. L-1C if
necessary, or run out the session.

40. Audited over an ARC Brk _________
Problem _________
Withhold _________
Indicate it and handle the out rud. Do not pull W/Hs before the
engram or chain is repaired or it will mush engrams.

41. An item was suppressed. _________
Indicate it. Get the suppress off E/S to F/N, then run or flatten
the item.

42. An item was invalidated. _________
Indicate it. Get the inval off E/S to F/N, then run or flatten the
item.

43. An item was abandoned. _________
Indicate it, get the item back and run or flatten it.

44. The wording of the item was changed. _________
Indicate it. Get the correct wording and give it to him. Flatten it
if unflat.

45. Stuck picture. _________
Indicate it. Do an L-3RD on it. You can also unstick it by having
him recall a time before it and recall a time after it. D/L if necessary.

46. All black. _________
Spot the black field or picture. Get the correct duration. If no go,
L3RD on it.

47. Invisible. _________
Spot the invisible field or picture. L-3RD on it.


48. Constantly changing pictures. _________
Indicate there was a misassessment and a wrong item was taken
off the list. Get the correct item and run it, or L-3RD on that session.

49. There was a persistent mass. _________
L3RD on it, or D/L.

50. There was trouble with a pressure item or pressure on an item. _________
L-3RD on it, or D/L.

51. You went exterior. _________
Indicate it, D/L if necessary or rehab. If TA high as a result of this do
an Int RD Correction List or send to the C/S if pc hasn’t had Int RD.

52. Your Int RD was messed up. _________
Indicate it, Int RD Corr List if TA high. If TA OK, 2wc “going
into things” or clear up any misunderstoods on Int, Ext, etc.

53. Audited over Drugs or Medicine. _________
Indicate it. L3RD on that time, then verify all chains to ensure
they erased.

54. A past death restimulated. _________
Indicate it, if it doesn’t blow run it out.

55. There was nothing wrong in the first place. _________
Indicate it. Continue the action you were on.

56. The real reason was missed. _________
Indicate it. Locate the real reason and handle or do a GF.

57. Something else wrong. _________
Locate what it is and sort it out or do a GF M5 and handle.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: ntm jh
Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 APRIL 1972
Remimeo

Study Series 6


PRIMARY RUNDOWN NOTE
Reference HCO B 30 Mar 72
LRH ED 174 Int


In going through the Study Tapes the first time, the student looks up every word.

On this first time he does not study for the sense of what is being said. He only listens to words.

In this and in Method 4 word clearing, when being checked he is asked “What is the definition of (word)?” He is NOT asked “Do you know the meaning of
(word)?” To this he could answer “Yes” and believe he did. But when asked for the definition that he must then give, it is a different story entirely.

This is also the right way to handle any defining of words. M2, M4. As well as Methods I & 3.

Never let the student be unsure. Make him look it up.

You will find that it is the simple word, “as”, “such”, “from”, that really bogs reading, not technical terms.

In the Study Tapes there are some photographic terms. Any photo dictionary can give these. Almost any camera store has such dictionaries.

SECOND TIME

The second time through the Study Tapes the student listens for the sense of the sentences.
_________


It is very revealing to do the Primary Rundown in this fashion.

Some students are actually getting meaning out of something heard or read for the first time in their lives.
_________


No wonder schoolchildren, by test, get more stupid each additional year of school. This has been established by actual test, that they do. Each year they just have a higher mountain of misunderstood words!

The Primary Rundown done HONESTLY is quite an adventure in opening up one’s Communication Channels with life!



LRH:mes.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 APRIL 1972
Remimeo

TECH DIV PRIMARY RUNDOWN


The Primary Correction Rundown in HCO B 30 March 72 is the rundown given in the Department of Personnel Enhancement in the Qualifications Division.

The PRIMARY RUNDOWN is given in the Tech Division as NORMAL DIVISIONAL ACTIVITY.

PRIMARY RUNDOWN HGC

1. The student is given any needful case handling or repair if his TA is high or low in accordance with his state of case.

This is only done if the person’s meter is such as to make word clearing difficult or if the person is in obvious need of case handling.

Aside from TA, “obvious need of case handling” includes a bad OCA or APA, Drugs and PTS.

If the Student has been on drugs he must be given a Drug Rundown.

If he is PTS he must be handled in Ethics and given a PTS Rundown.

If the student is ill he should be handled by Dianetics.

An R/Sing person should be handled by Expanded Dianetics.

2. WORD CLEARING METHOD 1 is done by normal word clearing procedures in the HGC either as part of his normal auditing or as a student checksheet.

This is carried to an F/Ning list on the final assessment.

The Word Clearing Correction List is used at the slightest sign of trouble.

The student must have F/N throughout on the final full assessment of the WC Corr List if used and the final full WC Method I list and an F/N VGIs at the examiner for this step to be considered complete.

DEPT OF TRAINING

The student is now qualified to enter training.

3. STUDY TAPES AND STUDENT HAT. The student’s first training step may be either the Study Tapes (or authorized transcript or translated tape but not notes) or the Student Hat. It will be found that course facilities may be better employed where a student is allowed to do either as the first step, so long as he does both one after the other.

(a) The Study Tapes are played first for the words themselves. One may not just play the tape and list the words and then look them up. This is an exact action. The only variation of this will come when a full list of these words is issued in alphabetical order. Each is looked up the first time it appears on the tape. The word is USED in several sentences. A grammar such as “English Made Simple” should be to hand. Good BIG dictionaries should be to hand. And a photographic dictionary or glossary.

The tape is then played through. A Method 4 check is made. If there is any read that is a true read (not a false surge) on the question, “Was anything not fully understood?” the word is hunted down and defined. And then the whole tape has to be done again.

In this way, reel by reel (or chapter by chapter when transcribed), the Study Tapes are done.

An M4 Meter check is made on the whole tape series.

The person is sent to the Student Examiner.

If there is a flunk of the exam the student goes to Cramming.

(b) The Student Hat is done like the Study Tapes.

Each item (P/L, HCO B etc) in it is read through once, looking up each word the first time it appears and using it in sentences.

At the end of each item the student is checked with Method 4 as on the tapes.

And if he misses one word he does the whole item again.

In this way he goes through the whole hat.

Now he reads the whole hat for sense.

Each time an ACTION is called for in an item (demo or clay demo) he must do that item correctly.

He now reads the whole hat through using a Demo Kit continually as he goes along.

He is again given an M4 check and if there is no read he goes to the Student Examiner.

If he fails, he goes to Cramming.

If he passes he may do the Study Tapes if he has not done them or he having passed those is a product.

THE PRODUCT AT THIS POINT IS A STUDENT WHO KNOWS HOW TO STUDY AND WILL BE ABLE TO USE WHAT HE STUDIES.

This concludes the Primary Rundown as given in the Tech Division.

The Tech Division does not repair the student.

He can be ordered to Cramming however for the single action of a Word Clearing Correction List in case errors in Method 4 or Method 3 have been made or the student has gone beyond the metering ability of a supervisor.

Qual at its option in such cases may order a full Primary Correction Rundown but must give a Word Clearing Correction List first before determining this.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 APRIL 1972

Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 14


ETHICS

The normal level of an unhatted Dev-T non-producing org is out ethics.

The reason you see so many heavy ethics actions occurring—or situations where heavy ethics actions should occur if they aren’t—in such an org is that it has its EXCHANGE flows messed up.

It is important to know this fact as this factor alone can sometimes be employed to handle persons in the area whose ethics are out.

CRIMINALITY

Unless we want to go on living in a far nowhere some of the facts of scenes have to be confronted.

An inability to confront evil leads people into disregarding it or discounting it or not seeing it at all.

Reversely, there can be a type of person who, like an old-time preacher, sees nothing but evil in everything and, possibly looking into his own heart for a model, believes all men are evil.

Man, however (as you can read in HCO B 28 Nov 70, C/S Series 22, “Psychosis”), is basically good. When going upon some evil course he attempts to restrain himself and caves himself in.

The Chart of Human Evaluation in Science of Survival was right enough. And such people also can be found by the Oxford Capacity Analysis where the graph is low and well below a center line on the right.

This sort of thing can be handled of course by auditing but the Est O does not depend on that to handle his staff’s problems.

Criminal actions proceed from such people unless checked by more duress from without not to do an evil act than they themselves have pressure from within to do it.

Criminality is in most instances restrained by just such an imbalance of pressures.

If you have no ethics presence in an org, then criminality shows its head.

Such people lie rather than be made to confront. They false report—they even use “PR” which means Public Relations to cover up—and in our slang talk “PR” means putting up a lot of false reports to serve as a smoke screen for idleness or bad actions.

Unless you get Ethics in, you will never get Tech in. If you can’t get Tech in you won’t get Admin in.

So the lack of Ethics permits the criminal impulse to go unchecked.

Yes, it could be handled with Tech. But to get money you have to have Admin in.

Unless there is Ethics and ways to get it in, no matter how distasteful it may seem, you will never get Tech and Admin in.

Of course there is always the element of possible injustice. But this is provided against. (See HCO PL 24 Feb 72, “Injustice”.)

When Ethics is being applied by criminal hands (as happens in some governments) it can get pretty grim.

But even then Ethics serves as a restraint to just outright slaughter.

Omitting to handle criminality can make one as guilty of the resulting crimes as if one committed them! So criminality as a factor has to be handled.

It is standardly handled by the basic Ethics P/Ls and the Ethics Officer system.

EXCHANGE

The unhatted unproducing staff member, who is not really a criminal or psychotic, can be made to go criminal.

This joins him to the Criminal ranks.

The Ethics system also applies to him.

However there is something an Est O can do about it that is truly Est O tech.

This lies in the field of EXCHANGE.

If you recall your Product Clearing, you will see that exchange is something for something.

Criminal exchange is nothing from the criminal for something from another.

Whether theft or threat or fraud is used, the criminal think is to get something without putting out anything. That is obvious.

A staff member can be coaxed into this kind of thinking by

PERMITTING HIM TO RECEIVE WITHOUT HIS CONTRIBUTING.

This unlocks, by the way, an age-old riddle of the philosophers as to “what is right or wrong”.

HONESTY is the road to SANITY. You can prove that and do prove it every time you make somebody well by “pulling his withholds”. The insane are just one seething mass of overt acts and withholds. And they are very physically sick people.

When you let somebody be dishonest you are setting him up to become physically ill and unhappy.

Traditional Sea Org Ethics labeled Non-Compliance as Liability and a False Report as Doubt. And it’s true enough.

When you let a person give nothing for something you are factually encouraging crime.

Don’t be surprised that welfare districts are full of robbery and murder. People there give nothing for something.

When exchange is out the whole social balance goes out.

Every full scholarship ever given by an org wound up in a messy scene.

When you hire a professional pc who just sits around making do-less motions while people audit him and contribute to him DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF HE GETS SICKER AND SICKER.

He is contributing nothing in return and winds up in overwhelm!

Similarly if you actively prevented someone from contributing in return you could also make him ARC Broken and sick.

It is EXCHANGE which maintains the inflow and outflow that gives a person space around him and keeps the bank off of him.

There are numbers of ways these flows of Exchange can be unbalanced.
It does not go same out as comes in. Equal amounts are no factor. Who can measure good will or friendship? Who can actually calculate the value of saving a being from death in each lifetime? Who can measure the reward of pride in doing a job well or praise?

For all these things are of different values to different people.

In the material world the person whose Exchange Factor is out may think he “makes money”. Only a government or a counterfeiter “makes money”. One has to produce something to Exchange for money.

Right there the Exchange Factor is out.

If he gives nothing in return for what he gets the money does not belong to him.

In product clearing many people it was found that some considered their food, clothing, bed and allowance were not theirs because they produced. They were theirs “just by being there”. This funny “logic” covered up the fact that these people produced little or nothing on post. Yet they were the first to howl when not getting expensive (to the org) auditing or courses or tech!

Thus such a person, not hatted or made to produce, will get ill.

It is interesting that when a person becomes productive his morale improves.

Reversely it should be rather plain to you that a person who doesn’t produce becomes mentally or physically ill. For his exchange factor is out.

So when you reward a downstat you not only deprive upstats, you also cave the downstat in!

I don’t think Welfare States have anything else in mind!

The riots of the ancient city of Rome were caused by these factors. There they gave away corn and games to a populace that eventually became so savage it could only enjoy torture and gruesome death in the arena!

A lot of this exchange imbalance comes from child psychology where the child is not contributing anything and is not permitted to contribute.

It is this which first overwhelms him with feelings of obligation to his parents and then bursts out as total revolt in his teens.

Children who are permitted to contribute (not as a cute thing to do but actually) make non-contributing children of the same age look like raving maniacs! It is the cruel sadism of modern times to destroy the next generation this way. Don’t think it isn’t intended. I have examined the OCAs of parents who do it!

So if a person is brought up this life with the exchange all awry, the Est O has his hands full sometimes!

He is dealing with trained-in criminality!

WHAT HE CAN DO

The remedy is rather simple.

First one has to know all about EXCHANGE as covered in the Product Clearing policy letters.

Then he has to specially clear this up with people who do not produce.

He should get them to work on it as it relates to ALL THEIR DYNAMICS IN RELATIONSHIP TO EVERY OTHER DYNAMIC.

That means he has to clear up the definitions of dynamics with care and then have the person draw a big chart (of his own) and say what he gives the 1st Dynamic and what it gives him. Then what he gives the second dynamic and what it gives him. And so on up the dynamics.

Now, have him consider “his own second dynamic”. What does his second dynamic give his first dynamic? What does his second dynamic give the second dynamic and what does it give him?

And so on until you have a network of these exchange arrows, each both ways.

Somewhere along the way, if your TRs are good and you have his attention and he is willing to talk to you he will have quite a cognition!

That, if it’s a big one is the End Phenomena of it.

And don’t be surprised if you see a person now and then change his physical face shape!

CONDITIONS BY DYNAMICS

An Ethics type “action” can be done by giving the person the conditions formulas (pages 189, 237, 245, 247, 249 of Vol 0, Basic Staff Hat. HCO PL 14 Mar 68—page 247—gives one the table.)

Method 4 the person on the Table of Conditions and pick up any other misunderstoods.

Have the person study the formula of each of these Conditions in the table so that he knows what they are and what the formulas are.

When he has all this now with no misunderstood words you must clear up the words related to his dynamics I to 8 and what they are.

Now you’re ready for the billion dollar question.

Ask him what is his condition on the first dynamic. Have him study the formulas. Don’t buy any glib PR.

Don’t evaluate or invalidate. When he’s completely sure of what his condition really is on the first dynamic he will cognite.

Now take up the second dynamic by its parts-sex, family, children. Get a Condition for each.

Similarly go on up each one of the dynamics until you have a condition for each one.

Now begin with the first dynamic again. Continue to work this way.

You will be amazed to find he will come out of false high down to low and back up again on each dynamic.

Somewhere along the line he will start to change markedly.

When you have a person in continual heavy ethics or who is out-ethics (Ethics bait, we say) and who is floundering around, you can do an S & D on him and quite often save his future for him.

When you have such a person you do this one first before you do the Exchange by Dynamics.

In other words, you use this on “Ethics bait” and then when he’s come out of such, you do Exchange by Dynamics on him.

SUMMARY

When all looks black, and you are getting false reports, and the things said done were not done and what was really being done were overt products and despite all your work, the stats just won’t go up, you still have three answers:

1. GET IN ETHICS ON THE ORG.

2. GET EXCHANGE DONE ON INDIVIDUALS.

3. GET IN CONDITIONS BY DYNAMICS ON THE ETHICS BAIT.

And after that keep a strong just Division 1 Dept 3.

You’ll be amazed!
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard [Modified by HCO PL 9 May 74, Prod-Org, Esto and Older Systems
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Reconciled, in the Management Series 1970-1974, page 438.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 APRIL 1972
Remimeo
ETHICS

(Cancels HCO P/L of 7 Feb 70
“Danger Condition 2nd Formula”)

CORRECT DANGER CONDITION
HANDLING

When the correct formula for handling a Danger Condition is not done, an org or activity or person cannot easily get above that condition thereafter.

When we had the 2nd Danger Formula apparently it was applied but the real Danger Formula wasn’t. This made some orgs and people remain in or below Danger and made it very hard for them to get above that state.

A prolonged state of emergency or threats to viability or survival or a prolonged single-handing will not improve unless the actual Danger Formula is applied.

DANGER FORMULA
The original formula follows:
1. By-pass (ignore the junior or juniors normally in charge of the activity and handle
it personally).
2. Handle the situation and any danger in it.
3. Assign the area where it had to be handled a Danger Condition.
4. Handle the personnel by Ethics Investigation and Comm Ev.
5. Reorganize the activity so that the situation does not repeat.
6. Recommend any firm policy that will hereafter detect and/or prevent the
condition from recurring.
The senior executive present acts and acts according to the formula above.
A Danger Condition is normally assigned when:
1. An emergency condition has continued too long.
2. A statistic plunges downward very steeply.
3. A senior executive suddenly finds himself or herself wearing the hat of the
activity because it is in trouble.
FIRST DYNAMIC FORMULA
The formula is converted for the 1st dynamic to
1st 1. By-pass habits or normal routines.
1st 2. Handle the situation and any Danger in it.
1st 3. Assign self a Danger Condition.
1st 4. Get in your own personal ethics by finding what you are doing that is out-ethics
and use self-discipline to correct it and get honest and straight.
1st 5. Reorganize your life so that the dangerous situation is not continually happening
to you.
1st 6. Formulate and adopt firm policy that will hereafter detect and prevent the same
situation from continuing to occur.
JUNIOR DANGER FORMULA

Where a Danger Condition is assigned to a junior, request that he or she or the entire activity write up his or her overts and withholds and any known out-ethics situation and turn them in at a certain stated time on a basis that the penalty for them will be lessened but if discovered later after the deadline it will be doubled.

This done, require that the junior and the staff that had to be by-passed and whose work had to be done for them or continually corrected, each one write up and fully execute the FIRST DYNAMIC DANGER FORMULA for himself personally and turn it in.

ASSESSMENT

If the necessity to by-pass continues or if an area or person did not comply, use a meter and assess or get assessed the following questionnaire.

THE TROUBLE AREA
QUESTIONNAIRE

__________________________ ______________________ _________________
Person’s Name Post Date

To be done on the person by one who can correctly operate a meter.

The list is done by telling the person you are about to ask him some questions on a meter and then just assess this list for reads.

Mark each read properly.

(a) Are you doing anything dishonest? _________
(b) Are you more interested in something else than your job? _________
(c) Are you falsely reporting about anything? _________
d) Are you doing something harmful? _________
e) Are you doing little or nothing of value? _________
f) Are you pretending? _________
g) Are you in disagreement with something? _________
h) Do you have overts? _________
i) Are you withholding something? _________
j) Do you know of some out-ethics around you? _________
k) Don’t you know what your post product is? _________
I) Are the products of others around you unknown to you? _________
m) Do you have things about your post you don’t understand? _________
n) Do you have words on your post you don’t understand? _________
o) Don’t you know grammar? _________
p) Is there some reason you are not quite on post? _________
q) Is someone giving you orders you don’t understand? _________
r) Are you getting orders from too many places? _________
s) Don’t you have a post? _________
t) Don’t you know what your post is? _________
u) Have you really not read your hat? _________
v) Are you here for some other reason than you say? _________
w) Were you planning to leave? _________
x) Is your post temporary? _________
y) What about your post purpose? _________
z) Are you in any way misemotional or upset about your post? _________
aa) Are you actually doing fine? _________

When this has been assessed on a meter one then takes the largest read or TA blowdown and handles it.

This is done by writing the question letter and the person’s answers.

Each question that read is given two-way communication until each question that read has attained a floating needle.

The form used and the worksheets are placed in the person’s folder so that other handling can be programmed and done as needed.

__________________________________
Operator’s Name

Probable WHY______________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

WHY

The above questionnaire can also be used to help find a WHY (it will not directly find one as the Why has to be rephrased for each individual). A WHY should always be found for individuals in a Danger Condition.

TROUBLE AREA SHORT FORM

__________________________ ______________________ _________________
Person’s Name Post Date

A short form can be done on someone who is an “old hand” and knows the tune.

SF 1. Out-Ethics? __________
SF 2. Overts? __________
SF 3. Withholds? __________
SF 4. Disagreements? __________
SF 5. False Reports? __________
SF 6. Product Unknown? __________
SF 7. Products of others Unknown? __________
SF 8. Post purpose? __________
SF 9. Situations not understood? __________
SF 10. Misunderstood words? __________
SF 11. Misunderstood grammar? __________
SF 12. Wrong WHY? __________
SF 13. Omitted materials? __________
SF 14. Misemotional? __________
SF 15. False passes? __________
SF 16. Invalidation? __________
SF 17. Wrong Orders? __________
SF 18. Not understood? __________
SF 19. No situation? __________
SF 20. Doing fine really? __________
(Handling is the same as in the long form.)

Probable WHY______________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________




___________________________________
Operator

ENDING A DANGER CONDITION When production has again increased the Danger Condition should be formally ended and an Emergency Condition assigned and its formula should be followed.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH: mes.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 APRIL 1972
A/Courses
(Cancels HCO B 31 July 71 Issue II
Corrected “Solo C/Sing”)

URGENT

C/S Series 75

Solo C/S Series 13


PREOTS DON’T C/S


HCO B 31 July 71 Issue II Corrected required PreOTs to C/S their folders for the next session.

I did not write this HCO B.

Research has proven that a Solo PreOT who is required by any C/S to write a C/S for his next session can be put into that next session action.

This C/Sing for himself his own next session violates the “continued session rule” wherein an auditor does not “finish” a session by telling the pc “the process will be continued in the next session”.

This puts the pc into continued sessions and in Solo can put the PreOT from Solo auditing to self auditing. There is a vast difference between the two. Solo auditing occurs in session with a meter. Self auditing is out of session wondering and chewing on bank.

A Solo PreOT must NOT self audit.

He ends the session he has done when he ends session on his worksheet.

He then goes to Examiner and gets his exam. The Examiner sends the completed Exam form to Solo Admin who puts it in the folder.

The Solo C/S, then, from his study of the folder, does the next C/S for the PreOT in proper C/S form. This is a diagonal 2 green stripes on the left-hand corner of the sheet, the PreOT’s name and date in black. The C/S itself is in black pen.

The PreOT takes this C/S and does it in his next session.

In rare instances when the PreOT is going really well, the C/S permits him to do several sessions. The C/S can tell from Exam forms that all is well. This MUST carry a notice “Come in at once to the D of P if you cease to audit or run into trouble. Do this C/S in the next several sessions. Come in for a new C/S the moment you feel this C/S is complete and are ready for a new C/S.”

When no Exam forms come in the Solo D of P chases the pc up.

If a Solo Exam form is bad the Examiner must mark it “Urgent Attn Solo C/S.” IN RED.

Solo Admin must alert the D of P who chases up the pc.

Tab is kept on ALL Solo pcs on lines by the D of P and if one falls off lines the

fact must be visible to the Solo D of P who keeps a board on sessions with all PreOTs’ names on it !

The above is the correct C/Sing line.

The worst features of a PreOT doing his own C/Sing are:

1. He is not a trained C/S.

2. Sudden ideas pop up he wants to handle instead of going on and he gets into an offline action when he should keep going.

3. A PreOT can “rabbit” (run away from the bank) by proposing a C/S that does not make him confront it.

4. And Last but far from least, a “C/S” by a PreOT is an invitation to the Solo Case Supervisor to Q and A with it. (Q and A means to just repeat whatever another says as a lazy way out.)

____________

Pc + Auditor is greater than bank.

In Solo Auditing

C/S + PreOT is greater than bank.

____________


PreOTs do NOT C/S their own folders!

____________


THE PREOT DOES KEEP UP HIS SESSION SUMMARY EACH SESSION.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder



LRH:mes.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 APRIL 1972

Remimeo
Central Orgs Academies
London
Washington (Revised issue of
Los Angeles HCOB 31 Mar 72)
Johannesburg
Denmark
Sydney
SHs

Expanded Dianetics Series 1R




EXPANDED DIANETICS is that branch of Dianetics which uses Dianetics in special ways for specific purposes.

It is not HSDC Dianetics. Its position on the Grade and Class Chart would be just above Class IV. Its proper number is Class IVA.

It uses Dianetics to change an Oxford Capacity Analysis (or an American Personality Analysis) and is run directly against these analysis graphs and the “Science of Survival Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation”.

EXPANDED DIANETICS IS NOT THE SAME AS STANDARD DIANETICS AS IT REQUIRES SPECIAL TRAINING AND ADVANCED SKILLS.

The HSDC is qualified to run Standard Dianetics. He is not authorized to run EXPANDED DIANETICS without special training.

DO NOT MIX EXPANDED DIANETICS INTO STANDARD DIANETICS.

It often happens that one technology’s skills are mingled with another’s. The result is that neither then work.

Standard Dianetics will go right on producing results.

The main difference between these two branches is that Standard Dianetics is very general in application. Expanded Dianetics is very specifically adjusted to the pc.

Some pcs, particularly heavy drug cases, or who have been given injurious psychiatric treatment or who are physically disabled or who are chronically ill or who have had trouble running engrams (to name a few) require a specially adapted technology.

A very good Dianetic and Class IV auditor (preferably HSDC & Class VI) can be specially trained to run Dianetics against the OCA or the Chart of Human Evaluation and handle other items of great value to a pc.

STUDY

(Subject to Change)

This training would consist of

1. HSDC

2. STANDARD DIANETIC INTERNE HGC OK TO AUDIT

3. Class 0-IV Academy (or Class VI)

4. PRIMARY CORRECTION RD HCOB 30 Mar 72 if Primary RD not done

5. Full Word Clearer Rating

6. FESing

7. Expanded Dianetic Tapes and HCOBs

8. Programming

9. C/S Folder Study

10. Active Auditing on the skills taught

11. C/Sing Expanded Dianetics.


CERTIFICATE

The Certificate would be HUBBARD GRADUATE DIANETIC SPECIALIST.

The Certificate Level is just above Class IV.

Class IV is required. A Class VI SHSBC may be substituted for Class IV.


CHARGES

Hours of Expanded Dianetics, because of the skills required, should be at least half again or double as much as Standard Dianetic Auditing or Lower Grade Auditing.

The cost of the Course would be the same as the HSDC Course and additional to it plus Interne fees.

PREREQUISITE

HSDC and Dianetic Interneship minimum with a successful period of Standard Dianetic Auditing as an auditor and is Class IV or VI.

Case gain as a Dianetic pc, and all Lower Grades Triple.


DEVELOPMENT

Neither the Course nor Expanded Dianetic Auditing may be sold by an org unless the org has an Expanded Dianetic Specialist, to be specific, an HGDS.

WHEN RELEASED THE COURSE WILL BE TAUGHT IN CENTRAL ORGS (LONDON, WASHINGTON, LOS ANGELES, JOHANNESBURG, DENMARK AND SYDNEY) AND SHs. IT IS THE SPECIAL COURSE THE CONTINENTAL CENTRAL ORG TEACHES.

The HCOBs relating to Expanded Dianetics will be released as a part of this series so that orgs will have them when it comes time for them to acquire the tapes and teach this course.

In the meanwhile these orgs should be making HSDCs and Class IVs.

PERSONS NOT TRAINED ON IT MAY NOT RUN IT OR USE IT REGARDLESS OF CLASS.

To repeat, Expanded Dianetics does not replace Standard Dianetics or any other Class and is itself and is used for its own specific purposes on special cases.



LRH:nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 APRIL 1972

Remimeo
PTS RD CORRECTION LIST

(Reference HCO B 17 Apr 72,
“C/Sing the PTS Rundown”,
C/S Series 76)


This Correction List is assessed and handled after a PTS Rundown has been done on the pc. It also serves as a checklist of expected actions with the Rundown.

The handlings are given below the assessing statements in each instance.

The list is Always Done Method 5 (All assessed then handled).

1. You have been physically ill after auditing. ________
(If this happened after a PTS RD the RD is not complete.
2wc to F/N then find what was incomplete.)

2. You lost the gains achieved in auditing. ________
(Same as 1 above.)

3. You are still in communication with a person or group that does
not like Scientology. ________
(Have HCO handle per P/L 5 Apr 72 or if HCO does not act handle
with D of P or Tech Sec.)

4. You know someone who disagrees with what you are doing. ________
(See 3 above.)

5. You handled the whole situation completely. ________
(If reads, 2wc to F/N.)

6. You only said it was handled. ________
(2wc to F/N, give pc P/L 23 Dec 65 and P/L 5 Apr 72 and
Method 4 WC them and report it to the D of P for further handling.)

7. You don’t understand the situation. ________
(See 6 above.)

8. You don’t believe there is a situation. ________
(2wc to F/N and probably handling as 6 above. It could be there
is no situation now.)

9. You didn’t want to handle it and protested. ________
(2wc to F/N. See 6 above.)

10. It can’t be handled anyway. ________
(2wc to F/N and see 6 above.)

11. There was something wrong with the auditing or auditor. ________
(Find what and do L1C, L3B or L4B as indicated.)

12. There was earlier bad auditing. ________
(Wasn’t set up. Repair Pgm.)

13. You were given the PTS Rundown in the middle of another
incomplete rundown. ________
(2wc to F/N. Complete the incomplete RD then verify the PTS RD.)

14. You weren’t PTS in the first place. ________
(Find out if the pc was connected to SPs or an SP group in actual
fact. Possibly still is but misinterpreting “PTS”. If so do 6.)

15. The feelings about the people you were audited on are still there.
(2wc to F/N. L1C, L4B, L3B as indicated. Complete the RD.)

16. The PTS Rundown was not complete. ________
(2wc to F/N. Sort out Case on PTS RD Addition HCO B 20 Jan 72.)

17. You still feel PTS. ________
(See 16.)

18. You still can’t hold onto your auditing gains. ________
(See 16.)

19. You were ill after the RD. ________
(See 16.)

20. You feel more upset than ever. ________
(See 16.)

21. There is still an additional person that wasn’t detected. ________
(See 16.)

22. You were told to attest but were still PTS. ________
(See 16.)

23. You decided you were PTS when you weren’t. ________
(2wc to F/N. Handle as indicated by Data pc gives.)

24. You said a person was suppressive who really wasn’t. ________
(See 23.)

25. There is a situation that has not been disclosed. ________
(2wc to F/N. Get full data. C/S accordingly.)

26. There were lies told. ________
(See 25.)

27. You don’t agree about all this. ________
(See 25.)

28. Your condition was really caused by something else. ________
(See 25.)

29. There were misunderstood words. ________
(See 25.)

30. Everything was all right in the first place. ________
(See 25.)

31. There were list errors. ________
(L4B.)

32. There were engram errors. ________
(L3B.)

33. There were auditor errors. ________
(L1C.)

34. You now feel okay. ________
(2wc to F/N.)


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: mes.rd
Copyright ©1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 APRIL 1972
Remimeo

C/S Series 76


C/SING A PTS RUNDOWN



References: HCO B 9 Dec 71 PTS Rundown
HCO B 20 Jan 72 PTS Rundown Addition
HCO B 13 Feb 72 PTS RD Additional
Issue II LRH Data
HCO PL 5 Apr 72 PTS Type A Handling
HCO B 16 Apr 72 PTS Correction List
HCO B 17 Apr 72 C/S Series 76
C/Sing a PTS RD (this HCO B)
Any subsequent issues.



The whole point of a PTS Rundown is to make a person not PTS any longer.

The point is not to just run some processes. It is to have a person all right now.

To really understand this rundown, one would have to know what PTS is in the first place and why one was doing the rundown.

This would apply to the auditor as well as the C/S.

PTS means POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE. It means someone connected to a person or group opposed to Scientology.

It is a TECHNICAL thing.

It results in illness and rollercoaster and IS the CAUSE of Illness and rollercoaster.

When you do a PTS RD on a pc CORRECTLY he or she should no longer be ill or rollercoaster.

BUT THIS INCLUDES THE PERSON HANDLING HIS PTS CONDITION IN THE REAL UNIVERSE NOT IN JUST HIS BANK.

An auditor and C/S must see that the person is:

(a) Handled properly in HCO or by the D of P if HCO isn’t there so that the person handles the PTS Connection itself. (See HCO PL 5 April 72, “PTS TYPE A HANDLING”.)

(b) Do the RD correctly (see reference HCO Bs above).

(c) D of P Interview the person AFTER the RD is “complete” to be sure the person is now all right (not PTS).

(d) Watch the person’s folder for any new signs of illness and rollercoaster and if these occur find out what was missed by assessing PTS RD CORRECTION LIST. (See HCO B 16 April 72.)

(e) Handling the PTS RD CORR LIST.

(f) Re-interviewing to be sure the person is all right now.

DATA

Anyone handling or auditing or C/Sing PTS cases should have done the PACK “PTS, SP TECH” Pack I & Pack 2 which are based on HCO PL 31 May 71 which is the CHECKSHEET for available tech and policy on this subject.

To this checksheet (HCO PL 31 May 71) must be added these issues:

HCO B 9 Dec 71 PTS Rundown
HCO B 20 Jan 72 PTS Rundown Addition
HCO B 13 Feb 72 PTS RD Additional
Issue II LRH Data
HCO PL 5 Apr 72 PTS Type A Handling
HCO B 16 Apr 72 PTS Correction List
HCO B 17 Apr 72 C/S Series 76
C/Sing a PTS RD (this HCO B)
Any subsequent issues.

PTS SITUATIONS

The hardest thing to get across about a PTS situation is that it IS the reason for continued illness and rollercoaster (loss of gains).

The condition does exist. It is in fact common.

We do have the auditing tech to handle now.

The material has to be applied correctly just like any other material.

The reason we do the rundown is not to do some sessions or sell some auditing or just explain why the person is like that. We do the rundown so the person will no longer be PTS.

The (EP) End Phenomenon of the PTS RD is attained when the person is well and stable.

As a C/S you MUST put a YELLOW TAB marked PTS on a PTS PC Folder that stays on until the person is NO LONGER PTS.

If you do NOT do this there will be about 25% of your pcs or more that YOU WILL BE IN CONTINUAL TROUBLE WITH! Because you will be C/Sing auditing for a person who is PTS, will be ill, will rollercoaster because the person has NOT been handled to EP on being PTS.

These people, by the way, will tell you, “Oh, I’m not PTS.” “But your father is suing the org.” “Oh yes, I know, but it doesn’t bother me. Besides my illness is from something I ate last year. And I rollercoaster because I don’t like the Examiner. But I’m not PTS.” The mystery is solved when you find they haven’t a clue what the letters mean or what the condition is, so give them a copy of HCO PL 5 Apr 72 and let them read it. If they still want to know more give them HCO PL 23 Dec 65. (Remembering it has to be Word Cleared Method 4 or he won’t have a clue even if he reads it.)

We are on no campaign to rid the world of suppressives when we are handling a PTS pc. But facts are facts and tech is tech.

In handling a PTS person as a C/S you are on a borderline of policy violation unless you make the person do what it says in HCO PL 5 April 72 first. That handles the situation itself. Then you can handle the person with the PTS Rundown.

It is a great rundown. Like any other it has a standard way of going about it.




LRH:mes.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 APRIL 1972

Remimeo

C/S Series 77


“QUICKIE” DEFINED


The reason an auditor can say he doesn’t “quickie a rundown” (and none ever say they do) is because he has no definition for the word QUICKIE.

The word has been used to designate rundowns that were not completely and fully done.

It is not a slang word.

In the dictionary you will find “Quickie also quicky: something done or made in a hurry. Also: a hurriedly planned and executed program (as of studies).”

What happens in auditing, for instance, is a “Grade Zero Expanded” is “done” by just doing a single flow to its first F/N.

That is obviously “quickie”.

A more subtle one is to do a “PTS Rundown” with no Ethics action to begin and no check for stability, holding gain and not ill a week or two after the RD. Only if both these actions were done would one have a “Complete PTS Rundown” as it would give a PRODUCT = A PC no longer PTS.

So what makes a Quickie “completion” quickie?

Is it length of time? Not necessarily.

Is it fewness of processes? Not necessarily as Power can be done quickie simply by not hanging on for the EP and only going to F/N.

To define COMPLETE gives us the reverse of Quickie.

“COMPLETE: To make whole, entire or perfect; end after satisfying all demands or requirements. “ A Completion is “the act or action of completing, becoming complete or making complete”.

So “completing” something is not a loose term. It means an exact thing. “End after satisfying all demands or requirements” does not mean “doing as little as possible” or “doing what one can call complete without being detected”.

Anything that does not fully satisfy all requirements is QUICKIE.

So “quickie” really means “omitting actions for whatever reason that would satisfy all demands or requirements and doing something less than could be achieved”.

In short a quickie is not doing all the steps and actions that could be done to make a perfect whole.

Standard auditing actions required for ages that auditors cleared each word of each command. Yet when they went quickie they dropped this. When this was dropped, GAINS ON 75% OF ALL PCS LESSENED OR VANISHED. We are right

now achieving spectacular wins on pcs just by clearing up commands and words on all lists. We are finding that these pcs did not recover and NEVER BEFORE HAD BEEN IN SESSION even though previously “audited” hundreds of hours.

By omitting an essential action of clearing commands, processing did not work because the pc never understood the auditing commands!

So quickie action did not save any time, did it? It wasted hundreds of hours!

Quickie Programs are those which omit essential steps like Vital lists or 2wcs to get data. FESs for past errors are often omitted.

To slow down the torrent of quickie actions on clearing commands HCO P/L 4 Apr 72 Issue III “Ethics and Study Tech” has Clause 4 “An auditor failing to clear each and every word of every command or list used may be summoned before a Court of Ethics. The charge is OUT TECH.”

Ethics has to enter in after Quickie Tech has gotten in. Because quickie tech is a symptom of out ethics. HCO P/L 3 April 72 (Est O Series 13) “Doing Work” and HCO P/L 4 Apr 72 (Est O Series 14) “Ethics” are vital know-how where a C/S is faced with Quickie actions—or flubby ones that will not cure.

Essential Quickie Tech is simply dishonest. Auditors who do it have their own Ethics out in some way.

To be sure their confront is down.

There are numerous remedies for the quickie impulse. The above mentioned Policy Letters and plain simple TR 0 are standard remedies. TR 0 properly done and completed itself usually cures it.

Quickie study in ‘67 and ‘68 almost destroyed auditing quality. LRH ED 174 Int which really pushes in Study Tech will achieve the primary reason for quickie-the auditor didn’t understand the words himself.

Wherever Quickie tendencies or false stats (the quickest quickie possible) show up, the above P/Ls had better be gotten into full use fast.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH: mes.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 APRIL 1972

Remimeo


Expanded Dianetics Series 4

(Adds C/S Series 76 to HGDS checksheet)

SUPPRESSED PCS AND PTS TECH


(PTS means Potential Trouble Source which itself means a person connected to a Suppressive Person.)

As the Dianetic Specialist (HGDS) is often called upon to handle pcs who are not well, it is vital that he knows all about and can use “PTS Tech”.

All sick persons are PTS.

All pcs who rollercoaster (regularly lose gains) are PTS.

Suppressive persons are themselves PTS to themselves.

If a Dianetic Specialist does not know this, have reality upon it and use it, he will have loses on pcs he need not have.

There is considerable Administrative Tech connected with this subject of PTS and there is a special Rundown which handles PTS people.

They get handled if the auditor knows his PTS tech, if he audits well and if he uses both the auditing and Administrative Tech to handle.

The Administrative Tech requires an interview, usually by the Director of Processing or Ethics Officer and the person is required to handle the PTS situation itself before being audited. A check for stability is also made after being audited on the PTS Rundown.

For this reason, HCO B 17 April 72 and all the checksheet of HCO P/L 31 May 71 must be fully known to the Dianetic Specialist.

HCO B 17 April 72 is also C/S Series 76 so as to be sure that Case Supervisors handle the Admin and C/Sing correctly.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder








LRH: mes .rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 APRIL 1972
Issue II
Remimeo
C/S Series 78

PRODUCT PURPOSE AND WHY AND
WC ERROR CORRECTION

Where untrained Auditors are finding Whys for a Danger Formula, or post purposes or post products as called for in the Est O System you will get a certain amount of error and case disturbance. Such upsets also come from word clearing by incompetent persons.

The C/S should look for these especially when such campaigns are in progress. He should suspect them as a possibility when a case bogs.

A C/S must be sure all such papers and worksheets get into pc’s folders.

A common repair action is to

1. Do an assessment for type of charge.

2. Handle the charge found by the assessment done.

3. Fly all the reading items found on such assessments by 2wc or direct handling.

4. Suspect LISTING ERRORS on any Why or purpose or product found even though no list exists and reconstruct the list and L4B and handle it.

5. Handle word clearing of any type in or out of session with a Word Clear Correction List done in session by an Auditor.

6. When word clearing is too heavy on the pc or doesn’t clean up suspect he has been thrown into implants which are mostly words or the words in some engram. As Implants are actually just engrams, handle it with an L3B.

LISTING

Any item found out of session or by a non-auditor is suspect of being a Listing and Nulling (L&N) error even though no list was made.

TODAY A CORRECT L&N ITEM MUST BD AND F/N.

So treat such items as you would list errors and try to reconstruct the list and either confirm the item or locate the real item (may have been invalidated and suppressed) or extend the list and get the real item.

The real item will BD F/N.

One can establish what the situation is with a post purpose, a Why or a product or any other such item by doing an L4B.

SELF AUDITING

The commonest reason for self auditing is a wrong or unfound L&N item.

People can go around and self list or self audit trying to get at the right Why or product or purpose after an error has been made.

REACTION

NOTHING PRODUCES AS MUCH CASE UPSET AS A WRONG LIST ITEM OR A WRONG LIST.

Even, rarely, a DIANETIC LIST can produce wrong list reactions. Ask the pc for his somatics and he blows up or goes into apathy. Or blows. Or attacks the auditor.

ALL of the more violent or bad reactions on the part of the pc come from out lists.

Nothing else produces such a sharp deterioration in a case or even illness.

OUT LISTS

Therefore when one gets a sharp change in a case (like lowered tone, violence, blows, “determination to go on in spite of the supervisor”, long notes from pcs, self C/Sing, etc, etc, the C/S SUSPECTS AN OUT LIST.

This outness can occur in regular sessions even when the item was said to BD F/N.

It can occur in “Coffee shop” (out of session auditing of someone), or by Est Os or poorly trained or untrained staff members or even in life.

PTS

When such actions as finding items by non-auditors are done on PTS people the situation can be bad, so one also suspects the person to be PTS to someone or something.

“PTS” does not communicate well in an assessment question so one says, “Someone or something is hostile to you” and “You are connected to someone or something that doesn’t agree with Dianetics or Scientology.”

REPAIRS

The main things to know when doing such repairs are (a) that such situations as wrong lists or upset people can occur in an org where untrained people are also using meters and (b) THAT IT IS UP TO THE C/S TO SUSPECT DETECT AND GET THEM HANDLED IN REGULAR SESSION.

Do not ignore the possible bad influence.

As the good outweighs the bad in such cases, it is not a correct answer to forbid such actions.

It is a correct answer to require all such actions and worksheets become part of the folder.

One can also persuade the D of T or Qual to gen in the people doing such actions. And do not ignore the effect such actions can have on cases and do not neglect to include them in C/Ses before going on with the regular program.

They can all be repaired.

LRH:nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 APRIL 1972
Issue I
Remimeo
D of P
Auditors C/S Series 79
Ethics
Officers Expanded Dianetics Series 5

PTS INTERVIEWS
(Reference HCO B 17 April 72, C/S Series 76)


Interviews to discover a PTS condition are done on a meter with all reads marked.

The Interview asks (a) about persons who are hostile or antagonistic to the pc, (b) about groups that are anti-Scientology, (c) about people who have harmed the pc, (d) about things that the pc thinks are suppressive to the pc, (e) about locations that are suppressive to the pc and about past life things and beings suppressive to the pc.

In doing the Interview the Interviewer must realize that a sick person is PTS. There are no sick people who are not PTS to someone or a group or something somewhere.

A somewhat suppressive pc will find the good hats suppressive. This does not relieve his condition. He is PTS to SP people, groups, things or locations, no matter how SP he is.

He can have been audited by someone he knew in an earlier life and who goofed the session. A few auditors have since been declared. Not because they goofed but because they were SP.

However, some PTS pc will make trouble for good people because that is what PTS means (Potential Trouble Source). So do not buy all the good people he is PTS to.

Further, when you do get the person or group or thing or location the PTS person will F/N VGI and begin to get well.

The PTS condition is actually a problem and a mystery and a withdrawal so it is sometimes hard to find and has to be specially processed (3 S&Ds) to locate it.

Usually it is quite visible.

Don’t have a sick, rollercoaster pc appear for Interview and then say “not PTS”. It’s a false report. It only means the Interviewer did not find it.

The pc sometimes begins to list in such an Interview and such an Interview where a wrong item is found has to be audited to complete the list or find the right item. (See C/S Series 78, HCO B 20 Apr 72, Issue II.)

So Interview worksheets are VITAL.

The Interview should end on an F/N.

The Interview is followed by the Ethics action of HCO PL 5 April 72 or other Ethics actions such as handling or disconnection and posting as called for in policy.

An Interviewer has to use good TRs and operate his meter properly and know 2-way comm and PTS tech.

Some Interviewers are extremely successful.

Such Interviews and handling count as auditing hours.

When properly done, plus good auditing on the PTS RD, well people result.


LRH:mes.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[HCO PL 5 April 1972, PTS Type A Handling, referred to on previous page, was revised and reissued on 20 July 1975 as BPL 5 April 1972R, PTS Type A Handling.]





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 APRIL 1972

Remimeo
Study Series 8


THE GLIB STUDENT


The Glib Student can confront the words and ideas.

He cannot confront the physical universe or people around him and so cannot apply.

He does not see Mest or people.

The reason for this is that he is below non-existence on one or more dynamics and so cannot align with the others.

As a spirit or being in a body he has no past or future and so is just a social machine.

Getting him up the dynamics by conditions by “Conditions by Dynamics”, HCO PL 4 April 72 (Establishment Officer Series 14), fourth page, having him do general confronting and do TR Courses the Hard Way and having him run on the Objective Processes cures this condition. It takes a lot of work, a lot of auditing but it can be cured.

Unless it is fully handled he will never see enough more than the paper and words to be more than a glib student who cannot apply.


LRH:mes.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
By L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


[A copy of HCO PL 4 April 1972, Ethics, Establishment Officer Series 14, is on page 78 and “Conditions by Dynamics” is on page 81.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 MAY 1972
Remimeo
Executive
Hats IMPORTANT


Executive Series 12


ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES


Any person holding an Executive Post (head of Department or above) is deemed an EXECUTIVE.

Evaluation has revealed that the breakdown in many orgs is a failure on the part of Executives to wear their Ethics and Justice hats.

It has been found that below Administrative Whys there is usually an Ethics situation as well which unhandled, causes the Administrative Why not to function or raise stats.

In an area which is downstat, it is the duty of an Executive to investigate and find any out-ethics situation and get it corrected.

Ethics is a personal thing in relation to a group. Unethical people are those who do not have Ethics in on themselves personally.

It is the responsibility of the Executive to see to it that persons under his control and in his area get their personal ethics in and keep them in.

Dishonesty, false reports, an out-ethics personal life, should be looked for and by persuasion, should be corrected.

When an Executive sees such things he or she must do all he can to get the person to get his own Ethics in.

When an area is downstat the Executive must at once suspect an out-ethics scene with one or more of the personnel and must investigate and persuade the person to be more honest and ethical and correct the out-ethics condition found.

If this does not correct and if the person or area remains downstat, the Executive must declare the person or area in Danger and apply HCO PL 9 Apr 72 “CORRECT DANGER CONDITION HANDLING”.

The situation, if it does not correct, thereafter becomes a matter of full group justice with Courts and Comm Evs. Persons whose Ethics have remained out must be replaced.

The seniors of an Executive are bound to enforce this policy and to use it on any Executives whose personal ethics are out and who fail to apply it. It will be found that those who do not apply this policy letter have themselves certain dishonesties or out-ethics situations.

IT IS VITAL TO ANY ORGANIZATION, TO BE STRONG AND EFFECTIVE, TO BE ETHICAL.

THE MOST IMPORTANT ZONE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT IN AN ORGANIZATION IS AT OR NEAR THE TOP.


Ethical failure at the top or just below it can destroy an organization and make it downstat.

Historical examples are many.

THEREFORE IT IS POLICY THAT AN EXECUTIVE MUST KEEP ETHICS IN ON HIMSELF AND THOSE BELOW HIM OR BE DISCIPLINED OR COMM EVED AND REMOVED FROM ANY POST OF AUTHORITY AND SOMEONE FOUND WHO IS HIMSELF ETHICAL AND CAN KEEP ETHICS IN ON THOSE UNDER HIS AUTHORITY.

The Charge in any such case for a staff member or Executive is FAILURE TO UPHOLD OR SET AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS.

Such offenses are composed of:

1. DISHONESTY.

2. Use of false statements to cover up a situation.

3. Representing a scene to be different than it actually is to cover up crimes and escape discipline.

4. Irregular 2D connections and practices.

5. Drug or alcoholic addiction.

6. Encouraging out-ethics.

7. Condoning or failing to effectively handle an out-ethics situation in self or others as an In Charge, Officer or Executive.


TECHNICAL

People with out-ethics withholds cannot see. This is proven by the brilliant return of perception of the environment in people audited effectively and at length on such processes.

Such people also seek to place a false environment there and actually see a false environment.

People whose Ethics are low will enturbulate and upset a group as they are seeking to justify their harmful acts against the group. And this leads to more harmful acts.

Out-ethics people go rapidly into Treason against the group.

A person whose Ethics have been out over a long period goes “out of valence”. They are “not themselves”.

Happiness is only attained by those who are HONEST with themselves and others.

A group prospers only when each member in it has his own personal ethics in.

Even in a PTS (Potential Trouble Source) person there must have been out-ethics conduct toward the suppressive personality he or she is connected with for the person to have become PTS in the first place.

People who are physically ill are PTS and are out-ethics toward the person or thing they are PTS to!

Thus a group to be happy and well, and for the group to prosper and endure, its individual members must have their own Ethics in.

It is up to the Executive or Officer to see that this is the case and to DO the actions necessary to make it come about and the group an Ethical group.

Exec or Officer’s Steps
for Getting In Ethics
on a Staff Member


STEP ONE

Inform the person personally he is in Danger Condition by reason of acts or omissions, downstats, false reports or absence or 2D or whatever the circumstances are.

He is in fact IN danger because somebody is going to act sooner or later to hit him.

He may be involved already in some other assignment of Condition.

But this is between you and him.

HE IS IN DANGER BECAUSE YOU ARE HAVING TO BY-PASS HIM TO GET HIS ETHICS IN, A THING HE SHOULD DO HIMSELF.

If he cooperates and completes this rundown and it comes out all right you will help him.

If he doesn’t cooperate you will have to use group justice procedures.

This is his chance to get Ethics in on himself with your help before he really crashes.

When he accepts this fact, Step 1 is done. Go to Step 2.


STEP 2

Ethics is gotten in by definition on the person.

GET IN THE DEFINITIONS FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

The following words must be Method 4 Word Cleared on all the words and the words in their definitions on the person being handled.

“ETHICS: The study of the general nature of morals (morals [plural] [noun]: The principles of right and wrong conduct) and the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others.

“The rules or standards governing the conduct of the members of a profession.”

“JUSTICE: 1. Moral rightness; equity. 2. Honor; fairness. 3. Good reason. 4. Fair handling; due reward or treatment. 5. The administration and procedure of the law.”
“FALSE: Contrary to fact or truth; without grounds; incorrect. Without meaning or sincerity; deceiving. Not keeping faith. Treacherous. Resembling and being identified as a similar or related entity.”

“DISHONEST: Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud or deceive.”

“PRETENSE: A false reason or excuse. A mere show without reality.”

“BETRAY: To be disloyal or faithless to.”

“OUT-ETHICS: An action or situation in which an individual is involved contrary to the ideals and best interests of his group. An act or situation or relationship contrary to the ethics standards, codes or ideals of the group or other members of the group. An act of omission or commission by an individual that could or has reduced the general effectiveness of a group or its other members. An individual act of omission or commission which impedes the general well-being of a group or impedes it in achieving its goals.”


Do not go to Step 3 of this until all the above words are cleared by Method 4 Word Clearing.


STEP 3

Ask the person what out-ethics situation he or she is involved in.

It may take the person some time to think of it or he may suppress it and be afraid to say it for fear of consequences. Reassure him that you are only trying to help him.

He may have brought it up in a session but did not apply it as out-ethics. Coax him through this.

If his conduct and actions are poor or downstat, he for sure will be able to come up with an out-ethics personal scene.

Sometimes the person is secretly PTS and is connected to a suppressive or antagonistic person or group or thing. In such an instance he will rollercoaster as a case or on post or have accidents or be ill frequently. (See PTS tech for material on this and for future handling. Checksheet HCO PL 9 April 72 [Revised] “Correct Danger Condition Handling”, but go on handling with these steps.)

Sometimes the person just uses PR (brags it up and won’t come clean). In this case, an auditing session is required.

If the person gets involved in self listing get him audited on HCO B 20 Apr 72, C/S Series 78, which gives the auditing session procedure. A person can become very upset over a wrong item. It is easily repaired but it must be repaired if this happens.

By your own 2wc or whatever means or repair get this Step 3 to a clearcut out-ethics situation, clearly stated. Do not forget to go on with this eventually if there is a delay in completing it. GIs will be in if correct.


STEP 4

Have the person work out how the out-ethics situation in which he or she is involved would be a betrayal of the group or make them false to the group or its ideals.

Do not make the person guilty. Just get them to see it themselves.

When they have seen this clearly and have cognited on it completely go to next step.


STEP 5

The person is now ready to apply the FIRST DYNAMIC DANGER FORMULA to himself.

Give him this formula and explain it to him.


FIRST DYNAMIC FORMULA

The formula is converted for the 1st dynamic to:

1st 1. By-pass habits or normal routines.

1st 2. Handle the situation and any danger in it.

1st 3. Assign self a danger condition.

1st 4. Get in your own personal ethics by finding what you are doing that is out ethics and use self-discipline to correct it and get honest and straight.


1st 5. Reorganize your life so that the dangerous situation is not continually happening to you.

1st 6. Formulate and adopt firm policy that will hereafter detect and prevent the same situation from continuing to occur.

Now usually the person is already involved in another group situation of downstats or overt products or bad appearance or low conditions, Courts, Comm Evs for something.

It does not matter what other condition he was in. From you he is in Danger.

So 1st 1 and 1st 2 above apply to the group situation he finds himself in.

He has to assign himself a Danger Condition as he recognizes now he has been in danger from himself.

1st 4 has been begun by this rundown.

It is up to him or her to finish off 1st 4 by applying the material in Steps 2 and 3. He or she has to use self-discipline to correct his own out-ethics scene and get it honest and straight, with himself and the group.

1st 5 is obvious. If he doesn’t, he will just crash again.

1st 6. In formulating and adopting firm policy he must be sure it aligns with the group endeavor.

When he has worked all this out AND DEMONSTRATED IT IN LIFE, he has completed the personal danger rundown.

He can then assign himself Emergency and follow the Emergency Formula (HCO PL 23 Sept 67, Pg 189-190 Vol 0 OEC, “Emergency”).


STEP 6

Review the person and his stats and appearance and personal life.

Satisfy yourself that the steps above and the out-ethics found were all of it. That no wrong item has been found. That the person is not PTS.

Handle what you find. But if you find that the person did not improve and gave it all a brush-off, you must now take the group’s point of view and administer group justice.

Your protection of the person is at end because he had his chance and is apparently one of those people who depend on others to keep his Ethics in for him and can’t keep them in himself. So use group justice procedures thereafter.

If the person made it and didn’t fall on his head and is moving on up now AS SHOWN BY HONEST STATS AND CONDITION OF HIS POST, you have had a nice win and things will go much much better.

And that’s a win for everybody.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1972

Remimeo


HAVINGNESS

(Previously issued as PAB No. 23 on 2 April 1954
through Hubbard Communications Office,
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11)


Starvation for energy is the keynote of any case which maintains facsimiles in restimulation.

The thetan who holds facsimiles to the body has chosen to have the energy in spite of the perceptions and significances in it. He is attempting to have the energy and not have the aberrative quality of it. Thus he is posed the problem of trying to reject the thought and accept the energy and thus he cannot do either.

In Dianetics we gave him the energy by processing out the significances (perception) in it.

When well exteriorized a thetan may have his energy so far reduced that he becomes unhappy. Having him create and snap in anchor points upon himself (not the body) will remedy this unhappiness.

Matched terminalling, admiration processing and any other process which reduces energy, at length “starve” the thetan for energy.

All these conditions are remedied by remedying the “havingness” of the thetan.

As we saw in Acceptance Level Processing (PAB 15) only certain energy forms may be acceptable to the thetan. This is regulated by the screens he has erected against things. By setting up a resistance to certain energies, he creates an eventual appetite for them. He sets up screens to resist the form and the screen becomes plus for the form on the far side and negative for the form on the near side. As the screen caves in upon him (by being pounded by the unwanted form) it eventually causes an appetite (vacuum) for the form. Thus he actually starves for a form he once detested. This is the dwindling spiral of the Mest Universe. The thetan believes he has to have the form to survive.

The remedy of havingness is necessary for all cases at and below Step IV of SOP 8.

An auditor remedies havingness by “starting an avalanche”, by making the preclear begin an automatic inflow of acceptable things, then graduates the preclear rapidly to avalanches of stars, planets, heavy masses and spaces.

It is density and mass which count, not specific items.

Degradation begins when the thetan is interiorized into unwanted mass. It is completed when, having developed an appetite for heavy mass, he is exteriorized from it.

In this lifetime the downfall of any thetan began with his loss of some heavy mass. The heaviness of the mass was the value of the mass. For instance, an auditor wishing to trace the feeling of degradation in a preclear would look for a time when the preclear lost or was removed from a massive object. The auditor then has the preclear

mock up the object and change its quality better or worse until it “snaps in” automatically on the preclear. Then the auditor has the preclear mock up enough of the object to create an avalanche. The preclear must then add more and more to the inflow, then add planets, stars and black stars until the preclear can comfortably throw several dense objects away in mock-up. A reverse (outflowing) avalanche is then begun and run.

Outflowing and inflowing avalanches are run on the preclear until his “hunger” is satiated.

Numerous facsimiles may appear. The auditor continues with the dense masses in avalanches, not the facsimiles. The facsimile will “blow”.

This process, run for four or five hours, will create a Book 1 Mest Clear.

Perceptions are turned on by running “acceptable” smells, lights and sounds in avalanches. Masses are more important than perceptions.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:sb.rd
Copyright © 1954, 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



































[The above HCO B is a reissue of PAB No. 23 which can be found in context in Volume II, page 38.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1972

Remimeo

SIX BASIC PROCESSES

(Previously issued as PAB No. 42 on 24 December
1954 through Hubbard Communications Office,
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11)



There are six basic processes today in Dianetics and Scientology. Before we consider these processes, let us first consider the essential difference between Dianetics and Scientology. What we are doing could be called, more succinctly, “an understanding of life.” Under this heading, we could call anything a science or an art and we could bring in many subdivisions.

Other subdivisions which enter into this represent the difference between a study of life in general and a study of man in particular. Scientology could be called a study of life; Dianetics could be called a study of man. The first four dynamics are devoted to Dianetics. If you read again Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, you will discover that it treats of the first four dynamics. If you examine the first shadows of what we now call Scientology, it treats all of the eight dynamics. In view of the fact that both Dianetics and Scientology operate in the field of man, it should be readily seen that the basic processes of Dianetics or Scientology as they apply to man would be the same. Just because we have used two different words is no reason man has changed. Thus we have our six basic processes and thus we discover that Dianetics and Scientology, up to the point of stable exteriorization, operate in exactly the same field with exactly the same tools. It is only after man is sufficiently exteriorized to become a spirit that we depart from the field of Dianetics; for here, considering man as a spirit, we must enter the field of religion. Thus we have our additional subdivision. Dianetics is a science which applies to man, a living organism; and Scientology is a religion.

The six basic processes are as follows:

1. Two-way Communication

2. Elementary Straightwire

3. Opening Procedure of 8-C

4. Opening Procedure by Duplication

5. Remedying Havingness

6. Spotting Spots in Space.

An additional breakdown of these sections demonstrates that these processes subdivide into some highly important techniques. An additional process is as follows:

1. Two-way Communication includes communication lag, scarcity of problems, the Code of a Scientologist, the Axioms of Dianetics.

2. Elementary Straightwire includes the Auditor’s Code, Self Analysis, Memory and Mass and their relationship, under which we get past life loss of memory and what we generally call “next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis.”

3. Opening Procedure of 8-C includes pan-determinism, orders, defenses and the theory and material pertinent to present time.

4. Opening Procedure by Duplication includes the communication formula, general theory of ARC and “it must-mustn’t happen again.”

5. The Remedy of Havingness includes the scale of substitutes, the hide-to-curiosity scale, Expanded Gita, mock-ups and engrams, overt acts and motivators, flows and terminals, the fact that two things can’t occupy the same space if one is to have a universe, significances and problems and, in particular, the scarcity of problems.

6. Spotting Spots includes “space, the theory of,” disinterest, importance, as-isness and the conditions of existence and separateness.

Appended to these subjects is one of equal importance in that it is the prediction of human beings. This is included, and could be called part seven of these basics. Science of Survival, with its dissertations on the Theta-MEST theory, ARC, and the Chart of Human Evaluation, is, indeed, a study of the prediction of homo sapiens.

It has been discovered in the field of training that an auditor has to be thoroughly versed in these seven items. He must be able to be expert in processing people using the six processes, and his understanding must be increased to the seventh item as included in the book Science of Survival.

How thoroughly does one have to cover any one of these subjects in order to render an auditor conversant with it? It has been found in the Phoenix Certification Course that even auditors who have studied this material before coming to the course had to be rehearsed on it a minimum of eight times and had to be carefully supervised through each one of these at least eight times, had to audit at least ten or fifteen hours on each process under supervision, and had to have each one of these processes run on him expertly for many hours before he finally was able to practice them with such skill that he produced uniform results. This is in spite of the fact that these particular processes are simple. Indeed, they are so simple that an auditor has a tendency to look at them and use them as though they were also pliable. Their simplicity is residual in the fact that they are the exact processes necessary to produce the exact results of Dianetics and Scientology.

It has been found that the simplicity of these processes was the stumbling block in their use. One instance in one HCA unit: a class went through for five weeks without entirely grasping the theory and practice of communication lag. Amongst this class was an auditor-student who was so expert at giving indirect, yet seemingly direct, answers that he had actually evaded the understanding of his fellow students. This person had yet to give a precisely direct reply to a question asked him. An instructor sat down with this student and for forty-five minutes asked him the same simple question. At the end of that time the student gave at last a direct reply, and this reply was the first time in the course when he had answered a question straight. A precision definition of communication lag is “the length of time, whether verbal or silent, intervening between the auditor’s asking of a specific question and the specific and precise answer of that question by the preclear.” It would not matter then whether the preclear continued to talk about something else than the question, or simply remained silent, this would still be communication lag. The class had not entirely grasped this fact in that they assumed that an indirect or an almost answer was sufficient. Rapidly in the next two auditing periods the case of the student broke, simply because his auditor now understood exactly what this person was doing with auditing questions and now demanded precise answers to questions, at the same time retaining ARC with his preclear.

The processes of Dianetics, as one can see, stress bringing a preclear into present time. In the old days we did this by running engrams, running locks and unsticking the preclear in general from various incidents in the past. Now we approach the problem far more directly. The Opening Procedure of 8-C is putting the preclear into contact with what is present time. The Remedy of Havingness will actually give the preclear
enough energy masses to permit his starved condition to let go of the energy masses he is holding to him. The energy masses he is holding to him are commonly engrams with significance and content which make him very unhappy, but not as unhappy as he thinks he would be if he no longer had this energy. The motto of an individual seems to be “Any energy, even with content as vicious as an engram, is better than little or no energy. “

Here, with this list of processes, we have before us the basic training for the Dianeticist and Scientologist. These processes have now remained stable for some eight months. In spite of all the attention and tests they have received, little or no improvement has occurred in the actual form of the processes, and the processes and the commands have remained steady and stable.

In view of the fact that the thetan exterior is described fully in the second chapter of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, and in view of the fact that we have now with the command “Be three feet back of your head” the “one-shot clear,” and in view of the fact that the instructor in London with his Advanced Clinical Course [1st London ACC] only three weeks deep had exteriorized successfully all of his students, we see we do not have any real problems in terms of processing or processes today. We can do it. An auditor who is well trained can achieve results with these basic processes which in any other age would be called miracles.

There are people around who desperately need it as a process who believe and who would have you believe that the Opening Procedure by Duplication techniques are the most vicious things ever invented. Compare this with the fact that these people also feel bound to go out and crusade amongst their fellow men to teach them how bad Dianetics and Scientology are. These two facts combined should tell you something concerning duplication. The very thought of duplication is so hideous to some people that they are utterly unwilling to face the slightest chance that they might be brought in to a willingness to duplicate. These people have had things happen to them which are bad enough to make these people postulate that certain things mustn’t happen again. Duplication means that things must happen again and the process of duplication itself balances out and makes a person easy about his past.

In the process of running Opening Procedure by Duplication hypnotism very often comes off of the bank. Here we have an example of unhypnotizing. The process of hypnotism is a monotony and a central fixation on some one object. Opening Procedure by Duplication, using two objects and using an alert and aware procedure, contacting and examining these two objects alternately, tends to unfix a person from points in the past. Naturally, this begins to run out hypnotism. A person run for only 15 or 20 minutes on Opening Procedure by Duplication might very well feel himself getting more and more hypnotized; by the time he has been run 45 minutes or an hour, this sensation has worn away and the person is far more alert than he was at the beginning of the session. It is quite common to run Opening Procedure by Duplication for several hours, and Intensive Procedure as given at headquarters of the HASI is run precisely as given and taught upon preclears for a minimum of five hours before the HASI is content to release a preclear as in good condition. If the preclear cannot duplicate, his arrival at a state of good condition will simply be a signal for him to have a “no duplicate” fixation on feeling good. Thus the auditor would have brought him up to a level of feeling well and immediately afterwards the individual, being able to have things happen only once, would then have to feel bad. Here again is the problem of exteriorization which results soon afterwards in re-interiorization: the person has exteriorized, he has the fixation that something must happen only once, and thus he will go back into the body and will not come out again. This is all under the heading of duplication. Opening Procedure by Duplication wakes up the preclear, puts his body back into balance and gives him a brighter outlook in general and makes him fear the past much less than before it has been run on him. He is far better able to control his body and his environment than previously and remarks that incidents have far less effect upon him than before. This does not look very much like hypnotism, now, does it?

With these processes a trained auditor—and we emphasize trained—is able to get the results which are called for and described in all the earlier books on Dianetics and Scientology. The reason one did not see these results more often was that the auditor himself could not duplicate the auditing commands, and thus anything and everything was being run but a minimum of result was taking place. I was running one preclear one day who was a very old-timer and who had been run many, many hours on the techniques contained in Dianetics. The Modern Science of Mental Health. I was running him on processes which ran out all of his earlier auditing. He broke down under this processing and began to curse, saying, “If only once—if only just once—I had been permitted to run a second time through an engram by my auditor; if only just once I had been able to run the secondary once more! But no! I was never given the chance to go through the engram a second time.” Now those of you who know the techniques of Book One know definitely they call for a continuous running through, over and over, of the same incident so as to de-intensify it. This is the sort of complicated duplication which the preclear was asked to do which resolved at once his ability to duplicate and the fact that it mustn’t happen again. Thus when auditors failed to return people through engrams and secondaries, for a second, fourth, fifth, or even tenth time if necessary, it then became impossible for these early techniques to work.

In training it is very difficult to relay the theory and processes to people who are not very alert and who cannot duplicate. One can say straight to a class that such-and so is observably true, and the class will immediately agree that something is observably true, but immediately after leaving the classroom, will believe in themselves that an entirely different statement had been made than the one they agreed with. They will then agree with this different statement and all sorts of oddities in the form of theory and techniques become circulated.

In the next Professional Auditor’s Bulletin I am going to give you a rather thorough rundown on two-way communication and on the bulletins subsequent to that I am going to give you, for the first time, in written form, a considerable dissertation on these processes and the exact auditing commands and the results to be looked for.

But there is one thing I am probably not going to cover again, and this is an odd fact which has shown up in our training experience here and in my handling of a great many auditors. This has to do with the case of the auditor in particular. I could write an entire series of PABs on this subject, but I am sure this statement will be enough. The case of an auditor, one who is skilled in the processes of Dianetics and Scientology, and the case of a preclear, one who has just walked in off the street without further knowledge, are entirely different cases, as both Dianeticists and Scientologists know. At one time the cases of Scientologists and Dianeticists were considered so much with horror on the part of other Scientologists and Dianeticists that one audited a fellow practitioner with considerable reluctance. Dianeticists and Scientologists were renowned to be tough cases.

I have found now what made them tough cases. The preclear has an entirely different goal from the auditor. The preclear is there to get well: the auditor is there to make the preclear well.

When we consider this further, we see that the ability of the auditor to control minds and mental reactions is dependent upon his getting results in preclears. The preclear’s results simply stem from the preclear’s gained ability to control his own mind and its reactions. Thus, of course, we have entirely different values.

An auditor who does not consistently get good results is going to have his own case cave in on him. The only way an auditor can keep his case up is to get continuous and predictably excellent results upon preclears. Thus an auditor, to have his case in good order, would have to be in good order as an auditor; he would have to be able to get results upon those he processed. In view of the fact that he could get results upon other human beings, he could then, of course, know continuously that he could control human reactions and mental reactions; and so, with this confidence and this control, be completely unworried about his own case and be able to do actually anything he wished with his own mental machinery.

The case of the auditor actually depends upon his successes in auditing. Thus in the Certification Course in Phoenix we stress today only the skill of an individual to audit, and we discover consequently that, as the auditor gets results upon his fellow student and as he gets results on outside preclears, his own belief in his ability to handle the human mind soars to such an extent that as a case he ceases to be in the concern category. He of course is audited and without being audited he would not know the results which would happen in a preclear, but his actual case gains depend on his gains on preclears.

Now with today’s techniques we can guarantee those results on preclears. We can demonstrate to any auditor that he can make anybody well, if the person is even vaguely breathing, simply by using with skill and understanding, as trained, the above six processes and the seventh, which is actually an understanding. Here is the problem of the auditor’s case resolved. The way to have one’s case in excellent condition is to have continuing confidence in one’s ability to get results on preclears. In the Certification Courses in Phoenix and London we work solely in the direction of giving an auditor confidence in his ability to handle the aberrations of others and we discover that with this gained confidence the fear of his own behavior vanishes; and thus an auditor becomes a very, very capable clear.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:sb.rd
Copyright © 1954, 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

































[The above HCO B is a reissue of PAB No. 42 which can be found in context in Volume II, page 118.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 MAY 1972R

REVISED 17 JANUARY 1973
Remimeo
Exp Dn Cse

THE REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS

(Previously issued as PAB No. 49 on 1 April 1955
through Hubbard Communications Office,
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11)

(Addition in this type style on next page.
Note that this also corrects Page 20 of the
‘‘Level 1 PABs” booklet.)


There is a great deal of upper-echelon theory connected with the Remedy of Havingness as a process, for here we are dealing with energy and the reasons and operations of a thetan in regard to it.

Just why a thetan should get himself so completely snarled up in energy might be an entire mystery to anyone who did not realize that a thetan has to cut down his knowingness and his total presence in order to have a game. The awareness of awareness unit builds space to cut down knowingness. Space makes it necessary, then, to look at something in order to know about it. The next thing a thetan does to cut down his knowingness is to create energy and to pass it to other thetans and to bring in the energy of other thetans so as to get a duration and a time span. If the thetan is successful and obtains a game in this wise, he continues on with this modus operandi of having a game, and when he does not have a game he simply cuts his knowingness down once more. Of course, he reaches a point eventually where he does not get a game simply by cutting down his knowingness, and eventually assumes a fairly fixed, stupid, aspect. He is below the level of having games, but because he has cut down his knowingness he does not know, now, that he is below the level of having games and thinks that all that is necessary to get another game is to further cut down his knowingness. He is by this time obsessively dramatizing the lowering of knowingness.

When one speaks of knowingness, one should realize that one is speaking of an embracive thing. Everything on the Know to Mystery Scale is simply a greater condensation or reduction of knowingness. At first one simply knows. Then he makes some space and some energy, and so now he has knowingness in terms of looking. By changing the position of the particles of energy thus created, and by exchanging particles with others, extant or self-created, the thetan cuts down his knowingness further, and gets time, and so gets emotion and sensation. When these become solid, he has effort particles and masses. Now, he could cut down his knowingness further by refusing to use emotion and effort, but by thinking about them thus introducing new VIAs into his line of knowingness. And, when he no longer knows entirely by thinking, he ceases to create knowingness and begins to eat, and from eating he drops into the ready-made sensation of sex instead of knowing what happens in the future. And from here he drops down into postulated mystery as something one cannot possibly know about. In other words, one gets a continued reduction of knowingness in order to have games. The greatest chess player in the world has no game, since he can predict that he will win and predict everything that opponents will do, so he will simply demonstrate how to play chess. Sooner or later, he will announce that he is “burned out” or has lost his knack for playing chess, and will go off into some other field where he can have a game. The field he will choose will be a less wisdom-demanding field than playing chess. A boxer, such as some of the very great ones of the past, will reduce his timing, which is to say his knowingness of arrival, to a point where he can at least put on a good exhibition, and from this they will further reduce their knowingness, and then not noticing how far they have gone, get themselves thoroughly and consistently beaten. There will be a period, however, when they are fairly evenly matched against their opponents.


To understand this with any thoroughness, one would have to recognize the intention back of all communication. Creation, Survival, and Destruction is knowingness. When somebody talks to you his intention is to continue in a parity where he can have an interchange of communication, which is to say a game. He takes knowingness from you, and gives knowingness to you, with one form of communication or another. Two soldiers fighting and shooting at each other are using a bullet to make the other man know. What is there to know in this situation? That one is dead, of course, and for the victor, that one has won.

It is dangerous, alike, to a thetan, to have too many wins or too many losses. Give him too many wins, and he will correct in the direction of reducing his knowingness as represented by his dexterity, his prediction, his activity. Give him too many losses and he will seek another game, even to the point where he will die and pick up another body. Because the decision is on the basis of knowingness, the decision is always downward. One does not decide upward toward greater knowingness, actually, unless one has the full and complete intention of winning in a new game. If one discovers that there are no wins or losses either to be found in this new game, one will reduce one’s own knowingness, even to the point of forgetting all of his knowledge concerning it, in order to ensure a game.

As there is not an infinity of games in progress, one is apt, as he comes down seventy-four trillion years of track, to play out the available games and to put them in the category of “it must not happen again.” One then becomes bored. One is only bored when there is no game possible, from his viewpoint. Actually, all he has to do is become enthusiastic about the game on his own consideration and he will begin to know more about it again.

A thetan considers that some form or mass is necessary in order to have a game. He gets into the belief that he cannot create new masses, and so he begins to hold on to old masses, and here, whether he is exteriorized or in a body, we find him holding on hard to old facsimiles, old significances, old decisions, rather than taking on new decisions.

The Remedy of Havingness directly addresses the problems of giving the thetan something “to play with.” When he discovers that he can have new masses, he will begin to let go of old masses. It is an easily observed phenomenon while having a preclear Remedy Havingness, that old engrams go into restimulation, go into restimulation and run out, that they show up in front of his face and suddenly explode or disappear. The Remedy of Havingness actively does run out engrams.

This process is used from boredom up to conservatism for its best results.

This process is done by asking the preclear to mock up something and pull it in, or mock up something and throw it away. When a thetan is exteriorized, if you want to see him get very unhappy, make him change space until he begins to lose all the energy he is holding on to, and then fail to remedy his havingness. The thetan will become convinced that he is only a thought, and is therefore, by his standards, unable to have a game. Tell him to mock up eight anchor points in the form of the corners of a cube around him and pull them in upon himself. Ask him to do it several more times, and he immediately brightens up and becomes very happy. Why is this? You have reassured him that he can have a game.

The cutting down of knowingness and the Remedy of Havingness have opposite vectors. The Remedy of Havingness will knock out old energy masses the thetan is holding on to, or that the body is holding on to, which tell the thetan he is stupid. The supplanting of these by new energy masses which do not have the postulate of cutdown knowingness in them of course makes the thetan brighter.

When you find a theory detached from a process and not demonstrating itself in a process, there must be something wrong with the theory. Similarly, if what I say here about condensed knowingness being all other things, and the cut-down of knowingness, were not demonstrated in the process of Remedy of Havingness, then we would have to get ourselves a new theory. However, this is demonstrated very definitely. Those people who cannot remedy havingness, wherever they are on the tone scale, can be

brought to a point where they will remedy havingness simply by asking them what they wouldn’t mind knowing. The consideration of what they are willing to know then begins to rise.

If you only could see a Black Five operate you would see that his barriers are all erected toward knowing something. Of course he is very afraid of being told something bad, and so doesn’t want to be told anything at all, and when the auditor gives him a command he never receives the command as given, but does something else. He has a block up against knowingness to such a degree that he will eventually permit himself to be pressed into complete inactive stupidity. What are those black screens for? Basically to keep him from knowing. Knowing what? Then one will have to look closely at the definition of a datum. A datum is an invention which has become agreed upon and so solidified. In other words, a datum is to some degree a solidity, even if it is merely a symbol. To get into this state it has to be agreed upon. When it is thoroughly agreed upon it becomes, then, a truth. It is not at all a truth. It is an invention. What made it sure or what made it real was the fact that it was agreed upon. This opens the doors further to other processes.

In order to get the preclear in good condition we would have to put him into some kind of a condition so that he could create. The first thing he is liable to be able to create in auditing is a lie. The word “lie” is simply “invention with a bad connotation.” Society gives invention that connotation because of its anxiety to have a game and to agree, and so be able to communicate with one another.

Thus society frowns upon the invention of facts, yet the preclear’s sanity and continued happiness absolutely depend upon his ability to create new facts. The technique which remedies this is included in “The Creation of Sanity,” number R2—29: “Start lying.” One can vary this auditing command with “Tell me some lies about your past,” and then keep the preclear at it long enough so that the preclear is able to come out of the complete blur which will follow on the heels of his taking over the function of and running of his memory machines. The invention of data is a step immediately toward the remedy of havingness. Simply asking the preclear what he wouldn’t mind knowing, what he wouldn’t mind having other people knowing about him will bring him into a condition where he can mock up and remedy havingness.

The Remedy of Havingness is the companion process to Spotting Spots, which will be taken up in the next PAB. The Remedy of Havingness, simply as a process by itself, if worked up to by getting the preclear willing to know things, and willing for other people to know things, and run thoroughly so that whole avalanches of masses can pour into him or pour out of him, will actually run out an entire engram bank, and thus is an extremely valuable process.

It has been reported by several auditors that exteriorization was accomplished on preclears by making them remedy havingness and do nothing else for eight or ten hours.

The auditing commands for the Remedy of Havingness are: “Mock up something,” “Pull it in,” until the preclear is doing this easily. Then, “Mock up something,” “Throw it away,” until the preclear can do this easily. The significance of the object may be added by the auditor with “Pull in an ideal body,” or some such thing, but the actual fact is that the actual significance does nothing for the preclear. It is the mass which counts. The auditor can have the preclear pull things in two at a time, six at a time. He can have the preclear mock up something, copy it a dozen times, one time after another, then pull in the whole mass, but the real reason he is doing this with the preclear should never drop from sight. The auditor is remedying havingness in order to give the preclear enough mass to permit him to discard old masses which he is holding on to and doesn’t know anything about.


LRH :sb.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1955, 1972, 1973 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



[“The Creation of Sanity” referred to above is now known as The Creation of Human Ability. This HCO B is a reissue of PAB No. 49 which can be found in context in Volume 11, page 176.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 MAY 1972

Remimeo
REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS—THE PROCESS

(Previously issued as PAB No. 50,15 April 1955)


“When in doubt, remedy havingness.”

This is a motto which can well be followed by an auditor doing any process on any preclear.

But, if there is a process which one should do with any other process, then that process should be understood thoroughly, for if done incorrectly it would be likely to produce confusion into all the other processes of Dianetics and Scientology.

Therefore, in the first place, let us examine with rigor the name of this process. It is REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS. By “remedy” one means the correction of any aberrated condition. By “havingness” one means mass or objects. The process could also be called “Remedy of Un-Havingness.” It could also be called “Remedy of Acceptingness.” It could also be called “Remedy of Rejectingness.”

To those people who are deficient in havingness, the process is liable to mean that the auditor should increase the havingness of the preclear. Such an auditor with this misunderstanding would have the preclear put up large masses and push them into his body or himself. The auditor would neglect having the preclear throw away objects and masses.

If the auditor misunderstood the process and simply assumed that it had something to do with havingness, and if his own havingness were too great, he would be likely to specialize on all preclears by having the preclear throw things away.

Actually, the auditor should have the preclear push things into himself and his body and throw things away from himself and his body until the preclear can do both with equal ease. When this has been accomplished the preclear’s havingness has been “remedied . “

What, then, does a Remedy of Havingness mean? It means the remedy of a preclear’s native ability to acquire things at will and reject them at will. Amongst the havingnesses which would require remedy would be an obsessive inflow of money, sexual objects, troubles, somatics, and difficulties in general. Whenever one of these appeared in the preclear’s environment it would have a tendency to inflow on the preclear. The reverse difficulty would be an obsessive outflow, whereby the preclear threw away or wasted anything which he had, such as money, clothes, cars, or living quarters. When the process “Remedy of Havingness” has been done thoroughly and completely, the preclear should be able to reject or accept, at his own discretion, anything in his environment as well as anything in his engram bank.

The earliest use of this process is to be found in GITA, which is to say “Give and Take Processing,” one of the early SOPs which became an SOP-8 “Expanded GITA.” In Issue 16-G of the Journal of Scientology we have a long list of key items. The preclear was asked to waste, accept, and desire these items at will. This was the Desire-Enforcement-Inhibit Scale, or the DEI Scale. This process is the immediate ancestor of the Remedy of Havingness. Indeed, one could do far worse than to take the DEI Expanded GITA list as given in Issue 16-G, and in the form of mock-ups use it as such upon the preclear, or more modernly employ it directly on the Remedy of Havingness on these objects.

If one were to employ such a list in the Remedy of Havingness, one would, of course, have to employ gradient scales. The use of the gradient scale has never been discarded, and the concept and principle of doing things by gradient scales is inherent in auditing itself, for one starts with a process which the preclear can do, and gives him some wins, and on a gradual scale gives him larger and larger wins until he is cleared. Similarly, in remedying havingness, the preclear must be started at the lowest end of the scale and advanced on up to the higher end of the scale. Quantity is one of the methods of doing this. At first one can ask a preclear to mock up one of an item and shove it into his body or throw it away, and then go, finally, when he is doing that well, to two items, three, four, five, and six, all the same, but a greater quantity of the item. An even lower gradient on this scale would be to simply get the idea that something was there, and to progress on forward with the idea into the actual mass. An expert auditor working with this from the idea on through to the object would discover that he had no preclears who could not mock up.

He would have the preclear get the idea out in front of him of a ball, and get the idea of the ball being thrown away; get the idea of a ball up in front of him and get the idea of a ball coming in; he would then, when the preclear could do this excellently well, move forward into the actual mock-up of a ball. The mock-up would get better and better as the process progressed, until at last the preclear could mock up and throw away or push into his body at will, a ball. He would be able to see this ball, even feel its texture and its weight.

Now, Exteriorization by Remedy of Havingness is a newer process than the old Remedy of Havingness. It is accomplished by having the preclear SHOVE or PUSH things into his body. One no longer has the preclear PULL things into his body. Simply by having the preclear mock up things and shove them into his body, mock up things and throw them away, mock up things and shove them into his body, mock up things and throw them away, a preclear who has already been run on the earlier steps of the six basic processes will, at this stage, exteriorize quite neatly after as little as fifteen or twenty minutes of the process. If he does not, then the earlier processes have been skimped and the preclear was really not ready for a full, forthright remedy of havingness.

Even when doing Route 1, the preclear is told to push things into himself. This will rather take his flitter away for a moment, for he is there being one viewpoint, and in order to push something into himself he has to be a second viewpoint. In view of the fact that a thetan gets in trouble by being only one viewpoint, this remedies the viewpoint scarcity of the thetan, and he pushes himself up into two viewpoints with great rapidity. Thus we are doing duplication of the thetan at the same time that we are remedying havingness, so one even has the thetan shove things into himself, rather than pull things into himself.

In short, one never has anyone pull things into his body any more. One has a person push things into his body. One has him, for instance, mock up a planet, and push it into the body; mock up a planet and throw it away; mock up a planet and push it into his body; mock up a planet and throw it away; mock up a planet and push it into his body, and then one says, “Where are you pushing it in from?” The preclear says, “Out here in front of the body.” The auditor simply goes on doing the process and very shortly the preclear will, if the earlier steps have been done well—the Six Basic Processes below Remedy of Havingness, exteriorize neatly and will be ready for Route 1.

One would omit, in such an instance, running Spotting Spots as such, for Change of Space Processing and Communication Processing have a great deal to do with spotting spots already.

If you were to do Remedy of Havingness forthrightly and all-out, and you were to accept this as the only process we had, we would work with its cousin process, R2-63 as given in The Creation of Human Ability, “Accept-Reject.” One would ask the preclear for things he could accept, one after the other, until the communication lag was flat, and then would ask the preclear for things he could reject, one after the other,

until the communication lag was flat on that. One would then move into the Expanded GITA list and would have the preclear mock up and shove into his body (if interiorized) or into himself (if exteriorized) the various items on the Expanded GITA list as given in Issue 16-G of the Journal of Scientology. This would be a long process, and not entirely successful on all counts, but would nevertheless be a very effective and efficient process from the standpoint of gains. One would certainly get the preclear over a very large number of aberrations and would do a great deal for him. However, this is not the advised way of handling this process, for the process itself is not an end-all. Aberrations can be handled much more easily by communication processing.

The exact use and commands of Remedy of Havingness in ordinary and routine auditing are simple and effective. One has been asking a preclear a great many questions which “as-ised” large masses of energy. One, in handling Change of Space or interiorization and exteriorization into objects while the preclear is exteriorized, has been “burning up” a great deal of energy. Any time the preclear begins to feel dopey or “boil off” he has either run too long on a flow in one direction, in which case reverse the flow, or he has simply reduced his havingness down to a point where he feels tired or sleepy. Without waiting for this manifestation to occur the good auditor simply in the course of Straight Wire or Description Processing, or many other processes, such as those contained in Route 1, remedies havingness. Having achieved something like a momentarily flat communication lag on a process, the auditor says to the preclear, “Mock up a mass out in front of you.” When the preclear has done this, the auditor says, “Shove it into your body.” When the preclear has done so, the auditor says, “Mock up another mass out in front of you.” And when the preclear has done so, the auditor says, “Throw it away.” That, as given, is for preclears who are interiorized. It is simply repeated over and over. The mass is not specified. It can be almost anything, and in fact it does not much matter what type of significance the mass has. Any mass is better than no mass, according to the thetan.

If the preclear is exteriorized, the auditor already starts him on the Remedy of Havingness in the Route 1 step where the preclear is asked to copy what he is looking at (R1—5). When one is doing R1—5, one must be very careful to obey the gradient scale principle behind Remedy of Havingness. One would not make the preclear make twenty copies and then push them all into himself or the body. One would make the preclear make two or three copies and push them in one at a time until the preclear could remedy his havingness with ease.

The auditor would then have the preclear “Mock up a mass and shove it into yourself,” and then “Mock up a mass and throw it away,” and do this back and forth until the preclear could do this easily and well, at which time the auditor would tell the preclear, “Mock up two masses and shove them into yourself,” and then “Mock up two masses and throw them away,” until finally the auditor has the preclear mock up eight masses as though they were the corners of a cube around the preclear and “Shove them into yourself,” and then “Mock up eight masses and throw them away.”

One must remember that in spite of the fact that he cannot duplicate mass actually as himself, having no space or mass, natively, the motto of the thetan is “anything is better than nothing.” When you tear up a lot of facsimiles for a thetan and throw them away, he becomes very unhappy unless you have him reconstruct those facsimiles or remedy the mass he has lost accordingly. When you are having a thetan go into and out of MEST universe masses, a certain amount of energy is burned up, and after the thetan has been run for a short time on this step (R1—9 in The Creation of Human Ability), you must be particularly careful to remedy his havingness with eight masses shoved into himself and eight masses thrown away several times. A thetan who has been run a great deal without Remedy of Havingness comes to what is to him a horrible thought: “I am just a concept,” and will sag in tone. He does not come to this state as long as havingness is consistently remedied.

It may be, as one looks at Scientology, that one has come to the opinion, watching Remedy of Havingness work, that all there is to anything is the Remedy of Havingness, that it is all based on the Remedy of Havingness. If one has a preclear shove enough havingness into his body he will exteriorize in most cases. If one

remedies enough havingness while the thetan is chasing around the universe, as in the Grand Tour, the thetan will discover and as-is a great many communication lines which otherwise might be very detrimental. However, it is not true that havingness is the entire key to the human mind. Havingness is the “gimmick” or “weenie” for which the game is played, and having something is very much like winning.

Above havingness there is doingness, and above doingness there is beingness, and above beingness there is communicatingness, and above communicatingness there is knowingness, and above knowingness there is postulatingness, and so we see we have a long way to go above havingness in order to get to the top activity of a thetan, which is making postulates, or unmaking them.

One could, of course, rationalize each and every action of the thetan with regard to havingness. One could even extend havingness to space, although it normally refers to objects. One could do all manner of interesting things with havingness. One could get as specific and as significant as one likes, or as un-significant as one likes, and still find Remedy of Havingness working, but we do not have here in Remedy of Havingness the total clue, the total key. But we do have a process and an item which must not be overlooked in auditing.

In the Six Basic Processes the Remedy of Havingness comes after the Opening Procedure by Duplication as a process, itself, but remember that Remedy of Havingness is done and can be done at any time during any of the processes as long as the preclear is even vaguely in communication with the auditor. It does not matter how vague the mass is that the preclear is using to remedy his havingness. Here is a place where certainty is not necessary. An unreal, vague, or flimsy mass, if this is all the preclear can get, will still remedy his havingness.

A case comes to mind out of the Advanced Clinical Course where a student was unwilling, after his second day, to continue his studies. He did not believe that he could stand the “hammer and pound,” as he put it, of the terrifically intense schedule. I took him into my office, asked him what he was doing in life, and he replied to me that he was a machinist. Also, it seemed to turn out that he had had something to do with a ship which had sunk under him, although his recollection of this was very unclear. I asked him what kind of a machine he had customarily run, and he told me. Then I had him mock up this machine, and remedy his havingness with it. Then I had him mock up the ship and remedy his havingness with that, just as given above. I did this for about fifteen minutes, and enough change occurred in his case to entirely return his confidence in his ability to stand up to the course and to audit. Yet the mock-ups he was getting were so thin that he could barely vaguely discern them at all.

Mock-ups get unreal because the thetan is not-ising existence. He is trying to destroy masses by saying that they do not exist, that they are not real. He is so bent upon this system of destruction that he is making everything unreal or black. One of the cures for this is End of Cycle Processing run in the following fashion:

One has the preclear mock himself up dead (no matter how unreal this mock-up is), then have the mock-up waste away to bone, and have the bones waste away to dust, and then have the preclear shove the dust into himself or, alternately, throw it away. One once more has the preclear mock himself up dead, have the mock-up waste away to bone, have the bones waste away to dust, and then have the preclear remedy his havingness with the dust. One continues this for two or three hours with the preclear if one really wishes the case to make a change. Where a preclear is getting no reality on mock-ups or blackness, he is most commonly stuck in that ParaScientological thing, that thing horribly abhorred by psychologists who have become Dianeticists, or by people who are just plain scared: a past death. If you wanted to convince somebody that past deaths exist, you would run End of Cycle Processing on them. This is a cousin process to the Remedy of Havingness. One could go a very long distance with this process and have the preclear mock up his mother dead, have her waste away to bones, and remedy havingness with the dust, or do this with the dust, or do this with the father or brothers, or grandparents, with a considerable change in the case.

This End of Cycle Processing, by the way, is a very fine process. It has been with us about a year and it has been successful whenever used. It has a tendency to fall into disuse because it has not until now had an exact place on the Six Basic Processes. But End of Cycle is actually an additional process to the Remedy of Havingness and is an effective way of remedying havingness. Do you remember in the old days the Dianetics “corpse case” who would lie upon the couch with his arms crossed neatly, all ready for a lily, and would always audit in this fashion? The solution to this corpse case is End of Cycle Processing, as given here. The preclear is so fixed in a death that he is trying to make everything unreal, and the only real thing, to him, would be the unreality of death.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd
Copyright ©1955, 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED










































[The above HCO B is basically a reissue of PAB No. 50 which can be found in context in Volume II, page 180.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1972

Remimeo

EXPANDED GITA

(Previously issued in the Journal of Scientology,
Issue 16-G, published by Hubbard Association of
Scientologists, Philadelphia, June 1953)


(This is an extension of Give and Take processing.) Test preclear to see if he can get a mock-up he can see, no matter how vague. Then have him WASTE, ACCEPT UNDER DURESS, DESIRE and finally Be Able to take or leave alone each of the items listed below. He does this with mock-ups or ideas. He must do the sequence of waste—etc. in the order given here for each item. He wastes it by having it at remote distances in places where it will do no good, being used or done or observed by something which cannot appreciate it. When he is able to waste it in vast quantities the auditor then has him accept it in mock-up form until he no longer is antagonistic to having to accept it even when it is unpleasant and great force is applied to make him take it. Again, with mock-ups, he must be able to bring himself to desire it even in its worst form; then, by mock-ups of it in its most desirable form he must come to be able to leave it entirely alone or take it in its worst form without caring. EXPANDED GITA remedies contra-survival abundance and scarcity. It will be found that before one can accept a very scarce (to him) thing, he has to give it away. A person with a milk allergy must be able to give away, in mock-up, enormous quantities of milk, wasting it, before he can accept any himself. The items in this list are compounded of several years of isolating what factors were more important to minds than others. The list lacks very few of the very important items, if any. Additions to or subtractions from this list should not be attempted. Viewpoint, Work and Pain should be heavily and often stressed and given priority.

Waste, Have Forced Upon, Desire, Be Able to Give or Take, in that order, each of the following: (Order of items here is random.) Viewpoint, Work, Pain, Beauty, Motion, Engrams, Ugliness, Logic, Pictures, Confinement, Money, Parents, Blackness, Police, Light, Explosions, Bodies, Degradation, Male Bodies, Female Bodies, Babies, Children Male, Children Female, Strange and Peculiar Bodies, Dead Bodies, Affinity (Love), Agreement, Beautiful Bodies, People, Attention, Admiration, Force, Energy, Lightning, Unconsciousness, Problems, Antagonism, Reverence, Fear, Objects, Time, Eating Human Bodies, Sound, Grief, Beautiful Sadness, Hidden Influences, Hidden Communications, Doubts, Faces, Dimension Points, Anger, Apathy, Ideas, Enthusiasm, Disagreement, Hate, Sex, Reward, Eating Parents, Eaten by Mother, Eaten by Father, Eating Men, Eaten by Men, Eating Women, Eaten by Women, Start, Broken Communications, Written Communications, Stillness, Exhaustion, Women Stopping Motion, Men Stopping Motion, Changing Motion Women, Changing Motion Men, Changing Motion Babies, Changing Motion Children, Starting Motion Men, Starting Motion Women, Starting Motion Children, Starting Motion Objects, Starting Motion Self, Omens, Wickedness, Forgiveness, Play, Games, Sound, Machinery, Touch, Traffic, Stolen Goods, Stolen Pictures, Homes, Blasphemy, Caves, Medicine, Glass, Mirrors, Pride, Musical Instruments, Dirty Words, Space, Wild Animals, Pets, Birds, Air, Water, Food, Milk, Garbage, Gases, Excreta, Rooms, Beds, Punishment, Boredom, Confusion, Soldiers, Executioners, Doctors, Judges, Psychiatrists, Alcoholic Liquor, Drugs, Masturbation, Rewards, Heat, Cold, Forbidden Things, God, The Devil, Spirits, Bacteria, Glory, Dependence, Responsibility, Wrongness, Rightness, Insanity, Sanity, Faith, Christ, Death, Rank, Poverty, Maps, Irresponsibility, Greetings, Farewells, Credit, Loneliness, Jewels, Teeth, Genitalia, Complications, Help, Pretense, Truth, Lies, Assurance, Contempt, Predictability, Unpredictability, Vacuums, White Clouds, Black Clouds, Unattainables, Hidden Things, Worry, Revenge, Textbooks, Kisses, The Past, The Future, The
Present, Arms, Stomachs, Bowels, Mouths, Cigarettes, Smoke, Urine, Vomit, Convulsions, Saliva, Flowers, Semen, Blackboards, Fireworks, Toys, Vehicles, Dolls, Audiences, Doors, Walls, Weapons, Blood, Ambitions, Illusions, Betrayal, Ridicule, Hope, Happiness, Mothers, Fathers, Grandparents, Suns, Planets, Moons, Sensation, Looking, Incidents, Waiting, Silence, Talking, Knowing, Not Knowing, Doubts, Fac One, Remembering, Forgetting, Auditing, Minds, Fame, Power, Accidents, Illnesses, Approval, Tiredness, Faces, Acting, Drama, Costumes, Sleep, Holding Things Apart, Holding Things Together, Destroying Things, Sending Things Away, Making Things Go Fast, Making Things Appear, Making Things Vanish, Convictions, Stability, Changing People, Silent Men, Silent Women, Silent Children, Symbols of Weakness, Symbols of Force, Disabilities, Education, Languages, Bestiality, Homosexuality, Invisible Bodies, Invisible Acts, Invisible Scenes, Accepting Things Back, Games, Rules, Players, Restimulation, Sexual Restimulation, Space Reduction, Size Reduction, Entertainment, Cheerfulness, Freedom for Others to Talk, Act, Feel Pain, Be Sad, Thetans, Personalities, Cruelty, Organizations. TRY FIRST: Healthy Bodies, Strong Bodies, Good Perception, Good Recall.

WARNING: Should your preclear become unstable or upset doing this process take him to STEP VI. Then return to this list.

COMMENT: The mind is sufficiently complicated that it can be expected to have computations on almost all the above. Thus there is no single clearing button and search for it is at the dictate of a circuit, the mechanism of circuits being to search for something hidden. Thus, your preclear may begin to compute and philosophize and seek to find the “button” that will release all this. All this releases all the buttons so tell him to relax and go on with the process every time he starts to compute.

NOTE: Running the above will bring to the surface without further attention the “computation on the case” and the service facsimile. Do not audit these. Run EXPANDED GITA.

STEP V — PRESENT TIME DIFFERENTIATION. EXTERIORIZATION BY SCENERY. Have preclear, with his body’s eyes, study and see the difference between similar real objects such as the two legs of a chair, the spaces between the back, two cigarettes, two trees, two girls. He must see and study the objects. It is not enough to remember the objects. The definition of a CASE V is “no mock-ups, only blackness.” Have him continue this process until he is alert. Use liberally and often.

Then exteriorize by having the preclear close his eyes and move actual places on Earth under him, preferably places he has not been. Have him bring these up to him. Find two similar things in the scene and observe the difference between them. Move him over oceans and cities until he is certain that he is exteriorized.

Then, preferably while exteriorized, have him do STEP I.

This case has to know before he can be. His viewpoint is in the past. Give him present time viewpoints until he is a STEP I by the methods given for STEP V.

(COMMENT: PRESENT TIME DIFFERENTIATION is a very good general technique and resolves chronic somatics and improves tone.)

Assume other people’s viewpoints as a drill—not what they think about things, but as they look at things in the material universe. Attempt to be in the location of a leaf, blade of grass, car headlamp, etc., and view the universe.

STEP VI—A-R-C STRAIGHT WIRE using next-to-last list of Self Analysis in Scientology which asks preclear to recall something really real to him, etc. Then use the lists in Self Analysis. This level is the neurotic. It is identified by the preclear having mockups which will not persist or which won’t go away. Use also PRESENT TIME DIFFERENTIATION. Then go to STEP IV. At any drop in tone, return case to STEP VI.

STEP VII—PSYCHOTIC CASES. (Whether in or out of body.) The psychotic appears to be in such desperate straits that the auditor often errs in thinking desperate measures are necessary. Use the lightest possible methods. Give case space and freedom where possible. Have psychotic imitate (not mock up) various things. Have him do PRESENT TIME DIFFERENTIATION. Get him to tell the difference between things by actual touch. Have him locate, differentiate and touch things that are really real to him (real objects or items). If inaccessible, mimic him with own body, whatever he does, until he comes into communication. Have him locate corners of the room and hold them without thinking. As soon as his communication is up go to STEP VI, but be very sure he changes any mock-up around until he knows it is a mock-up, that it exists, and that he himself made it. Do not run engrams. He is psychotic because viewpoints in present time are so scarce that he has gone into the past for viewpoints which at least he knew existed. By PRESENT TIME DIFFERENTIATION, by tactile on objects, restore his idea of an abundance of viewpoint in present time. If he has been given electric shock, do not process it or any other brutality. Work him for very brief periods, for his attention span is short. Always work psychotics with another auditor or a companion present.

NOTE: All steps for all cases. If in doubt as to condition of case, test with STEP Vl.

NOTE: An operating thetan must also be able to manufacture particles of admiration and force in abundance.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: sb.rd
Copyright ©1953, 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




























[The above HCO B is taken from Journal of Scientology, Issue 16-G, June 1953, Standard Operating Procedure 8, which can be found in context in Volume I, page 390.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MAY 1972

Remimeo

THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVINGNESS

(Previously issued as PAB No. 72, 21 February 1956)



A careful study of staff auditors’ reports reveals that the only advances worthy of the name of Scientology occur when the auditor repairs or remedies havingness on the preclear. Without the repair and remedy of havingness no real gains become apparent. A preclear will not progress when his havingness is impaired.

What are the symptoms of loss of havingness? Running any as-ising techniques the preclear may become anaten, slightly nervous, agitated, want a cigarette, or seem to break out of the session in some fashion. In either case, he is “down on havingness.” In other words he has burned up, used up, or as-ised, too much of his physical body energy in the auditing itself. In view of the fact that every subjective technique puts a sort of hole in the middle of the electronic mass surrounding a preclear, parts of that mass then begin to cave in on the preclear. Thus running an as-ising technique on a preclear beyond the ability of the preclear to sustain the consequent loss of havingness will bring on in the preclear many new engrams which he did not have before. A technique which as-ises energy, if used without a repair or remedy of havingness, will bring about a worsening of the case of a preclear.

Now exactly what is happening is very simple. A preclear starts to go anaten and the auditor keeps on running the process. He hasn’t realized that he ought to interrupt a process at any time if the preclear demonstrates a loss of havingness. Anaten is such a demonstration of loss of havingness. All right, another example: the preclear becomes agitated or upset; he reaches for a cigarette; he begins to twitch; his foot begins to wobble; he begins to talk excitedly; he begins to cough while being audited. All of these things demonstrate a loss of havingness. These same conditions, by the way, can result from the preclear believing that the auditor has broken the Auditor’s Code in some fashion or has overcome his power of choice. Both a repair and remedy of havingness are immediately indicated on the observation of anaten or agitation on the part of the preclear. In addition the auditor should carefully go over the session itself to find out, if anywhere, the preclear believed his power of choice was being overcome, or if the preclear believed the Auditor’s Code had been broken. You understand that the auditor didn’t necessarily have to overcome the preclear’s power of choice or break the Auditor’s Code in order that the preclear should believe that this has happened. However, this could be overlooked entirely if the auditor had been careful enough to repair or remedy the havingness of the preclear.

The slightest drop of alertness on the part of the preclear, or the slightest agitation or somatic, should immediately indicate to the auditor that havingness has dropped and must be immediately repaired or remedied. A great deal of time can be spent on the subject of repair and remedy of havingness, and it is time spent with great benefit. It is better to “waste” time spent repairing and remedying havingness than to blunder on through. Now there is another thing I have noticed with regard to this. Auditors are running these days toward cognition. Very well, if they expect a preclear to cognite they should not expect him to pull in a bank upon himself. If an auditor runs a very obvious process which should bring the preclear toward cognition, runs it several auditing commands and then stops and repairs and remedies the preclear’s havingness, and then after that asks him the same auditing question two more times, he will discover that he has blown a cognition into view. In other words you could remedy the havingness of a preclear while his mind was on one particular subject and bring a cognition into existence.

This becomes particularly important today, since a few months ago I discovered that you could remedy the havingness of anybody, and I mean just that!! You can remedy anybody’s havingness and you can turn on mock-ups on anybody. The fact that the preclear who has a black field can be caused to mock up blacknesses or invisibilities and shove them into his body brings us into an era of being able to make anybody turn on mock-ups. Getting the preclear to postulate that the mocked up blackness is bad for the body will cause that blackness to snap into the body. By getting the preclear to postulate that the invisible mass he has mocked up is bad for the body it will snap into the body. Of course, after this has been done a few times, the consideration of the preclear will change. Then perhaps the blackness or invisibility will only snap in when the preclear postulates that it is good for the body. He may also have a residue left. It is very important to get rid of these repair and remedy of havingness residues. By various postulates such as that the residue is a threat to the body, it is good for the body, it is bad for the body, the residue too will snap in.

Let’s differentiate at once here the difference between a repair of havingness and a remedy of havingness. We used to call repair of havingness “giving him some havingness.” It needs a better technical term. Therefore let us call this “Repair of Havingness.” It means having the preclear mock up anything he can mock up, and in any way it can be done get him to shove (never pull) that mock-up into the body, and by similar means to get rid of the residue which went along with the mock-up. That is a repair of havingness. It is a one-way flow; it is an inflow.

Now a remedy of havingness is getting him to mock up and shove into the body enough masses to bring him to a point where he can eventually throw one away. In other words repair of havingness is simply having him mock up things and having him shove them into the body, and a remedy of havingness is having him mock up and shove in and throw away the same type of mock-up. Remedy of havingness is always a superior operation to a repair of havingness. Repair of havingness is a very crude stop-gap, but can be used any time. However, a preclear who is working well, and on whom havingness can be remedied, should, at all times, have his havingness remedied, not repaired. In other words any type of mock-up should be both shoved into the body and mocked up and thrown away. This should be done in considerable quantity until the preclear is quite relaxed about that particular type of mock-up. One does this, remember, every time the attention of the preclear drops, or he becomes agitated.

There is one other little point connected with this which is quite important, and that is, auditors very often audit a preclear into an area of time when the preclear exteriorized. This, on a preclear who does not exteriorize easily, brings on a considerable grief and sadness. The way to get rid of this is, of course, to remedy the preclear’s havingness or only repair it, and to ask the preclear to recall times when he was not exteriorized. This will bring up at once times when he did exteriorize and where fear of exteriorization was built up considerably.

I have noticed another special condition regarding this exteriorization phenomena which is quite important. A preclear will occasionally repair and remedy havingness up to a point where the body disappears for him. He doesn’t quite know where to put the mass he has mocked up since he cannot find the body. This is particularly true of preclears who have a very low threshold on havingness. An auditor would be stupid indeed to simply plow along beyond that point where the preclear has already said that he couldn’t find any body to push any havingness into. The moment the preclear does that the auditor should suspect that the preclear has gotten into an exteriorization type incident. It is not, however, necessary that he immediately flounder around and try to find this incident as recommended in the paragraphs just above. He can also repair and remedy havingness in this fashion, and it is very important to know this. Although it is disastrous for a preclear to be asked “What could your body have?” since he will simply strip the bank of various old facsimiles, it is a very, very good repair of havingness to ask a preclear “What is there around this room (area) which your body could have?” and then have him pick out specific objects in the environment which he says the body could have. If he does this he will come up the gradient scale of havingness, and his havingness will be repaired immediately or directly on the Sixth Dynamic. With a preclear who cannot get mock-ups and where the auditor has either
been too clumsy to get the preclear’s mock-ups turned on or it really was impossible, more or less, the preclear’s havingness can be repaired by having him do this process. So this is a very, very important process, and one that ought to go down in red letters.

This whole subject of repair and remedy of havingness and its effect upon auditing, and the fact that it has not been stressed at all in training, being up there at Level Six in the old Basic Processes, brings us to SLP Issue 8. The entirety of Level One in SLP 8 will be devoted to the repair and remedy of havingness.

In SLP Issue 7 we have a great many phenomena associated with the remedy of the body’s havingness. The reason for their position is to bring about an adjustment of the condition of the body before one goes on to other and more complicated ways of processing. Now, in Issue 8, all of these various things will be retained, but they will be paralleled with a complete remedy of havingness and that particular level of SLP will be gone over. In actual experience it is better to remedy the havingness of a preclear, no matter where he is on the tone scale, and no matter by what process, than to run any significant process. Further, if a preclear cannot at least repair his havingness, to run Waterloo Station is to invite disaster, because in this particular process of Level 2 he is liable to get himself into a “down havingness” situation and of course will not be able to not-know anything. He may be chewing up too much energy while trying to not-know. Thus we would have the failures which have occasionally occurred in Waterloo Station. They were simply havingness failures, not a failure of Waterloo Station. Further there has been a new command suggested for Waterloo Station: “What would you be willing to not-know about that person?” This seems to be a better command, at least for the British Isles.

We also take care of the vacuums and separatenesses and everything else with repair or remedy of havingness and running it in with certain other things, such as problems, etc. When we discover by two-way communication a weak universe, we could then ask the individual preclear, “Invent a problem that person (weak universe) could be to you.” Then, watching him very carefully, and repairing his havingness on the subject of that person’s possessions, get a very rapid separation of universes. I have noticed that the weak universe came about when the person elected by the preclear to be a weak universe first began to put mest anchor points around the preclear. In other words, valuable presents.

I am as pleased as can be to get a finger on this point and I know well that if East, West, North and South would begin to repair and remedy havingness and stop specializing in significances without repair or remedy of havingness, we are going to start shooting people up to the top of these Scientometric graphs. We can’t help it.

Let me call your attention specifically to the old phenomena of the emotional scale and the engram. We found out that when one engram was keyed in, it fixed the emotional tone of the individual. Then we had him run this and as he converted the engram to usable havingness, we found that his tone rose. We discover on these Scientometric charts that the “unhappy” section does not move if we don’t change the mass of the preclear.

SACRIFICES

The latest news from the research front has to do with the fact that the GE demands and requires and has to have, evidently, sacrifices. The GE does not run on an overt act-motivator sequence, which makes one suspect he is not a thetan. A GE runs exclusively on being sacrificed to. If you have the preclear mock up sacrifices to the GE, you will find these become very readily assimilated.

On a lower level the body accepts motivators; as soon as it is through this motivator band, it accepts sacrifices and finally comes up to a point where it will accept live bodies. When one considers that eating is entirely a matter of absorbing death, one sees this death hunger in processing by running Sacrifices. A person who has had bad legs should have a sacrifice of legs run on him and so forth. This is astonishing material. It is almost unbelievable that the GE will not be sacrificed to anything, but will
only be sacrificed to, and this phenomenon that the GE is thereby demanding death tells us at once that the atomic bomb will be used and that there are people in the world who will actually crave this sacrifice of cities and even nations.

Aside from being a fantastically workable process, more of which anon, this matter of sacrifices tells us at once a great deal about the future. There will be no moral restraint where the atomic bomb is concerned. For about the highest level in some areas of the world, as to case, is “operating GE.” This tells us, too, why soldiers will go to war. This explains a great deal of conduct.

The GE evidently operates on the postulate that as long as anything else is alive it can’t live. However, it is becoming more and more doubtful that there is any more life in the body than the thetan puts there, and that the body is a single machine operating on some implanted postulates contained in the energy masses which are activated by the thetan somewhat on the order of the old “pole” theta trap. Many of these considerations can be changed around rather easily. Nothing changes them quite so fast as these sacrifice processes.

In mocking up sacrifices the auditor should use all the skills of creative processing and ensure that the preclear is actually mocking up and is not dragging in old facsimiles from the bank and restimulating genetic line incidents. This can be obviated by having the persons in the mock-ups dressed in modern clothing; mocking up the incident as happening tomorrow; altering the mock-up in some manner, such as turning the face green or something of this nature. Any reasonable way in which you can ensure that you are dealing with mock-ups and not past track facsimiles.

This gives auditors another tool with which to handle chronic somatics.

There is another process which has a great deal of workability with chronic somatics. I know that some months ago and earlier than that it seemed rather fatal to us to continue to fixate the preclear’s attention on the chronic somatic. But that is not a problem with us right now. It ceased to be a problem the moment I invented an auditing command exactly as follows: “Invent a problem that (leg, arm, nose, eye, body) could be to you. “ Running this command, which is in itself a sort of remedy of havingness, and repairing and remedying the havingness of the preclear as we go, we will discover that practically any and all phenomena associated with the service facsimile will come away and clear up, and the limb, nose or eye will get well. This can be used as a word of warning: ONLY ON ACTUAL TERMINALS. Never use this command, and I mean NEVER, on actual conditions. Never ask him to invent problems lameness could be to him. Never ask him what problem blindness could be to him. Lameness and blindness are conditions. We want to know what problems legs or eyes can be to him, since legs and eyes are terminals. In running this command we reduce havingness too rapidly whenever we are stressing conditions. Therefore we run it only on terminals. In running it use only terminals. Handled in this way we do have the answer as of this moment, to chronic somatics. With these processes in SLP and the adequate repair and remedy of havingness we can push our preclears right up through the top.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:sb.rd
Copyright ©1956, 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





[The above HCO B is a reissue of PAB No. 72, 21 February 1956, which can be found in context in Volume II, page 371.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MAY 1972

Remimeo
ROBOTISM

(Reference HCOB 28 Nov 1970, C/S Series 22,
“Psychosis” . )


A technical advance has been made in relation to the inactivity, slowness or incompetence of human beings.

This discovery proceeds from a two and a half year intense study of aberration as it affects the ability to function as a group member.

The ideal group member is capable of working causatively in full cooperation with his fellows in the achievement of group goals and the realization of his own happiness.

The primary human failing is an inability to function as himself or contribute to group achievements.

Wars, political upsets, organizational duress, growing crime rates, increasingly heavy “justice”, growing demands for excessive welfare, economic failure and other age long and repeating conditions find a common denominator in the inability of human beings to coordinate.

The current political answer, in vogue in this century and growing, is totalitarianism where the state orders the whole life of the individual. The production figures of such states are very low and their crimes against the individual are numerous.

A discovery therefore of what this factor is, that makes the humanoid the victim of oppression, would be a valuable one.

The opening lines of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health comment on Man’s lack of an answer for himself.

The group needs such an answer in order to survive and for its individual members to be happy.

SCALE



NEEDING ORDERS

The exact mechanism of needing orders is to be found as an outgrowth of the mental condition outlined in HCOB 28 Nov 1970, “Psychosis”.

The individual with an evil purpose has to withhold himself because he may do destructive things.

When he fails to withhold himself he commits overt acts on his fellows or other dynamics and occasionally loses control and does so.

This of course makes him quite inactive.

To overcome this he refuses any responsibility for his own actions.

Any motion he makes must be on the responsibility of others.

He operates then only when given orders.

Thus he must have orders to operate.

Therefore one could term such a person a robot. And the malady could be called robotism.

PERCEPTION

Studies of perception undertaken since HCOB 28 Nov 70 reveal that sight, hearing and other channels of awareness decrease in proportion to the number of overt acts—and therefore withholds—which the person has committed on the whole track.

By relieving these sight has been remarkably brightened.

Therefore a person who is withholding himself from committing overt acts because of his own undesired purposes has very poor perception.

He does not see the environment around him.

Thus, combined with his unwillingness to act on his own initiative, there is a blindness to the environment.

OVERT PRODUCTS
(see P/L 14 Nov 70, Org Series 14)

Since he does not act upon orders he is taking responsibility for, he executes orders without fully understanding them.

Further he executes them in an environment he does not see.

Thus when forced to produce he will produce overt products. These are called so because they are not in actual fact useful products but something no one wants and are overt acts in themselves—such as inedible biscuits or a “repair” that is just further breakage.

SLOWNESS

The person is slow because he is moving on other-determinism, is carefully withholding himself and cannot see anyway.

Thus he feels lost, confused or unsafe and cannot move positively.

Because he produces overt products he gets slapped around or goes unthanked and so begins a decline.

He cannot move swiftly and if he does has accidents. So he teaches himself to be careful and cautious.

JUSTICE

Group justice is of some use but all it really does is make the person withhold himself even harder and while a necessary restraint, nevertheless does not itself bring a lasting improvement.

Threats and “heads on a pike” (meaning examples of discipline) do however jar the person into giving his attention and channeling his actions into a more desirable path from the group viewpoint.

Justice is necessary in a society of such people but it is not a remedy for improvement.

MALICE

Despite the viciousness of the truly insane, there is little or no real malice in the robot.

The truly insane cannot control or withhold their evil purposes and dramatize them at least covertly.

The insane are not always visible. But they are visible enough. And they are malicious.

The robot on the other hand does control his evil impulses to a great extent.

He is not malicious.

His danger mainly stems from the incompetent things he does, the time of others he consumes, the waste of time and material and the brakes he puts on the general group endeavor.

He does not do all these things intentionally. He does not really know he is doing them.

He looks in wounded surprise at the wrath he generates when he breaks things, wrecks programs and gets in the way. He does not know he is doing these things. For he cannot see that he is. He may go along for some time doing (slowly wasteful) well and then carelessly smashes the exact thing that wrecks the whole activity.

People suppose he cunningly intended to do so. He seldom does.

He winds up even more convinced he can’t be trusted and that he should withhold harder!

FALSE REPORTS

The robot gives many false reports. Unable to see, how can he know what is true?

He seeks to fend off wrath and attract good will by “PR” (public relations boasts) without realizing he is giving false reports.

MORALE

The robot goes into morale declines easily. Since production is the basis of morale, and since he does not really produce much, left to his own devices, his morale sags heavily.

PHYSICAL INERTIA

The body is a physical object. It is not the being himself.

As a body has mass it tends to remain motionless unless moved and tends to keep going in a certain direction unless steered.

As he is not really running his body, the robot has to be moved when not moving or diverted if moving on a wrong course.

Thus anyone with one or more of such beings around him tends to get exhausted with shoving them into motion or halting them when they go wrong.

Exhaustion only occurs when one does not understand the robot.

It is the exasperation that exhausts one.

With understanding one is not exasperated because he can handle the situation. But only if he knows what it is.

PTS

Potential Trouble Sources are not necessarily robots.

A PTS person generally is withholding himself from a Suppressive Person or group or thing.

Toward that SP person or group or thing he is a robot! He takes orders from them if only in opposites.

His overts on the SP person make him blind and non-self-determined.

BASIC WHY

The basic reason behind persons who cannot function, are slow or inactive or incompetent and who do not produce is

WITHHOLDING SELF FROM DOING DESTRUCTIVE THINGS, AND THUS UNWILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND THEREFORE NEEDING ORDERS.

The exact wording of this WHY must be done by the individual himself after examining and grasping this principle.

If one writes this principle down on the top of a sheet and then asks the person to word it exactly as it applies to himself one will attain the individual why for inaction and incompetence. It will produce GIs and F/N at the Examiner.

PROCESSING

Physical work in the physical universe, general confronting, reach and withdraw; and Objective Processes go far in remedying this condition.

Touch assists regularly and correctly given to proper End Phenomena will handle illnesses of such persons.

Word Clearing is vital tech to open the person’s comm lines, wipe out earlier misunderstoods and increase his understanding.

PTS tech will handle the person’s robotism toward SP individuals, groups or things. To this and the PTS Rundown can be added the WHY above as it relates to the things or beings found as suppressive as a last step.

The why above can be used in Danger Formula work such as HCO P/L 9 April 72, Correct Danger Formula, and HCO P/L 3 May 72, “Ethics and Executives”. Other individual whys can exist in these instances.

EXPANDED DIANETICS

The miracle of well done perfectly executed Expanded Dianetics eradicates both insanity and robotism. Drug handling and other actions may be necessary.

END PRODUCT

The end product when one has fully handled robotism is not a person who cannot follow orders or who operates solely on his own.

Totalitarian states fear any relief of the condition as they foolishly actively promote and hope for such beings. But this is only a deficiency in their own causes and their lack of experience with fully self-determined beings. Yet education, advertising and amusements have been designed only for robots. Even religions existed to suppress “Man’s Evil Nature”.

Lacking any examples or understanding many have feared to free the robot to his own control and think even with horror on it.

But you see, beings are NOT basically robots. They are miserable when they are.

Basically they prosper only when they are self-determined and can be pandetermined to help in the prosperity of all.


LRH:sb.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JUNE 1971 REVISED
Remimeo Issue II
Tech & Qual (Revised 9 Aug 71 )
(Revised 11 May 72)
Auditors Word Clearing Series 8RB
Word Clearers (Cancels HCOB 30 June 71 Issue II,
Only 8R and 8RR)


STANDARD C/S FOR WORD CLEARING IN SESSION
METHOD 1

0. Clear the words in the Word Clearing Correction List so as to have it ready for use in case of bog.

1. Fly a rud if no F/N. If TA High or Low do not try to fly an ARC Brk. Do a C/S 53RRR instead. (See Auditor’s Rights C/S Series I if any trouble with this pc. If errors in previous word clear sessions use HCOB 21 July 1971 REVISED to handle word clearing corrections needed.)

2. Do not clear these words before assessment

ASSESS.

R Factor: We are going to go over a list of subjects to see if there is any word you didn’t understand while studying these subjects. (Assess the whole list rapidly and clearly, good TR1 and noting every read from the meter.)

Religion ____________ The Mind ____________
Ministers ____________ The Spirit ____________
Church ____________ Bodies ____________
College ____________ Sex ____________
Schools ____________ The Insane ____________
Sacrifices ____________ Psychiatry ____________
Surgery ____________ Psychoanalysis ____________
Medicine ____________ Psychology ____________
Electronics ____________ Rituals ____________
Physics ____________ Rites ____________
Technical Subjects ____________ Ships ____________
Dianetics ____________ The Sea ____________
Scientology ____________ Military ____________
Theology ____________ Armies ____________
Theosophy ____________ Navies ____________
Philosophy ____________ Stars ____________
Law ____________ Heavenly Bodies ____________
Organization ____________ The Universe ____________
Government ____________ Planes ____________
Written Materials ____________ Vehicles ____________
Text Books ____________ Machinery ____________
Practice ____________ Motors ____________
Science ____________ Administration ____________
Music ____________ Healing ____________
Arithmetic ____________ Illnesses ____________
Grammar ____________ Spoken Words ____________
The Humanities ____________ TAPES ____________

Add items dealing with this specific Pc’s life. ____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________


3. Ask the Question, “Is there any word on this list you didn’t understand?” Clear it. Then do Step 5 on it before going on. (Do not reassess this list because there was a list word not understood.)

4. Take the remaining reading items from the best read on down and with E/S pull each one to F/N. Get each word you find to F/N. There can be many F/Ns per subject End off with a win on the subject.

5. “In the subject of what word has been misunderstood?”

He MUST look them up, so have a good dictionary handy. Do not accept “I know the meaning” if the subject or word reads. CLEAR ‘‘GRAMMAR’’ or grammatical words out of a simple book of grammar, not a dictionary.

It isn’t an earlier time he misunderstood that word. It’s an earlier word in that subject and it can be an earlier subject.

Considerations about it and other questions are not touched.

Overts, W/Hs, etc are neglected. They are not done on the subject of the word. They are done in the session ruds.

Just do the process and it will eventually F/N on each chain.

6. When all reads on the first assessment are handled to F/N, REASSESS the whole list. Do not take off the list items already handled.

7. Repeat Step 4.

8. Repeat Step 5.

9. Repeat Step 6, etc.

10. IN CASE OF ANY BOG OR SOMATIC USE THE WORD CLEARING CORRECTION LIST TO CORRECT THE BOG.

11. A persistent F/N should be attained on assessing the whole list as the End Phenomena of the Word Clearing sessions.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.bh
Copyright ©1971, 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 MARCH 1972
REVISED
(Revised 30 May 72)
Remimeo
Study Series 5R


THE PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN
REVISED

Reference: LRH ED 174 INT Study and Tech Breakthrough
LRH ED 178 INT Super-Literacy
of 30 May 72
HCO B 4 Apr 72 The Primary Rundown
Revised 30 May 72
HCO B 25 Oct 71 The Special Drug Rundown
HCO B 20 Apr 72 C/S Series 78
(Repairing Whys)
HCO PL 3 May 72 Ethics & Executives
HCO PL 5 Apr 72 PTS Type A Handling
HCO B 4 Feb 72 Study Correction List
HCO B 21 Jun 72 Method 7
Issue III
HCO B 21 Jun 72 Method 8
Issue IV


WHAT IT IS

The Primary Correction Rundown is a rundown given

(a) To a person who fails the Primary Rundown because of High or Low TA or Study Troubles.

(b) To every Course Supervisor regardless of his TA.

(c) To persons whose literacy level is not adequate to do the Primary Rundown.

(d) To persons on drugs or who have been on drugs.

(e) To auditors who go too often to Cramming.

(f) Auditors whose auditing errors show up later on pcs.

(g) Staff members who are not able to maintain stats.

(h) Staff members who get into Ethics trouble.

(i) Students with low study stats.

(j) Blown students.

(k) Members of the public who wish to purchase a “Study Rundown” but who are not going to be auditors and who are not on major Courses (HSDC, Academy Class IV, or above).

The Rundown consists of Ethics orientation on the first dynamic, Potential Trouble Source from connections with hostile elements, drug handling, case handling, the why of not using Study Tech or study, the Study Correction List and handling, Method 7, a review of Grammar, and then back to a Primary RD consisting of Method I Word Clearing, Method 8 on Study Tapes and Student Hat.

The Primary Correction Rundown is actually a checklist where each one of these is done.

This checklist is kept in his pc folder on the inside of the left front cover and marked off.

______________________________ _____________________
Student’s Name Date Begun

_____________________
Org

1. C/S 53RC (HCO B 31 Dec 71 Revised to 16 May 72). Assess and Handle fully. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

2. HCO PL 3 May 72 with 2 lists Listing & Nulling on steps 3 and 4 of the PL. By an auditor. May require the repair of past Whys found by C/S 78. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

3. PTS Check by Auditor. Is he connected to anyone hostile to Dianetics or Scientology? Handle by PL 5 Apr 72. (It isn’t necessary he leave to handle. A letter will do.) More extensive action can be done later when he gets a full PTS RD. Such persons can also be run as a Problem. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

4. Drug Handling. HCO B 25 Oct 71, The Special Drug Rundown. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

5. Case Handling. Pgm by C/S to cover obvious outnesses, GF Method 5, GF 40XR and other actions needful. (If chronically ill or has a psychotic history should be run on Expanded Dianetics if available, if not by objective processes and Dianetics.) (Can also be run on Triple or Expanded Grades.) DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

6. The Why of not Studying if never studied before in an org or not using Study Tech. Done as a BD F/N Item. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

7. The Study Correction List HCO B 4 Feb 72. Assess Method 5 with good TRs, good Impingement, good metering. Handle in full. If PTS shows up again do full PTS RD. Handle to a full F/Ning list on final assessment. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

8. Method 7 HCO B 21 June 72 Issue III. Done by a Word Clearer. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

9. Review of Grammar by a Word Clearer M4 with student studying between checks by himself and reporting daily. Use a simple grammar such as that developed for foreign language students. Do not use an American dictionary and an English Grammar or vice versa, either both American or both English. Must check out clean on Method 4 and know about grammar. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

10. Method 1 Word Clearing HCO B 30 June 71 Revised to 11 May 72, Word Clearing Series 8RB. A11 the misunderstood background words of all words on the list must be cleared. The list must F/N. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

11. Method 8, HCO B 21 June 72 Issue IV, Study Tapes. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

12. Method 8, Student Hat. DECLARED AT EXAMINER.

WITH A FINAL CHECKOUT AT EXAMINER THE PERSON MAY BE DECLARED SUPER-LITERATE.

This is the whole of the Primary Correction Rundown.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 APRIL 1972
REVISED 30 MAY 1972
Remimeo
Tech Div

PRIMARY RUNDOWN
(REVISED)

References: LRH ED 178 INT SUPER-LITERACY
LRH ED 174 INT HIGHEST PRIORITY
STUDY AND TECH BREAKTHROUGH
HCO B 30 Mar 72 THE PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN
Revised 30 May 72 REVISED
HCOB 3() Jun 71 Word Clearing Series 8RB
Revised Issue II STANDARD C/S FOR WORD CLEARING
Revised 9 Aug 71 IN SESSION METHOD 1
Revised 11 May 72
HCO B 21 July 71 Word Clearing Series 35
Revised WORD CLEARING CORRECTION LIST
Revised 9 Aug 71 REVISED
Revised 31 Mar 72
HCO B 21 Jun 72 Word Clearing Series 41
Issue IV METHOD 8
HCO B 16 Apr 72 HANDLING OF NO INTERFERENCE AREA
Issue II PERSONS ORDERED TO A PRIMARY
[now canceled] CORRECTION RUNDOWN AND DELIVERY
OF TECH DIV PRIMARY RUNDOWN
HCO B 25 Oct 71 THE SPECIAL DRUG RUNDOWN
Issue II [now BTB]
HCO PL 19 Mar 72 Word Clearing Series 34
Issue III HIGH CRIME POLICY AND WORD CLEARING
HCO B 3 Apr 72 Study Series 6
PRIMARY RUNDOWN NOTE


To know about the importance of the Primary Rundown read LRH ED 178 Int.

The Primary Rundown consists of word clearing and Study Tech. It makes a student SUPER-LITERATE.

The Primary Rundown is given in the TECH DIVISION (Div IV, Dept 11).

(The TECH DIV may also give that portion of the Primary Correction Rundown which calls for Method 1 and Method 8 of the Primary Correction Rundown which is described in HCO B 30 March 72 Revised 30 May 72.)

SIMPLICITY

The Primary Rundown is very simple in its steps. Do NOT add things onto it. Do not do something else.

HONESTY

The keynote of the Rundown is Honesty. The whole rundown can be wasted and the student fail and the End Phenomena missed if the student goes dishonest or he is just pushed for student points by the Supervisor.

If done dishonestly the whole future study career of the student will be not only more difficult but may fail entirely.

Honesty means don’t skip, don’t brush it off, don’t say it was done when it wasn’t.

Later checks of auditing or administrative failures contain checks of the Primary Rundown errors and honesty. The whole rundown would have to be done again.

STEPS

1. Verify if student’s Tone Arm on a meter is usually between position 2 and 3. If so he may proceed. If not he at once is sent to the Primary Correction Rundown as his case needs repair or handling before he can do the Rundown as mental mass will get in his way and he may get upset. This step is checked by the Supervisor.

(The Primary Correction Rundown is covered by HCO B 30 March 72 REVISED 30 May 72. It consists of auditing and study correction actions.)

2. If the Tone Arm is usually between 2 and 3 on the meter dial the person is made into a Word Clear using Method 1 Word Clearing. (HCO B 30 June 71 Revised Issue II, Revised 9 Aug 71, Revised 11 May 72, WORD CLEARING SERIES 8RB.) This is done in the HGC or Dept 13 of Qual or may be done in a student Co-Audit. Failure to do this step or do it well will make Study Tech difficult. A good job on this Method One will give back a person’s education and send his Intelligence Quotient up. It is not a quickie action. The person doing Word Clearing Method 1 on a person is doing an auditing action. It has to be done well to achieve the final result of becoming a Word Clear.

If any errors are made or the person does not F/N at the Examiner (where he goes after each session for a meter check), HCO B 21 July 71 Revised (Revised 9 Aug 71, 31 Mar 72), WORD CLEARING SERIES 35, the Word Clearing Correction List, is used. It can be used as often as there are upsets.

This step should be done before the next step is begun as it makes the next step so much easier.

HCO P/L 19 Mar 72 Issue III, Word Clearing Series 34, HIGH CRIME POLICY, also applies.

3. If in doing Method 1 the person was found to be very deficient in Grammar and vocabulary, even though Method One was finished but took a very long time or couldn’t be finished due to case, the person is sent to Dept 13 for the Primary Correction Rundown.

4. If the person did all right on Method 1, he is now put on Study Tapes. This is NOT just listening to Study Tapes, heaven forbid. This is HCO B 21 June 72 Issue IV, Word Clearing Series 41, METHOD 8.

This is a long and careful cycle.

It is completed in full.

It consists of looking up every new word on the tape in a grammar or large dictionary and then listening to the tape.

The full directions are given in HCO B 21 June 72 Issue IV, Word Clearing Series 41, Method 8.

5. The Student Hat is now done Method 8.

This completes the Primary Rundown.

If correctly done, the person will achieve the condition of Super-Literacy. This is fully described in LRH ED 178 International of 30 May 72.


COURSE SUPERVISOR

It is up to the Course Supervisor to hold this line in. His students will not prosper if their study is begun without a Primary Rundown.

It is a high crime to omit this vital step.
NO INTERFERENCE ZONE

Persons who are on Solo Auditing between R6EW and OT III may not be put on a Primary Rundown or a Primary Correction Rundown. See HCO B 16 Apr 72 Issue II.

They may not be given Method 1 Word Clearing. They may only be Method 4ed on Solo Instruction Materials.

BUT THEY MAY NOT BE DEBARRED FROM STUDY.

To all but those in the No Interference Area THE PRIMARY RUNDOWN IS THE REQUIRED FIRST STEP TO ALL STUDY.

When on or after OT III, such persons must now do the Primary Rundown before any continuance of study. It now becomes Mandatory.


CORRECTION RD

The Primary Correction Rundown takes care of people who have trouble on the Primary Rundown.

But do not lightly order the person to the Primary Correction RD. If they can get through the Primary Rundown with a bit of Supervisor time, let them go on through.

But if they are nattery or upset or desperate even when given help, it is the Primary Correction Rundown which will handle.

Do not just get rid of a Class to Qual.

DRUGS

Students who are or have been on Drugs need a Drug Rundown before tackling Method 1. Drugs fog up a student and prevent gains. And he loses the gains he gets.

The answer is a full Drug Rundown. (See HCO B 25 Oct 71, “The Special Drug Rundown”.) This will end off the drugs and let him live way above any plane he thought drugs put him on.

We handle drug cases so easily it is foolish not to take this obvious step. The reason he went on drugs or alcohol also comes off.

Then he can study and retain what he learns.


OPEN DOOR

The Primary Rundown is the open door to brilliance.

Super-Literacy is a new state for Man, existing in the past only in a few, accidentally, who became the geniuses and great names of the race.



L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1968 REVISED

(Amends HCO Bulletin of 9 January 1968 List L4A)
(ITEM 6 CORRECTED 12 FEBRUARY 1969)

Remimeo
(Amended 8 August 1970)
(Amended 18 March 1971 )
(Revised 2 June 72)


L4BR
FOR ASSESSMENT OF ALL LISTING ERRORS


ASSESS THE WHOLE LIST (METHOD 5) THEN TAKE Biggest reads or BDs and handle. Then clean up the list.


PC’S NAME DATE________________

AUDITOR _______________________________________


1. DID YOU FAIL TO ANSWER THE LISTING QUESTION?
(If it reads, find out what question, clear the question noting whether it reads, if so, list it, find the item and give it to the pc.)
2. WAS THE LIST UNNECESSARY?
(If it reads, indicate BPC and indicate that it was an unnecessary action.)
2A. DID THE QUESTION HAVE NO CHARGE ON IT?
(Indicate.)
2B. WERE YOU ASHAMED TO CAUSE AN UPSET?
(L 1 C after list corrected. )
2C. WERE YOU AMAZED TO REACT THAT WAY?
(Same as 2B. )
2D. THE QUESTION HAD ALREADY BEEN LISTED BEFORE.
(Indicate rehab.)
2E. YOU HAD NO INTEREST IN THE QUESTION?
(Indicate that the auditor missed that it didn’t read.)
3. WAS THE ACTION DONE UNDER PROTEST?
(If it reads, handle by itsa earlier similar itsa.)
4. IS A LIST INCOMPLETE?
(If reads, find out what list and complete it, give the pc his item.)
5. HAS A LIST BEEN LISTED TOO LONG?
(If so, find what list and get the item off from it by nulling with suppress, the nulling question being: “On ____has anything been suppressed?”, for each item on the overlong list. Give the pc his item.)
6. HAVE WE TAKEN THE WRONG ITEM OFF A LIST?
(If this reads, put in Suppress and Invalidated on the list and null as in 5. above and find the right item and give to the pc.)
7. HAS A RIGHT ITEM BEEN DENIED YOU?
(If this reads, find out what it was and clean it up with Suppress and Invalidate and give it to the pc.)

8. HAS AN ITEM BEEN PUSHED OFF ON YOU YOU DIDN’T WANT?
(If so, find it and get in Suppress and Invalidate on it and tell pc it wasn’t his item and continue the original action to find the correct item.)
9. HAD AN ITEM NOT BEEN GIVEN YOU?
(If reads, handle as in 7.)
10. HAVE YOU INVALIDATED A CORRECT ITEM FOUND?
(If so, rehab the item and find out why the pc invalidated it or if somebody else did it, clean it up and give it to pc again.)
11. HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF ITEMS THAT YOU DID NOT PUT ON THE LIST?
(If so, add them to the correct list. Renull the whole list and give the pc the item. )
12. HAVE YOU BEEN LISTING TO YOURSELF OUT OF SESSION?
(If so, find out what question and try to write a list from recall and get an item and give it to the pc.)
13. HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN SOMEBODY ELSE’S ITEM?
(If so, indicate to the pc this was not his item. Don’t TRY to find whose it was. )
14. HAS YOUR ITEM BEEN GIVEN TO SOMEONE ELSE?
(If so, find if possible what item it was and give it to the pc. Don’t try to identify the “somebody else”.)
14A. WERE EARLIER LISTING ERRORS RESTIMULATED?
(Indicate and correct earlier lists then check the current)
14B. HAD THIS LIST ALREADY BEEN HANDLED?
(Indicate. )
15. HAS A RELEASE POINT BEEN BY-PASSED ON LISTING?
(If so, indicate the overrun to the pc, rehab back.)
16. HAS A RELEASE POINT BEEN BY-PASSED ON THE QUESTION ONLY?
(If so, indicate the overrun to the pc and rehab back.)
17. HAVE YOU GONE EXTERIOR WHILE LISTING?
(If so, rehab. If Ext Rundown not given, note for C/S.)
18. HAS IT BEEN AN OVERT TO PUT AN ITEM ON A LIST?
(If so, find out what item and why.)
19. HAVE YOU WITHHELD AN ITEM FROM A LIST?
(If so, get it and add it to the list if that list available. If not put item in the report. )
20. HAS A WITHHOLD BEEN MISSED?
(If so, get it, if discreditable ask “Who nearly found out?”)
21. HAS AN ITEM BEEN BY-PASSED?
(Locate which one.)
22. WAS A LISTING QUESTION MEANINGLESS?
(If so, find out which one and indicate to the pc.)
23. HAS AN ITEM BEEN ABANDONED?
(If so, locate it and get it back for the pc and give it to him.)
24. HAS AN ITEM BEEN PROTESTED?
(If so, locate it and get the protest button in on it.)
25. HAS AN ITEM BEEN ASSERTED?
(If so, locate it and get in the assert button on it.)
26. HAS AN ITEM BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU BY ANOTHER?
(If so, get it named and the protest and refusal off.)
27. HAS AN ITEM BEEN VOLUNTEERED BY YOU AND NOT ACCEPTED?
(If so, get off the charge and give it to the pc, or if he then changes his mind on it, go on with the listing operation.)
28. HAS THE ITEM ALREADY BEEN GIVEN?
(If so, get it back and give it again.)

29. HAS AN ITEM BEEN FOUND PREVIOUSLY?
(If so, find what it was again and give it to pc once more.)
30. HAS AN ITEM NOT BEEN UNDERSTOOD?
(If so, work it over with buttons until pc understands it or accepts or rejects it and go on with listing.)
30A. WAS THE LISTING QUESTION NOT UNDERSTOOD?
(Get defined and check for read. It may be unreading. If so, indicate that an uncharged question was listed because it read on a misunderstood.)
30B. WAS A WORD IN THE QUESTION NOT UNDERSTOOD?
(Same as 30A.)
31. WAS AN ITEM DIFFERENT WHEN SAID BY THE AUDITOR?
(If so, find out what the item was and give it to the pc correctly.)
31A. DID THE AUDITOR SUGGEST ITEMS TO YOU THAT WERE NOT YOURS?
(Indicate as illegal to do so. Correct the list removing these.)
32. WAS NULLING CARRIED ON PAST THE FOUND ITEM?
(If so, go back to it and get in Suppress and Protest.)
33. HAS AN ITEM BEEN FORCED ON YOU?
(If so, get off the reject and suppress and get the listing action completed to the right item if possible.)
34. HAS AN ITEM BEEN EVALUATED?
(If so, get off the disagreement and protest.)
35. HAD EARLIER LISTING BEEN RESTIMULATED?
(If so, locate when and indicate the by-passed charge.)
36. HAS AN EARLIER WRONG ITEM BEEN RESTIMULATED?
(If so, find when and indicate the by-passed charge.)
37. HAS AN EARLIER ARC BREAK BEEN RESTIMULATED?
(If so, locate and indicate the fact by itsa earlier similar itsa.)
38. DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK BECAUSE OF BEING MADE TO DO THIS?
(If so, indicate it to the pc, check the question if reads. Get earlier similar itsa.)
39. HAS THE LIST CORRECTION BEEN OVERRUN?
(If so, rehab.)
39A. WAS THE LIST DONE WHILE YOU ALREADY HAD AN ARC BRK, PTP, OR W/H?
39B. COULDN’T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS BEING DONE?
39C. COULDN’T YOU UNDERSTAND THE AUDITOR?
39D. DIDN’T THE AUDITOR ACKNOWLEDGE YOU?
40. IS THERE SOME OTHER KIND OF BY-PASSED CHARGE?
(If so, find what and indicate it to pc.)
41. WAS THERE NOTHING WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE?
(If so, indicate it to pc.)
42. HAS THE UPSET BEEN HANDLED?
(If so, indicate it to the pc.)
43. HAS A LIST PROCESS BEEN OVERRUN?
(If so, find which one and rehab.)

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:ldm.rw.dz.rr.nt.bh
Copyright ©1968, 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JUNE 1972R
REVISED 15 OCTOBER 1974
Remimeo
Class IV
(Cancels BTB 24 March 1973R,
“PTS RD Errors”.)


PTS RUNDOWN, FINAL STEP



The following is an additional step to the PTS Rundown developed by me and tested at Flag. This step is run after each terminal is run, to prevent by-passing charge.

THE STEPS ARE:

1. Select the terminal already run in R3 R and Ruds.

2. Clear “can’t have”, “couldn’t have” as DENIAL OF SOMETHING TO SOMEONE ELSE. Clear “enforced have” as MAKING SOMEONE ACCEPT WHAT THEY DIDN’T WANT. Have pc get the idea of these with an example or two.

3. Run on the SP items “can’t have/enforced have” as motivator repetitive, then overt repetitive, the flow three terminal to others, others to terminal (four flows of two commands each).

4. After EACH item is handled with the four flows, Objective Havingness should be run. Then the next PTS RD item is taken up, run R3R and Ruds then can’t have/enforced have.

THE COMMANDS:

FLOW ONE: 1. What can’t have did (terminal) run on you?
2. What did (terminal) force on you you didn’t want?

FLOW TWO: 1. What can’t have did you run on (terminal)?
2. What did you try to force on (terminal) that he (she, it) didn’t want?

FLOW 1. What can’t have did (terminal) run on others?
THREE: 2. What did (terminal) force on others they didn’t want?

FLOW 1. What can’t have did others run on (terminal)?
THREE (A): 2. What did others try to force on (terminal) that he (she, it) didn’t
want?

—OBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS—

THEORY

The theory is that SPs are SPs because they deny Hav and enforce unwanted Hav. They also deny do and enforce unwanted do. They also deny be and enforce unwanted be. This is why we have never before been able to run subjective Hav. It collided with SPs, Overts, and Withholds on them.

A very full Rundown then would be to start with don’t be, must be; go on to don’t do, must do; end up with can’t have, enforced have. (Not to be run at this time.) Hav alone should handle without resorting to be or do.

END OFF AT ONCE AND BEGIN OBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS IF THE TA SOARS OR THE PC CAVES IN. If this does not handle, then do a C/S 53RH at once and handle.

PTS RD NOTES

With the issue of HCO B 17 Mar 74, “TWC, Using Wrong Questions”, it becomes necessary to convert the PTS RD 2wcs for items into L&N questions. Example: Who have you known this lifetime who has troubled or worried you? L&N to BD F/N item.

Avoid listing the same question twice. The L&N for places and planets should be restricted to planets only on VA pcs and an L4BR used at the first sign of trouble.

Additional PTS RD items can be obtained from past PTS Interviews. Done by L&N the RD is very powerful and direct The pc must be well set up for it


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt jh
Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JUNE 1972

Remimeo


Word Clearing Series 36



GRAMMAR


In all word clearing all Grammatical Words and small words SHOULD BE LOOKED UP IN A SIMPLE GRAMMAR TEXTBOOK.

Very few dictionaries have full definitions for such words AND THEY HAVE NO EXAMPLES.

Words like “a” “the” “and” are really parts of language construction and are more complex than they at first appear.

A Word Clearing Auditor should have a simple grammar book to hand as well as dictionaries.

The best Grammar textbooks are those compiled for persons foreign to a language, like immigrants. These do not contain the supposition that the student is already an English professor.

Lots of EXAMPLES is the real test of a good grammar.

When doing the Study Tapes or Student Hat lack of a simple grammar textbook can really throw the student off. .

Those “simple” words can be the huge rocks that stand on the highway to becoming a WORD CLEAR.

So a Grammar is needed.

If a student is VERY deficient (lacking) in grammar it is best to make him do a whole simple grammar text first before he begins to get into just words. The words won’t hang together for him.

It takes less time to do a short textbook in Grammar than it does to struggle with grammar all the way through.

Grammar can look like a ghastly subject until one really looks at it. Then it’s easy.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder





LRH: nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1972
Issue I
REISSUED 21 SEPTEMBER 1974
(Only change is signature)
Remimeo


BYPASSED CHARGE


The mechanism of BPC (By-Passed Charge) must be known to an auditor otherwise he won’t know what he’s “Indicating”.

When one gets a lock, a lower earlier incident restimulates, THAT IS BPC. It isn’t the auditor by-passing it. One handled later charge that restimmed earlier charge. THAT IS BPC (Tech of ‘62), and that is all that the term means.





Auditor touches on A, and B goes into restim out of pc’s consciousness. This causes an irritated, ARC Breaky, upset feeling. The pc reacts very badly. He has been hit by a mystery. There is no apparent reason (to him) why he feels this way. This is what Bypassed Charge means. “Earlier Charge Restimmed and not seen” would be another name for it.

One handles it by noting the fact that it happened. One tells the pc an earlier incident went into restimulation. This usually cools it off.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 JUNE 1972
Remimeo
Data Series 26

Establishment Officer Series 18


LENGTH OF TIME TO EVALUATE


It will be found that long times required to do an Evaluation can be traced each time to AN INDIVIDUAL WHY FOR EACH EVALUATOR.

These, however, can be summarized into the following classes of Whys:

This list is assessed by a Scientology Auditor on a Meter. The handling directions given in each case are designations for auditing actions as done by a Scientology Auditor and are given in the symbols he would use.

1. Misunderstood Words. ________

Handled with Word Clearing (Method 1 and Method 4 of
the Word Clearing Series.)

2. Inability to Study and an inability to learn the materials. ________

(Handled by a Study Correction List HCO B 4 Feb 72.)

3. Outpoints in own thinking. ________

(Handled by what is called an HC [Hubbard Consultant]
List HCO B 28 August 70.)

4. Personal out-Ethics. ________

(Use P/L 3 May 72 by an auditor. Has two Listing and
Nulling type lists.)

5. Doing something else. ________

(2-way communication on P/L 3 May 72 or reorganization.)

6. Impatient or bored with reading. ________

(Achieve Super-Literacy. LRH Executive Directive 178
International. )

7. Doesn’t know how to read statistics so doesn’t know where
to begin. ________

(Learn to read stats from Management by Stat P/Ls.)

8. Doesn’t know the scene. ________

(Achieve familiarity by direct observation.)

9. Reads on and on as doesn’t know how to handle and is stalling. ________

(Get drilled on actual handling and become Super-Literate.)

10. Afraid to take responsibility for the consequences if wrong. ________

(HCO B 10 May 72, “Robotism”. Apply it.)

11. Falsely reporting. ________

(Pull all withholds and harmful acts on the subject.)

12. Assumes the Why before starting. ________

(Level IV Service Facsimile Triple Auditing.)

13. Feels stupid about it. ________

(Get IQ raised by general processing.)

14. Has other intentions. ________

(Audit on L9S or Expanded Dianetics.)

15. Has other reasons not covered in above. ________

(Listing and Nulling to Blowdown F/N Item on the list.)

16. Has withholds about it. ________

(Get them off.)

17. Has had wrong reasons found. ________

(C/S Series 78.)

18. Not interested in success. ________

(P/L 3 May 72 and follow as in 14 above.)

19. Some other reason. ________

(Find it by 2-way comm.)

20. No trouble in the first place. ________

(Indicate it to person.)


When this list is assessed one can easily spot Why the person is having trouble with the Data Series or applying it. When these reasons are handled, one can then get the series restudied and word cleared and restudied and it will be found that Evaluations are much easier to do and much more rapidly done.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: ne.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JUNE 1972
Remimeo
Cramming
IMPORTANT

C/S Series 80


“DOG PCs”


AN AUDITOR WHO CANNOT AUDIT, WHOSE TRs ARE OUT, WHOSE METERING IS BAD AND WHO NEVER KEEPS THE CODE ALWAYS SAYS HIS PCs ARE DOGS.

When you find an auditor on this route, the remedy is:

1. Show him this HCO B and explain to him that an auditor is not likely to get any real results when he is so out of ARC with pcs.

2. P/L 3 May 72, 2 lists L & N by an auditor.

3. Get off his overts and omissions on pcs and pull his w/hs.

4. Check out his meter position so that he can see needle, paper and pc all in the same look without eye shift and drill him to do so.

5. Educate his left thumb so that he corrects a TA on BDs and catches the F/N and doesn’t leave the needle stuck to the right of the dial while the pc F/Ns and corrects only after the F/N has been O/R.

6. Make him do an Electronic attest and get his TRs up to where the pc has a chance to be in session.

7. WC M4 him on his materials so he isn’t swimming in misunderstoods.

8. Tell him there are no dog pcs now and get busy and help them out.

WHOLE HGC

An entire HGC can go bad this way. Shortly afterwards it will disintegrate and you will have few or no auditors left.

Some auditor who is covering up his overts, false bonuses or false stats begins it and it becomes “fashionable” to call various pcs dogs. Then other auditors, finding this an easy way to justify not trying hard, follow suit.

Next thing you have no HGC.

C/S ERROR

A C/S can err by being too critical of auditors. Or worse he can err by agreeing about what dogs the pcs are. If he does HE HAS NOT REALIZED THAT HIS C/S EFFORTS ARE BEING WASTED BY THE AUDITOR’S OVERTS, FALSE REPORTS, METERING, CODE AND TR FLUBS.

The way to handle this in the C/S is:

1. 3 May 72 P/L.

2. M4 on the C/S Series.

3. Require he listen to and okay ok to audit tapes.

4. Get him to come down on critical auditors with the above cramming action.

Suddenly this C/S will begin to get wins.

CASES

Every “dog pc” investigated traced to incompetent programming, C/Sing, out TRs, bad metering, Code breaks and bad lists.

By forcing an auditor to cool off his opinions and properly handle the pc, each one of these “dog pcs” has begun to fly.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH: ne.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 JUNE 1972R
REVISED 27 FEBRUARY 1975
Remimeo

C/S Series 81R

(Revisions in this type style on next page
to make D of P and D of Ts stats very clear)



AUDITOR’S RIGHTS MODIFIED


It occasionally (rarely) happens that an HGC’s line stops and programs do not get finished and pcs go unaudited or sent to Ethics or Cramming instead of getting their programs completed.

It also happens that a D of P becomes incapable of getting auditors to audit per the schedule he writes.

121/2 hour intensives drop out. Auditing falls back to the bit and piece game.

The C/S finds all his work in programming wasted as the programs stale date or just get abandoned.

Hours fall. Lines tangle. Tech Services cannot get assignments done.

THE MAJOR WHY OF THIS AND MANY SUCH CONFUSIONS CAN BE TRACED TO AN ABUSE OF “AUDITORS’ RIGHTS” IN PICKING AND CHOOSING PCS ON THE GROUNDS OF “FEELING THEY CANNOT HELP THE PC”.

This “right” is also abused by auditors seeking pcs who F/N easily at the Examiner.

See HCO B 15 June 72, C/S Series 80, “Dog Pcs”.

The refusal to audit is in fact an admission, in most cases, of a feared inability to audit.

Therefore, an auditor may only refuse to audit a pc if a direct personal relationship exists such as husband and wife or some friend’s wife or familial relationship.

An auditor advising others about this or that “dog case” or seeking to exclude pcs from auditing by abusing his “right to choose pcs” is SUBJECT TO COMM EV AND SUSPENSION OF CERTIFICATES UNTIL RETREADED.

For the real why of it is his inability to handle TRs, meter, use the Code or apply Tech.

Nearly every “Dog Pc” has out lists or incomplete chains or is not being run on what needs to be handled. In other words they are simply problems in repair which modern tech handles easily. The drug case who is audited on grades but has had no drug rundown is an example of misprogramming.

The C/S can get many loses and the whole HGC go into a bedlam where you have auditors refusing to audit. Their reasons given are false. The real reasons involve fast F/Ns and bonuses or out TRs, metering, Code breaks and tech.

The D of P has a right, and so does Tech Services, to assign pcs to such and such auditors in the sequence listed without a lot of pick and choose by the auditors.

A C/S has a right to get his programs completed.

121/2 hour intensive plans blow up where auditors choose their own pcs.

STATS

The stats of C/Ses and auditors may only be HOURS AUDITED with FES and admin hours separately noted.

The D of P’s stat may only be fully completed cases.

When the stats are this way the C/S can get his programs done without worry.

The D of P can get cases completed.

The D of Tech Services has only completed cases and course completions-for a stat.

HONESTY

Sanity is truth.

Truth is sanity.

The road to truth is begun with honesty.

There was the story of the “man who sold his soul for a mess of pottage” (soup). We could parallel this with the Auditor who sold his case gain for a mess of false stats.

An honest clean job and an honest clean line are the milestones of the road to truth.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH:sb.nt.rd
Copyright © 1972, 1975
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED













[This HCO B is added to by BTB 28 December 1972RA, Revised and Reissued 25 July 1974, C/S Series 81-1RA, Auditor’s Rights Addition Revised, which can be found in the C/S Series Volume, page 227.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JUNE 1972
Remimeo

Word Clearing Series 37


DINKY DICTIONARIES

(Dinky: Small, insignificant.)


In learning the meaning of words small dictionaries are very often a greater liability than they are a help.

The meanings they give are often circular: Like “CAT: An Animal.” “ANIMAL: A Cat.” They do not give enough meaning to escape the circle.

The meanings given are often inadequate to get a real concept of the word.

The words are too few and even common words are often missing.

HUGE dictionaries can also be confusing as the words they use to define are often too big or too rare and make one chase through 20 new words to get the meaning of the original.

The best dictionaries are the very large child’s dictionaries like THE WORLD BOOK DICTIONARY (A Thomdike-Bamhart Dictionary published exclusively for Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60654 or Doubleday and Company. Thomdike-Barnhart has a whole series of dictionaries of which this is a special one. Field Enterprises has offices in Chicago, London, Rome, Sydney, Toronto. The World Book Dictionary is in two volumes, each 281/2 cm [11 1/4 inches] by 22 cm [8 5/8 inches] by 5.8 cm [21/4 inches], so it is no small dictionary!) (Also it defines Dianetics correctly and isn’t determined on a course of propaganda to re-educate the public unlike Merriam Webster’s dictionaries.)

Little pocket book dictionaries may have their uses for traveling and reading newspapers, but they do get people in trouble. I have seen people find a word in them and then look around in total confusion. For the dinky dictionary did not give the full meaning or the second meaning they really needed.

So the dinky dictionary may fit in your pocket but not in your mind.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder










LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JUNE 1972
Issue I
Remimeo

Word Clearing Series 38


METHOD 5


Method 5 Word Clearing is a System wherein the word clearer feeds words to the person and has him define each. It is called Material Clearing. Those the person cannot define must be looked up.

This method may be done without a meter. It can also be done with a meter.

The reason the Method is needed is because the person often does not know that he does not know. Therefore Method 4 has its limitations as the meter does not always read.

The actions are very precise.

The word clearer asks “What is the definition of_____?” The person gives it. If there is any doubt whatever of it, or if the person is the least bit hesitant, the word is looked up in a proper dictionary.

This method is the method used to clear words or auditing commands or auditing lists.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH: nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JUNE 1972
Issue II
Remimeo
Word Clearing Series 39

METHOD 6

Method 6 Word Clearing is called KEY WORD CLEARING.

It is used on posts and specific subjects.

It is a heavier form than Method 5.

Method 6 is used without a meter.

Where a person is new on post or new to a subject or where there has just been a goof, an error or an Ethics action, these steps are done in the following manner.

1. The Word Clearer makes a list of the KEY (or most important) words relating to the person’s duties or post or the new subject.

This is made up as a list. The Word Clearer looks up each word in the dictionary and writes down the definitions.

The list may have as few as three words or as many as twenty or thirty.

(Example: A bank clerk’s key words would be “bank” “clerk” “money” “cash” “drafts” “teller” “accounts” “customer” etc.)

(Example: There has just been a goof resulting in an upset. The goof centered around “radio” “repairs” “operation” “operator” “electronics” etc.)

2. The Word Clearer, without showing the person the definitions, asks him to define each word.

3. The Word Clearer checks the definition on his list for general correctness— not word for word but meaning.

4. Any slow or hesitancy or misdefinition is met with having the person look the word up and look up any word in the definition the person does not have a grasp of.

5. One completes his list.

6. By then the person has been jarred into looking further by the above actions. The Word Clearer asks “What other word relating to your post (or subject or error) didn’t you understand?”

7. Each one mentioned is now defined by looking it up.

8. The person can now be Method 4ed relating to his post to be sure all is clean and there are no upsets.

Note: Where the person has just had an accident or ethics action it may be necessary to delay the action until the person is calmer or not so upset as the action can be a heavy distraction if the person is hurt or frightened and will not be successful.

IT WILL BE FOUND THAT LAZINESS, INACTIVITY, SLOWNESS AND ERRORS ON A POST OR IN USING A SUBJECT TRACE TO MISUNDERSTOOD KEY WORDS.

THE REMEDY IS WC METHOD 6.

LRH: nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JUNE 1972
Issue III
Remimeo
Word Clearing Series 40

METHOD 7

Whenever one is working with children or foreign language persons or semiliterates Method 7 READING ALOUD is used.

In this method the person is made to read aloud to find out what he is doing.

It is a very simple method. It is done without a meter.

It is used on such persons before other methods in order to get the person untangled.

If a person does not seem to be progressing by studying silently, one has him read aloud.

Another copy of the same text must also be followed by the Word Clearer as the person reads.

Startling things can be observed.

The person may omit the word “is” whenever it occurs. The person doesn’t read it. He may have some strange meaning for it like “Israel” (actual occurrence).

He may omit “didn’t” each time it occurs and the reason traced to not knowing what the apostrophe is (actual occurrence).

He may call one word quite another word such as “stop” for “happen” or “green” for “mean”.

He may hesitate over certain words.

The procedure is

1. Have him read aloud.

2. Note each omission or word change or hesitation or frown as he reads and take it up at once.

3. Correct it by looking it up for him or explaining it to him.

4. Have him go on reading, noting the next omission, word change or hesitation or frown.

5. Repeat steps 2 to 4.

By doing this a person can be brought up to literacy.

His next actions would be learning how to use a dictionary and look up words.

Then a simple grammar.

A very backward student can be boosted up to literacy by this method.


LRH: nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JUNE 1972
Issue IV

Remimeo

Word Clearing Series 41



METHOD 8


(If a student has trouble with this Method he should do Method 7 first. Method One should also be done.)

Method 8 is an action used in the “Primary Rundown” where one is studying Study Tech or where one is seeking a full grasp of a subject. Its End Product is SUPER-LITERACY.

The steps are these:

Usually an alphabetical list of every word or term in the text of a paper, a chapter or a recorded tape is available or provided.

1. The person looks up each word on the alphabetical list and uses each in sentences until he has the meaning conceptually.

The words are looked up in a big dictionary.

The grammatical words or small words are looked up in a simple grammar. If the person has too much trouble with grammar he should do the whole simple grammar text before going on.

Any technical terms not in the dictionary are looked up in a technical dictionary or glossary or in bulletins on the materials, i.e. a photographic dictionary.

This is not done for the whole subject, it is done for a paper or a chapter or one tape of a series.

2. One then reads or listens to the paper, chapter or tape for its sense or general meaning.

3. Method 4 is then done on the person to find any misunderstoods.

4. These are cleared up per Method 4 procedure.

5. The person reads or listens to the material again.

6. The person is again checked for any misunderstoods.

7. If there are any misunderstoods the person again does steps 4 & 5.

8. When the material is fully heard or understood as per above steps and checks, end off on that paper, chapter, tape and go on to the next one.

9. An alphabetical list is made or exists for the next paper, chapter or tape. Steps l to 8 are done on it.

10. Each succeeding paper or chapter or tape is done with steps 1 to 8.

When all the material has been done in this way, the person will be fully able to apply all the material.

Usually Method 8 is reserved for the Scientology Study Tapes which contain how to study and the Student Hat.

It can also be used to master a major subject.

IT WILL BE FOUND THAT METHOD 8 (or Method 2 or 3 or 4 or 6) ARE VERY LENGTHY AND HARD TO DO UNLESS ONE HAS FIRST HAD A METHOD ONE WORD CLEARING.

A Word Clearing Correction List is used on Method 8 whenever a student bogs heavily. This list will, when assessed on a meter properly, locate the errors and they can be corrected.

When used on the Study Tech itself and Student Hat, Method 8 HONESTLY DONE makes a person SUPER-LITERATE. It is like hearing and seeing and reading for the first time!

Reading a text or instruction or book is comfortable. One has it in conceptual form. One can APPLY the material learned.

It is a new state.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JULY 1972
Issue I
Remimeo


PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN HANDLING

(Refers to HCO B 30 March 72, Revised 30 May 72,
“Primary Correction Rundown”)



Students who struggle with the Primary Rundown (HCO B 4 Apr 72, Revised 30 May 72) are given the PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN.

Steps 1 to 9 of the PCRD (per HCO B 30 March 72, Revised 30 May 72) are paid for by the pc quite in addition to his Primary Rundown.

IF available auditors exist on Course of a proper class and the pc is a student then these steps I to 9 PCRD may be done on a co-audit basis. BUT IF NOT WELL DONE OR MESSED UP OR DELAYED MUST BE DONE BY A PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR AT THE STUDENT’S OWN EXPENSE.

A STAFF MEMBER stalled on the Primary Rundown is put through the PCRD in Qual or Qual and HGC for different steps.

Qualifications is the Correction Division. PCRD is a Correction action. There should be word clearers in Qual. And these as Class IIIs should be competent to do steps I to 9 of the PCRD.

The object of a PCRD is not to stall the person and keep him off the PRD.

The purpose of the PCRD is to get the person through the PRD.

Where people have been put off the PRD for any reason and are not industriously going through the PCRD IT IS UP TO QUAL TO MAKE SURE THEY DO GET THROUGH PCRD AND PRD.

Orgs that off load pcs or students on the thinnest excuses or Qual Divisions that will not service and speed the lines have to be watched as the discovery of trouble on the PRD can be used to simply halt the student or pc. Instead of picking up the ball, a Qual has been known to just send students back to class without handling or put students to “doing their hats” or other nonsense.

The idea is to complete somebody on what they are supposed to complete.


FOLDER STUDY

If you study the person’s folder, particularly a staff member’s, you will probably find that several of the steps 1 to 9 have already been done.

These are checked off as done on the PCRD checklist.

Any org that is worthy of the name has folder summaries in the inside left-hand cover of the current folder. It is very easy to locate what have been done.



OUT LISTS

It is not at all rare to find that various “whys have been found” but that the person is not doing well. This is a case of WRONG ITEMS and is handled by C/S Series 78. Thus steps I, 2, 3 and 6 of the PCRD may consist mainly of correcting botched up lists.

IDLE STUDENT

The problem of putting someone off the PRD onto the PCRD is that he is now “idle as a student”. He cannot go forward on his studies as he has not done his PRD.

In fact going on studying without the PRD is a waste of time as it’s mainly misunderstood, glib and won’t be applied. It is actually faster to do a PRD (or a PCRD) and then study than it is to study without the PRD or PCRD. And it is certainly far more effective.

The thing to do is to get the student who is assigned to the PCRD through the PCRD.

As noted above he may have several points already done. And the rest can be done easily and fast.

RESISTIVE STUDENTS

There are situations where you have students or even executives who will not even go to study.

These are of course people who need the PCRD worst.

But how to get them available even for that?

In the case of a senior executive who will not study you can get a disarrangement of the study lines as they won’t push and will even impede study—for instance by not making staff go to study time or preventing them from going. Also policy and HCO Bs fall out or are not enforced and form of org is not held since reading and study are similar actions so standard actions are not known.

Naturally such a thing has to be handled very fast.

Because cooperation from such a student is VERY limited, time to do a whole PCRD is not possible.

PRE-PCRD

There is a PRE-PCRD action that handles this.

It has 2 steps.

A. Assess Method 5 C/S 53RC. Take the LFBD item and INDICATE it to the person. Don’t handle it or the rest of 53RC. Just Indicate it to the pc. He will usually agree and cognite. The TA will come down further and the needle will float. That’s it.

B. Now take the Study Correction List. Assess it Method 5. Pick out the biggest LFBD you got. Indicate it to the pc. He will cognite, the TA will drop down and an F/N will occur. That’s it.

C. Put these 2 sheets in his pc folder for full handling of all reads by his auditor and add them to the pc’s auditing program sheet inside the left front cover of the pc’s folder.


The result will often be magical. The person will become more agreeable about study or the Primary Correction Rundown.

Of course they should now get a Primary Correction Rundown of which C/S 53RC is the first step anyway.

This Pre-PCRD gets them started. And it only takes a little while.

The End Phenomena of a Primary Correction Rundown is “Can he now quickly and easily do the Primary Rundown?” If yes, and if it works out in practice that he can, that’s it. Let him onto the Primary RD. But if he bogs, back to the PCRD.


MORAL

The moral of this HCO B is get them through the Primary Rundown. If they can’t or don’t go, do the PCRD. And if they’re shunted to the PCRD get it DONE. And get them to the real EP which is SUPER LITERACY. The moral is, get them through. Don’t idle about. Get it DONE.

Then they will whizz along on fast flow study and you’ve got COMPLETIONS.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JULY 1972
Issue II

Remimeo


DISTRACTIVE AND ADDITIVE QUESTIONS
AND ORDERS


Recently there have come up many instances of auditors asking odd non-process questions while “doing a process” and giving odd orders.

Example: While running a process an auditor also kept asking, “Is your attention on something else?”

This is of course a daffy thing to do. The auditor’s TRs or metering go out. Then the auditor badgers the pc with strange irrelevant questions. These are distractions, nothing more nor less. Not all the silly questions in the world substitute for lack of TRs and proper metering. A question about “What else are you doing?” does not substitute for having by-passed an F/N or running an uncharged item.

Giving Orders that are not part of any process is very bad.

Example: Auditor has missed a read, by-passed an F/N and goofing it generally. Pc gets dull, disinterested. Auditor says, “Come back into the room!”

Evaluation fits into this set of bad tricks. Like, “You are really OT you know. You just think you’re aberrated.” Or “You better tell the Examiner you are really Clear.” Or “You are in pretty bad shape unless you can see the whole building.” These of course are suppressive Evaluations.

In 1950 there was a general observation. ALL AUDITORS TALK TOO MUCH.

As we seem to be in a period of additive questions and comments, the observation can be made again.

MUZZLED auditing means stating only the model session patter and Commands and TRs. It ALWAYS gets the best results.

Do NOT add a lot of questions or orders to a session to cover up goofs in standard tech.

Standard Tech works. Use it and it only.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder






LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1972
(Amended & Reissued 28 March 1974
—only change is Series No.)
Remimeo

Expanded Dianetics Series 6

C/S Series 82


DIANETIC HCO B
INTEREST


On two certain subjects the “Interest?” question is omitted from Dianetic R3R patter.

On drugs and when running Evil Purposes or Intentions one does NOT ask the pc if he is interested in running the item.

The requirement on both drug items and intentions is that the item read on the meter (suppress and inval can be used) and has not been run by R3R previously.

Many pcs, it has now been found, have replied “No, no interest” on a drug item, the item has not been run and the pc then continued to have trouble with drugs.

Checking back pcs who returned to drugs after auditing showed “drug rundowns” that were so brief as to be nothing. One pc who had been on LSD for years had only a I hour quickie drug rundown. Later this person relapsed.

Tracing this, in each case the “Interest?” question had been used and the pc had replied “No interest” BUT MEANT “I’M NO LONGER INTERESTED IN DRUGS.”

So Drug items that have read are run R3R without asking for interest. The command is simply omitted.

In Expanded Dianetics the same thing has occurred in running Evil Purposes or Intentions. The Auditor asked the pc if he was interested in running the item and the pc said “No” and so it went untouched. But the pc had it confused with interest in doing the purpose and missed running it and then fell on his head later. Tracing the case back it was found that R/Ses and such had not been run due to the pc saying “No Interest”.

Nothing bad will happen if the item is run.


C/S RESPONSIBILITY

The C/S must keep telling his auditors, on drugs or Expanded Dianetics, “Omit asking for interest on R3R on these (drug) (intentions). Run them if they read on the meter.”

REPAIR

In repairing cases it is good sense to check this point on drugs and intentions to see if they were neglected in R3R due to “no interest”.

If so, then have them run and the case will suddenly do well.



LRH:nt.ntm jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972, 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 AUGUST 1972R
CORRECTED AND REISSUED 15 AUGUST 1972
Remimeo Correction in This type style
BPI
All Students
Tech Dept
Qual
“The Auditor”
REGISTRARS

FAST FLOW TRAINING

References: LRH ED 178 INT of 30 May 72 SUPER-LITERACY
HCO B 4 Apr 72 Revised 30 May 72 PRIMARY RUNDOWN REVISED
HCO B 30 Mar 72 Revised 30 May 72 PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN
HCO B 20 July 72 Issue I PCRD HANDLING
HCO B 15 July 71 Issue III C/S Series 48R DRUG HANDLING
HCO B 25 Oct 71 Issue II (as revised) THE SPECIAL DRUG RUNDOWN



So that there is NO question about what is meant by FAST FLOW TRAINING:

ANY STUDENT WHO HONESTLY COMPLETES THE PRIMARY RUNDOWN OR PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN IS THEREAFTER DESIGNATED A “FAST FLOW STUDENT”.

The Fast Flow Student passes courses by attestation at Certs and Awards to the effect that he (a) has enrolled properly on the course, (b) has paid for the course, (c) has studied and understands the materials, (d) has done the drills, (e) can produce the result required in the materials.

The student is given a PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE. This looks like any other certificate but is not gold sealed and has Provisional plainly on it.

In the case of an Auditor, an Interneship or formal auditing experience is required. When actual honest evidence is presented to C&A that he has demonstrated that he can produce flubless results his Certificate is VALIDATED with a gold seal and is a permanent certificate.

In Administrative Courses or course of any kind not having to do with auditing, the same procedure is followed and a PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE is issued by C&A.

The person must now demonstrate that he can apply the materials studied by producing an honest, actual statistic in the materials studied. He presents this evidence to C&A and receives a VALIDATION gold seal on his Certificate.

Provisional Certificates EXPIRE after one year if not Validated.

The Fast Flow Student studies within his knowledge of study tech. He is assisted by Supervisors. Any Word Clearing action needed can be done on him. He can be sent to Qual and Crammed. He can be starrated and made to clay demo by the Supervisor.

He does not however have to have a twin, he does not automatically starrate starrate items, he does not have to have an examination.

The Fast Flow System makes for very rapid training. This becomes possible due to the development of the Primary Rundown and Primary Correction Rundown.

PREREQUISITES

Primary Rundown or Primary Correction Rundown are required for Levels O to I V or above and for FEBC. They are not required for HSDC or the many other courses below these levels.

NON PRDs

Those students who have not had a Primary Rundown or Primary Correction Rundown must starrate, clay demo, twin and go through the materials as many times as required, using the entirety of the Student Hat.

It is much faster to do the PRD or PCRD first.


DRUG CASES

Where a drug case cannot be gotten through Method One Word Clearing due to case, it is usual to give him the Drug Rundown first as per HCO B of 25 Oct 71 Issue II, “The Special Drug RD”.

The short co-audit version is contained in HCO B 15 July 71 Issue III, C/S Series 48R.

Where for any reason the person cannot get the Drug Rundown HE MAY BE ENROLLED ON THE DIANETICS COURSE, BECOME A DIANETIC AUDITOR and obtain the Drug Rundown through CO-AUDIT on Course.

The Dianetic Course in this instance is done with the full Student Hat requirements.

DESIGNATION

The FAST FLOW STUDENT should be given a blue lapel award and wear it in Class. It should say FFS on it in black letters.

This gives the green light to rapid and effective completion of courses for the SUPER-LITERATE.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.sb.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 AUGUST 1972

Remimeo
C/S Series 84

FLUBLESS C/SING


A C/S cannot C/S flublessly while he has ANY Auditors flubbing.

The standard procedure is

1. The C/S makes sure Tech Courses are taught okay and raises hell until they are.

2. C/S makes sure Qual has a Cramming Officer and crams him until he gets flubless Cramming and can Supervise TRs, do WCing Method 7, Method 6, Method 4, can correct metering and has packs to hand for reference.

3. The C/S follows a very standard handling of auditors:

A. 1 error of any kind—instruct by reference to HCO B.

B. A second error of any kind—send to Cramming and get the Auditor crammed at once, without any loss of auditing time but before the Auditor is allowed to audit further. (This is 2 hours, not 2 days!)

C. A third error of any kind—RETREAD, wherein the Auditor’s weak areas are located and the Auditor has to M7, M6, M4 and restudy the materials of that area. This takes the Auditor back to Step A.

A retread under a good Super takes 4 or 5 days.

Now if the Auditor again errs he goes to Step A.

If he goes the route again he hits RETRAIN and is retrained fully like any other student. His PRD is done or verified and he goes through the course starting with basic books. This puts the Auditor back to A.

But if he now lands at RETRAIN again he is given a full and complete RETRAIN from his earliest contacts with the subject.

It is highly unlikely he will flub further but if he does, he should not be on auditing at all.

FALSE REPORTS

A falsified Auditing report puts the Auditor at once at retrain as he is not sufficiently aware of the potentials of the subject to know he can get results and does not have to be dishonest.

TR 0

OT Zero and TR 0 are the keys to good auditing.

2 C/Ses were found in orgs who “wouldn’t let the Auditors do TR 0 because of their cases”. Both orgs had horrible stats and bad results and ARC Broken fields.

OT Zero and TR 0 are a routine action for Auditors. They do TRs in spare time, not because they are being Crammed, just to get professional.

Every Cramming Order includes TRs, especially Zero, to also be done on the auditor’s own time.

This gets the Auditor up to really Confronting. His errors come mainly from an inability to confront (and from faulty metering or misunderstoods or out ethics).

OT Zero and TR 0 are the keys to flubless auditing.

ELECTRONIC ATTEST

Auditors using LRH tapes and electronic attest (and with OT Zero, TR 0, metering, and Mis Us cleaned up and Ethics in) become very spectacular auditors in terms of results.
Results bring pride.

Auditors who get results are happy auditors. And the above is how, the standard how, to get them to get results.

EASY C/SING

Only if he spends some of his time TRAINING, as above, can a C/S ever get down to really C/Sing cases and getting programmes DONE.

SUMMARY

The above is the way I C/S and handle Auditors as a C/S.

I long since found that the flubby Auditors were the ones who consumed the C/S time. The ratio is 21/2 hours to 61/2 hours wherein it only takes me 21/2 hours to C/S piles of folders when I have the auditors auditing honestly and flublessly and it takes me 61/2 hours when I have some flubbers.

It is neither kind nor decent to let Auditors lose. Only when I (or MSH) have not been doing the C/Sing has auditing gone wrong in any area where I was.

This is traced directly to the drop-out of the above actions. So it is the above actions which give standard results and any C/S who omits them (to be a good fellow, or “these are my friends”) is an Auditor killer.

Auditors sometimes achieve a high status and are “above being crammed”. Well watch it, watch it because they will fall on their heads with a crash.

An auditor is not unlike a race horse. He needs a lot of care and handling. And he needs his periodic drills and exercises or he goes sloppy. Like a race horse, a good auditor is very, very valuable. And all good auditors are made by C/Ses!

The proof is that even the best go bad when they no longer have a tight C/S rein. Experience has taught that. The exceptions are very, very few and you don’t have any of them.

It takes me about 3 or 4 weeks to get an auditor through his course and doing a good flubless job. The majority of Scientologists want to be auditors. So you have Auditor scarcity? That’s a laugh.

It’s the C/S! The Course Super, the Cramming Officer.

And it’s done just exactly as above.

Given the materials, there is no other answer. So stop dreaming of hiring or getting perfect Auditors.

The ones you have are fine. Get more.

And do the above! ! !

The auditors must not blame the pc (nor must you), the C/S must not blame the auditor.
It’s you, the Course Super and the Cramming Officer. And mainly you the C/S.

You can and must build a corps of good auditors.

Or you’ll never make it as a C/S.

And listen, if you don’t make it as a C/S, where’s the world?



LRH:nt.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [Added to by BTB 16 Aug 72-1, C/S Series 84-1, Volume X-235.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 AUGUST 1972

Remimeo
Word Clearing Series 42

METHOD 4 NOTES


Too generalized a question in using Method 4 defeats its use and can restimulate a person badly.

Example: “Is there anything in college you didn’t understand?” That of course is just plain ridiculous as a question. “Have you ever heard anything you didn’t understand?” would be similarly silly.

BREAK DOWN THE MATERIALS

When doing Method 4 you have to break down the materials (put them into small separate units) in order to ask questions.

Example: We have Papers l & 2, both on the same subject. The wrong question for Method 4 would be “Is there anything in Papers l & 2 you didn’t understand?” and not even give him the papers to see! The right way to do it would be to take Paper 1 and break it down into its obvious sections, give the person Paper 1 and let him look at it. Point to its 1st section and say, “Is there anything you didn’t understand in this section?” while watching the meter. Then point to next section, do the same. Finish Paper l. Then go to Paper 2 and do it the same.

A person has to know what he’s being asked about and has to be thinking of it when asked the question.

TAPES

Just as it would be ridiculous to ask “Have you ever misunderstood anything you ever read?”, it would be silly to ask, “Did you ever have a misunderstood on Tape?”

The right way is to take the tape and put it on a machine and play a bit of it. And ask, “Is there anything in the first section of this tape you didn’t understand?” while watching the meter. Then high speed the tape forward to another area and do the same. Thus the tape is covered.

This can also be done from any tape notes, section by section.

BOOKS

Books are done chapter by chapter.

QUICKIE M4

Method 4 is defeated utterly by

1. Bad metering

2. Too general a question

3. Not having the material to hand

4. Not getting the person’s attention on parts of the material.

Quickie M4 misses. It sets the person up for a lose in his studying.

And we want him to actually succeed in his study, don’t we?


LRH.sb.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 AUGUST 1972
Remimeo

Word Clearing Series 43

GRAMMAR DEFINITION


The following definition of Grammar was taken from the Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage by Bergen and Cornelia Evans, published by Random House, New York, in 1957. (It is not a complete Dictionary and would require another larger dictionary for full word clearing. But it gives American usage’s of words and phrases, which could be important as Dianetics and Scientology are written in American English.)

It was sent to me by an SHSBC Student who found its definition of Grammar was very helpful to other students.

This definition also tells you why some college or school texts are so ghastly hard to read--they are not in standard English. It also tells you why, in 1950, the head of the English Department in an American University hailed Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health as marking a new era of scientific writing. One reason is that it was written by a writer, not a professor. The other was that it was written in the English that was in use.

But read the definition:

GRAMMAR

GRAMMAR is a systematic description of the ways in which words are used in a particular language. The grammarian groups words that behave similarly into classes and then draws up rules stating how each class of words behaves. What classes are set up and how the rules are phrased is a matter of convenience. A grammarian is free to classify his material in any way that seems reasonable to him. But he is never free to say that certain forms of speech are unacceptable merely because there is no place for them in the system he has designed.

THE CLASSES

Most grammarians are interested in a number of languages. As a rule they set up classes that are useful in handling many languages but that may have very little meaning for a particular language. For example, the distinction between the dative him and the accusative him is important in the Indo-European languages generally. But in a grammar designed solely to teach English, this distinction does not have to be made. Similarly, there is an etymological or historical difference between the English gerund in -ing and the participle in -ing But it is sometimes impossible to say whether a given word is a gerund or a participle; for example, in journeys end in lovers meeting. For this reason, some grammarians prefer to handle these forms together under one name, such as “participle” or “-ing”.

The familiar terms of classical grammar are defined in this dictionary for the convenience of persons who need to use these concepts. But a much simpler classification, based on the structure of present-day English, is employed in all the discussions of usage.

THE RULES

In order to say how words are used, the grammarian must examine large quantities of spoken and written English. He will find some constructions used so consistently that the exceptions have to be classed as errors. But he will also find competing, and even contradictory, constructions, which appear too often to be called mistakes. He must then see whether one of these expressions is used by one kind of person and not by another or in one kind of situation and not in another. If he can find no difference of this sort he accepts the two constructions as interchangeable. In this way he assembles a body of information on how English words are used that may also show differences, such as those between one locality and another, or between spoken and written English, or between literary and illiterate speech. Studies of this kind are called “scientific” or “descriptive” grammars. This is a relatively new approach to the problems of language and the information brought to light in this way is sometimes surprising.

The first English grammarians, writing in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, did not attempt to describe the English of their day. On the contrary, they were attempting to “improve” English and they demanded Latin constructions which were not characteristic of English. They objected to the expression I am mistaken, because if translated into Latin this would mean I am misunderstood. They claimed that unloose must mean tie, because un is a Latin negative. They objected to the “double negative” which was good Old English, and also good Greek, but not good Latin.

These eighteenth century rules of prescriptive grammar have been repeated in school books for two hundred years. They are the rules for a curious, Latinized English that has never been spoken and is seldom used in literature, but that is now highly respected in some places, principally in scientific writing. It should be recognized that these rules were not designed to “preserve” English, or keep it “pure”. They were designed to create a language which would be “better” simply because it was more like Latin. Dryden, writing in the seventeenth century, said: “I am often put to a stand in considering whether what I write be the idiom of the tongue or false grammar and nonsense, couched beneath that specious name of Anglicanism, and have no other way to clear my doubts but by translating my English into Latin and thereby trying what sense the words will bear in a more stable language.” One result of this double translation was that Dryden went through his earlier works and rewrote all the sentences that had originally ended in a preposition or adverb. A generation later, Swift complained that the English of his day “offends against every part of grammar”. Certainly this is blaming the foot because it doesn’t fit the shoe!

Because some people would like to write the language of the textbooks, the entries in this dictionary not only tell what standing a given construction has in current English but also explain how the rules of the prescriptive grammarian would apply, wherever the rules and standard practice differ. But in such cases the rules are never simple, and the person who has to use this type of English may feel that it would be easier to follow Dryden’s example and write in Latin first.

THIS BOOK

The grammar entries in this book are designed for persons who speak standard English but who may be confused about certain isolated points. The entries are arranged so that the answer to a particular problem can be found in the least possible time. But anyone who wishes to make a systematic study of English grammar, using this book, can do so by starting with the entry parts of speech and following the references to more and more detailed discussions of each concept.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder



LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 SEPTEMBER 1972

Remimeo (Amended & Reissued 28 March 1974
All Dn & Ex Dn —only change is Series No.)
Auditors
Class VIII DIANETICS
C/Ses
Expanded Dianetics Series 7

C/S Series 85

CATASTROPHES FROM AND REPAIR OF
“NO INTEREST” ITEMS


I have done a review of several failed cases which blew or went bad after auditing.

THE COMMON FACTOR IN EVERY ONE WAS CASE BY-PASSED DUE TO “NO INTEREST”.

The auditor finds a reading drug item or an evil purpose and proposes to run R3R on it. The auditor asks if the pc is interested in running it. The pc says, “No.” The auditor does not run it. BANG, we have a BY-PASSED CASE.

The pc will blow or go sour or not recover.

One of these cases was unchanged after “a drug rundown”. He had a pair of eyes that looked like blank discs. Check of folder showed all major drug items “not run due to no interest”. The solution was to recover the lists, run the items that had read R3R triple and complete the case.

Another one blew. His folder was examined. Every evil purpose had been left unrun! Of the items from the “Wants Handled Rundown” the intentions were mislisted. The drug rundown failed due to “no interest”.

Each flubbed case I am finding has had his drug items and evil purposes left unrun on R3R due to “no interest”.

So DON’T ASK FOR INTEREST ON INTENTIONS, EVIL PURPOSES AND DRUG ITEMS.

IF THEY READ, RUN THEM!

REPAIR

1. On any stumbling case that has had a “drug rundown” or Expanded Dianetics get the Folder FESed to see if reading items were left unrun on R3R Triple. List them chronologically, early to late.

2. Get the case back, with an R factor of “Incomplete”.

3. Run every one of those unrun drug items, intentions and Evil Purposes.

4. If the items don’t now read, then get in Suppress and Invalidate on them.

5. If the case bogs do L3RD Method 5 and Handle on that chain only.

6. Go on with the action and complete it.


LRH:sb.ntm.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972,1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER 1972
Remimeo

Word Clearing Series 44


ILLITERACY AND WORK


I have been engaged in a study of applications of tech to illiteracy and illiterate or semi-literate populations and found some simple levels of approach.

I investigated U.S. AID educational efforts and data to find out why they failed. For instance, in one project, the U.S. spent over one million dollars to educate 105 persons from an “underdeveloped” country of low literacy and surveyed it later to find that none of the data taught was in use and that no progress had been made by the person or the country as a result.

Using their data and my own personal investigation in the same country, I evaluated the situation and found they had not consulted the existing scene before or during the program. Their training was for a sophisticated environment.

The country of the program is just emerging from a nomadic level civilization into agricultural and the agriculture done is extremely primitive, erodes whole plains with non-contour plowing and doesn’t even know about irrigation.

To these people they taught the highly complex technology of the electronic age!

The people went back home, found no computers whatever, listened to the goats and sat down and did nothing.

U.S. AID had no explanation for this. But give them credit—the students liked the U.S. and U.S. AID did honestly survey and admit the failure, a rare humility.

From this point I did a local study and found that instead of computers these people needed—guess what?

TR 2! Acknowledgement. (Training Drill No. 2, How to Acknowledge a Communication.)

This primitive area had never heard of TR 2!

“Good”, “fine”, “thank you” were unknown in all their work culture.

Before they saw any need of any technology, they had first to see that there was any reason to get any work done at all!

Further, their cultural pattern contained dishonesty as a virtue! This is antipathetic to basic morale no matter what the culture and so they were in a cultural attitude or pattern which kept them sad, depressed and miserable! So they couldn’t work.

The program, then, had to (a) recover honesty to increase morale, (b) introduce acknowledgement for accomplishment, (c) establish the possibility that one could work, (d) introduce statistics so that something existed that could be acknowledged and (e) establish bonuses for statistics so that acknowledgement could be real and stay that way.

These items are all very elementary and simple portions of our basic technology:

(a) Security checking, (b) TRs especially 2, (c) Problems of Work Course using tape and Word Clearing, (d) Statistical policies and tech, (e) Bonus policies.

So in U.S. AID Programs there was a skipped gradient in culture (nomad-agrarian skipped to electronic-nuclear) and a skipped gradient in training—Why learn when there is no reason to work? So why be literate? Or study?

Any sophisticated technical layout would break down in the hands of these people—and does.

But this program would lift them up. Then they would have some reason to study.

Factually, one cannot just sail into a culture blind and bash around with no data. It is costly and it accomplishes very little.

A basic knowledge of Man is essential to any improvement in any area of the human race.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 NOVEMBER 1972
Remimeo
TECH SECS Issue II
Ds of T
Students
QUAL SEC
CRAMMING OFFICER
Confessional Pack


STUDENTS WHO SUCCEED


Over the past year I have done considerable research, observation, pilots and more research on the subject of making successful students.

We have of course excellent study technology which is far in advance of anything Man has had. It has been developed over a period of 22 years.

Sometimes the student is very slow.

Sometimes he ends off study due to non application.

Sometimes the study tech is not used. When this happens of course the tech “didn’t work” because it was not used.

I have run enough pilots now in order to handle this.


HONESTY

In policy there has long been written the natural sequence of ethics, tech and administration.

When administration is out, it is necessary to get in tech. When tech is out it is necessary to get in ethics.

In other words, ethics must be in to get tech in.

ETHICS is a personal thing. By definition, the word means:

“The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others.” (American Heritage Dictionary)

When one is ethical or “has his ethics in” it is by his own determination and is done by himself.

JUSTICE is the action of the group against the individual when he has failed to get his own ethics in.

In the culture in which we live, justice is so savage and often so unreasonable that it tends to inhibit the individual from confessing minor misdemeanors and Crimes.

This aberrates him because it prevents him from getting off his withholds.

This leads to bad health, bad eyesight, deafness and other things as can be proven in auditing results.

IT ALSO LEADS TO OUT COMMUNICATION.

AND IT INHIBITS THE INDIVIDUAL FROM REACHING OUT WITH WHAT HE HAS LEARNED AND APPLYING IT.

The slow student, the glib student, the student who cannot apply are all students who are withholding.

This is true of any Course and any materials and has always been true but no one ever worked it out since they had no real command of the subject of the mind before Dianetics and Scientology.

The culture itself encourages dishonesty and therefore has not been able to solve fully the problem of study.

Only an honest student really reads, really does what he is supposed to do and really applies.

PILOTS

There were several pilot Courses to find this material.

The one which finally proved it was a Course of about 12 students.

They were very slow. They were unable to apply the materials during an apprenticeship.

It was then found none of them had done an honest Primary Rundown. They had “know bested” their way through it, cheating, and had falsely attested.

Then further investigation showed each one of them had come to the Course with his Ethics badly out.

A Confessional was then done on each of them and they were restarted to again do a full Primary Rundown, Student Hat and the materials.

Only then did they succeed in their application of what was studied.

This was also true of their Supervisors, each one of whom had done his Supervisor’s Course with his Ethics out. So one should not blame the students only!

A Case Supervisor in training could not Case Supervise well. It was found he had not even read the case history section sample programs because “he already knew” yet attested he had. Prior to all this his Ethics were out.

When his withholds were handled he could then supervise cases and did well.


CONFESSIONALS

The technology of Confessionals has been upgraded enormously in the last year.

With this vast improvement it becomes possible to remove the barriers and counter-intention to getting his Ethics in and studying in an ethical fashion and being able to reach with the materials studied and so apply them.

If any student, beginning in a school or on a Course, is given a standard Confessional before beginning serious study, he will proceed much more rapidly, will study honestly, will apply study materials and, if actual study tech is used, will become a successful student of that subject and will be able to apply what he learns.

Study tech used by itself will succeed somehow in a large number of cases. But when it is preceded by a well done and thorough Confessional its results are more thorough and far more rapid.

When I was first working on evaluations of study in 1971 the “dishonesty factor” appeared as a very general Why. But it was not worked with at that time as there seemed no easy way to handle it.

By improving the technology of Confessionals on another entirely different research channel, the problem of the student also became clear.

Only the honest student is a good student and a credit to his class and the subject and himself.

The only reservation then is that the Confessional itself has to be done competently and honestly. But honest Confessionals breed honest Confessional auditors and this can be closely supervised as an expert action.

This opens the road to improvement and wider success in the already winning and successful subject of Study Tech.

Man is not happy unless he is honest. White, black, red or brown, this is true of all times and all races. And it is true of all students in all schools.

The honest student is the most successful student.

And the technology of the Confessional can make him so, rapidly and easily.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 DECEMBER l 972R
REVISED & REISSUED 1 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo
CANCELS
BTB OF 13 DECEMBER 1972
SAME TITLE

Integrity Processing Series 10R

INTEGRITY PROCESSING QUESTIONS
MUST BE F/Ned

The main danger of Integrity Processing is not probing a person’s past but failing to do so thoroughly.

When you leave an Integrity Processing question “live” and go on to the next one, you set up a nasty situation that will have repercussions. The person may not immediately react. But the least that will happen is that he will be more difficult to audit in the future, and will go out of session more easily. More violently, a pc who has had an Integrity Processing question left unflat may leave the session and do himself or Scientology considerable mischief.

About the most unkind thing you could do to a person would be to leave an Integrity Processing question unflat and go on to the next one. Or to fail to obtain an F/N on withholds in the rudiments and go on with the session.

One girl, being audited, was left unflat on a withhold question. The Auditor blithely went on to the next question. The girl went out after session, and told everyone she knew the most vicious lies she could create about the immoral conduct of Scientologists. She wrote a stack of letters to people she knew out of town, telling gruesome tales of sexual orgies. An alert Scientologist heard the rumors, rapidly traced them back, got hold of the girl, sat her down and checked auditing and found the unflat withhold question. The withhold? Sexual misdemeanors. Once that was pulled, the girl hastily raced about correcting all her previous efforts to discredit.

A man had been a stalled case for about a year. He was violent to audit. The special question was finally asked, “What withhold question was left unflat on you?” It was found and handled. After that his case progressed again.

The mechanisms of this are many. The reactions of the pc are many. The summation of it is, when an Integrity Processing question is left unflat on a pc and thereafter ignored, the consequences are numerous.


THE REMEDY

The prevention of Integrity Processing being left unflat is easily accomplished:

1. Develop excellent TRs and Basic Auditing.
2. Know the E-Meter.
3. Work only with an approved E-Meter.
4. Know the various bulletins on Integrity Processing.
5. Get off your own withholds so that you won’t avoid those in others.
6. Apply correct Integrity Processing procedure and handle each reading question to an honest F/N on that question.


LRH:nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972,1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 DECEMBER 1972R
REVISED 12 FEBRUARY 1973
REISSUED 1 NOVEMBER 1974
(Only change is signature.)
Remimeo

Integrity Processing Series 11R

GENERALITIES WON’T DO

The most efficient way to upset a pc is to leave an Integrity Processing question unflat. This is remedied by taking each reading question to an F/N on the question.

The best way to “miss” an Integrity Processing question is to let the pc indulge in generalities or “I thought ....”

A withhold given as “Oh, I got mad at them lots of times,” should be pulled down to when and where and the first time “you got mad’ and finally, “What did you do to them just before that?” Then earlier similar if no F/N.

The pc who withholds somebody else’s withholds and gives them as answers is a card. But he isn’t helped when the auditor lets him do it.

Situation: You ask the pc for a withhold about Joe. The pc who says, “I heard that Joe . . . ,” should be asked right there, “What have you done to Joe? You. Just you.” And it turns out he stole Joe’s last blonde. But if the auditor had let this pc go on and on about how the pc had heard how Joe was this or that, the session would have gone on and on and the Tone Arm up and up.

We have pcs who use “withholds” to spread all manner of lies. We ask this pc, “Have you ever done anything to the Org?” The pc says, “Well, I’m withholding that I heard . . . ,” or the pc says, “Well, I thought some bitter thoughts about the Org.” Or the pc says, “I was critical of the Org when . . . ,” and we don’t sail in and get WHAT THE PC DID, we can comfortably stretch a 5-minute item to a session or two.

If the pc “heard” and the pc “thought” and the pc “said” in answer to an Integrity Processing question, the pc’s reactive bank is really saying, “I’ve got a crashing big withhold and if I can keep on fooling around by giving critical thoughts, rumours, and what others did, you’ll never get it.” And if he gets away with it, the auditor has missed a withhold question.

We only want to know what the pc did, when he did it, what was the first time he did it and what he did just before that, and we’ll nail it every time.

___________

THE IRRESPONSIBLE PC

If you want to get withholds off an “irresponsible pc” you sometimes can’t ask what the pc did or withheld and get a meter reaction.

This problem has bugged us for some time; I finally got very bright and realized that no matter whether the pc thought it was a crime or not, he or she will answer up on “don’t know” versions as follows:

Situation: “What have you done to your husband?” Pc’s answer, “Nothing bad.” E-Meter reaction, nul. Now we know this pc, through our noticing she is critical of her husband, has overts on him. But she can take no responsibility for her own acts.

But she can take responsibility for his not knowing. She is making certain of that.

So we ask, “What have you done that your husband doesn’t know about?”

And it takes an hour for her to spill it all, the quantity is so great. For the question releases the floodgates. The Meter bangs around.

And with these withholds off, her responsibility comes up and she can take responsibility on the items.

This applies to any zone or area or terminal of Integrity Processing.

Situation: We are getting a lot of “I thought”, “I heard”, “They said”, “They did” in answer to a question. We take the terminal or terminals involved and put them in this blank:

“What have you done that________(doesn’t) (don’t) know about?”

And we can get the major overts that lay under the blanket of “How bad everyone is but me.”

____________


This prevents you missing an Integrity Processing question. It’s a bad crime to do so. This will shorten the labour involved in getting every question flat.

And if your pc is withholdy you can insert this “Have I missed an Integrity Processing question on you?” while doing the processing.

Always clear up what was missed.

A pc can be very upset by reason of a missed Integrity Processing question. Keep them going up, not down.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder






LRH: nt.rd
Copyright © 1972, 1973, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1972R
REVISED 1 NOVEMBER 1974

Remimeo

Integrity Processing Series 12R



WITHHOLDS, MISSED
AND PARTIAL


I don’t know exactly how to get this across to you except to ask you to be brave, squint up your eyes and plunge.

I don’t appeal to reason. Only to faith at the moment. When you have a reality on this, nothing will shake it and you’ll no longer fail cases or fail in life. But, at the moment, it may not seem reasonable. So just try it, do it well and day will dawn at last.

What are these natterings, upsets, ARC Breaks, critical tirades, lost students, ineffective motions? They are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds. If I could just teach you that and get you to get a good reality on that in your own auditing, your activities would become smooth beyond belief.

It is true that ARC Breaks, present time problems and withholds all keep a session from occurring. And we must watch them and clear them.

But behind all these is another button, applicable to each, which resolves each one. And that button is the restimulated but missed or partially missed withhold.

____________


Life itself has imposed this button on us.

If you know about people or are supposed to know about people, then these people expect, unreasonably, that you know them through and through.

Real knowledge to the average person is only this: a knowledge of his or her withholds! That, horribly enough, is the high tide of knowledge for the man in the street. If you know his withholds, if you know his crimes and acts, then you are smart. If you know his future you are moderately wise. And so we are persuaded toward mind reading and fortune telling.

All wisdom has this trap for those who would be wise.

Egocentric man believes all wisdom is wound up in knowing his misdemeanors.

IF any wise man represents himself as wise and fails to discover what a person has done, that person goes into an antagonism or other misemotion toward the wise man. So they hang those who restimulate and yet who do not find out about their withholds.

This is an incredible piece of craziness. But it is observably true.

This is the WILD ANIMAL REACTION that makes Man a cousin to the beasts.

A good auditor can understand this. A bad one will stay afraid of it and won’t use

____________


“Have I missed a withhold on you?” can be used in Integrity Processing if the preclear gets upset or critical during session.

____________


Any ARC Broken pc should be asked, “What withhold have I missed on you?” Or, “What have I failed to find out about you?” Or, “What should I have known about you?”
____________


An Integrity Processing Specialist who cannot read a meter is dangerous because he or she will miss withholds and the pc may become very upset.

____________


Use this as a stable datum: If the person is upset, somebody failed to find out what that person was sure they would find out.

____________


A missed withhold is a should have known.

____________


The only reason anyone has ever left Scientology is because people failed to find out about them.
____________


This is valuable data. Get a reality on it.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright ©1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 DECEMBER 1972
REISSUED 7 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo
CANCELS
BTB OF 16 DECEMBER 1972
SAME TITLE

Integrity Processing Series 13

HELP THE PC


In general, when getting rudiments in or getting off missed withholds or invalidations, help the pc by guiding his attention against the needle.

This is quite simple. The auditor asks the question, the needle instantly reacts, the pc (as he or she usually does) looks puzzled if the auditor says “It reacts.” The pc thinks it over. As he or she is thinking, the auditor will see the same reaction on the needle. Softly the auditor says “That” or “There” or “What’s that you’re looking at?” As the pc knows what he or she is looking at that instant, the thing can be dug up.

This is auditor co-operation, not triumph.

Most often the pc does not know what it is that reacts as only unknowns react. Therefore an auditor’s “There” when the needle twitches again, before the pc has answered, co-ordinates with whatever the pc is looking at and thus it can be spotted and revealed by the pc. This is only done when the pc comm lags for a few seconds.

Remember, the pc is always willing to reveal. He or she doesn’t know What to reveal. Therein lies the difficulty. Pcs get driven out of session when asked to reveal something yet do not know what to reveal.

By the auditor’s saying “There” or “What’s that?” quietly each time the needle reacts newly, the pc is led to discover what should be revealed.

Auditors and pcs get into a games condition in Integrity Processing and rudiments only when the auditor refuses this help to the pc.

New auditors routinely believe that in Integrity Processing the pc knows the answer and won’t give it. This is an error. If the pc knew all the answer, it wouldn’t react on the meter.

Old-timers have found out that only if they steer by repeated meter reaction, giving the pc “There” or “What’s that?” can the pc answer up on most rudiments questions, missed withholds and so on.

But don’t use steering to harass the pc, or cut his comm, or draw attention to the auditor.

This is the only use of reads other than instant reads on the E-Meter.

Help the pc. He doesn’t know. Otherwise the needle would never react.


LRH: nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1972, 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 DECEMBER 1972
REISSUED 7 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo
CANCELS
BTB OF 17 DECEMBER 1972
SAME TITLE


Integrity Processing Series 14


HAVINGNESS


All valences are circuits are valences.

Circuits key out with knowingness.

This is the final definition of havingness.

Havingness is the concept of being able to reach. No-havingness is the concept of not being able to reach.

A withhold makes one feel he or she cannot reach. Therefore withholds are what cut havingness down and made runs on havingness attain unstable gains. In the presence of withholds havingness sags.

As soon as a withhold is pulled, ability to reach is potentially restored but the pc often does not discover this. It requires that havingness be run to get the benefit of having pulled most withholds.

Therefore havingness may be run in conjunction with Integrity Processing but may NOT be used to hide or obscure the fact of failure to F/N an Integrity Form question.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder



LRH: nt.rd
Copyright ©1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JANUARY 1973

(Reissued 6 April 74—Only
change made is in signature)
Remimeo

Study Series 9


CONFRONT


There are several choices in English on the meaning of “confront”. These include the right one: To face without flinching or avoiding. An example in a sentence: “The test of a free society is its capacity to confront rather than evade the vital questions of Choice.”

There is another meaning “To stand facing or opposing, especially in challenge, defiance or accusation.”

English is a pretty limited language in many ways. I imagine the thought of facing something (which is what the word came from and originally meant way back “front” being “face”) was so horrifying to the types who write dictionaries they knew it would be bad!

In essence it is an action of being able to face.

If one cannot, if he avoids, then he is not AWARE.

Awareness is the ability to perceive the existence of. In the dictionary it also fails to confront that and says “Awareness: the quality or state of being aware.” And Aware means: “marked by realization, perception or knowledge.”

So these chaps couldn’t confront and so conceived awareness to be figure-figure.

We are moving out of the range of language when we want to say:

“He could stand up to things and wasn’t always shrinking back into himself and avoiding, so he could be fully conscious of the real universe and others around him.”

And that’s what Confront means.

If one can confront he can be aware.

If he is aware he can perceive and act.

If he can’t confront he will not be aware of things and will be withdrawn and not perceiving. Thus he is unaware of things around him.

That’s the tech of it.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:ntmjh
Copyright © 1973, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 MARCH 1973
Remimeo Issue I
REISSUED 21 SEPTEMBER 1974
(Only change is signature)



STEP FOUR—HANDLING ORIGINATIONS

Edited and taken from
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN NO. 151
1 January 1959



What do we mean by an origin of the preclear? He volunteers something all on his own; and do you know that is a very good index of case—whether the person volunteers anything on his own? An old-time auditor used this as a case index. He said, “This fellow isn’t getting any better. He hasn’t offered up anything yet.” You see, he didn’t originate—he didn’t originate a communication.

So remember that the preclear is as well as he can originate a communication. That means he can stand at Cause on the communication formula. And that is a desirable point for him to reach.

But how about in the walk-away world—the world that is ambulant and moving around and spinning quietly, or noisily, as the case may be? Do you ever have to handle an origin in it? Well, I dare say that every argument you have ever got into was because you did not handle an origin. Every time you have ever got into trouble with anybody, you can trace it back along the line you didn’t handle. If a person walks in and says, “Whee! I’ve just passed with the highest mark in the whole school,” and you say, “I’m awfully hungry, shouldn’t we go out and eat?”—you’ll find yourself in a fight. He feels ignored. He originated a communication to have you prove to him that he was there and he was solid. Most little kiddies get frantic about their parents when their parents don’t handle their originations properly. Handling an origination merely tells the person, “All right, I heard it, you’re there.” You might say it is a form of acknowledgment, but it’s not; it is the communication formula in reverse. But the auditor is still in control if he handles the origin—otherwise, the communication formula goes out of his control and he is at effect point, no longer at cause point. An auditor continues at cause point.

So let’s look this over. The handling of an origin has a great deal of use and, until recently, it was the least pat step in Scientology. How did you handle an origin? And we finally found out. I finally had a cognition myself. I tried for a long time to communicate this to people and they still blundered on it occasionally. And I finally found out something that did seem to communicate.

There are three steps in handling an origin. Here is the setup: The preclear is sitting in the chair and the auditor is sitting across from the preclear, and the auditor is saying, “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” and the preclear says, “Yes.” Here is the factor, now, entering: “Do fish swim?” The preclear doesn’t answer Do fish swim, the preclear says, “You know—your dress is on fire,’’ or “I’m eight feet back of my head,” or “Is it true that all cats weigh 1.8 kilograms?” You see, wog-wog—where did this come from? Well, although it is usually circuitry or something like that at work when it’s that far off beam, it is, nevertheless, an origin. How do you handle it? Well, you don’t want the preclear to go out of session, and he would if you handled it wrongly, so (I) you answer it; (2) you maintain ARC (you don’t spend any time at it, but you just maintain ARC); and (3) you get the preclear back on the process. One, two, three. And if you spend too much time in (2), you’ll be doing wrong.

What is an origin? All right, he says, “I’m eight feet back of my head.” It’s an origin; what are you supposed to do with it? Well, you’re supposed to answer it. In this particular case, you would say to him something in the order of, “You are?” (You mean something like, “I’ve heard the communication—it’s made an effect on me.”) Now, in maintaining ARC you can skimp that second one if you handle the third one expertly enough. The least important one is the second one, but the most deadly thing you can do is utterly to neglect the second one of maintaining ARC. That’s deadly. But you can skip it if you really punch it into the third one, which is to say, get him back into session. So he says, “I’m eight feet back of my head,” and you say, “YOU ARE???” (What he said really hit, you know.) He’s kind of wog-wog about this—he’s not sure what this is all about. You say, “You are?” and the fellow says, “Yes.”

“Well!” you say. “What did I say that made that happen?”

“Oh, you said ‘Do birds fly?’ and I thought of myself as a bird and I guess that’s the way it is, but I am eight feet back of my head.”

“Well, that’s pretty routine,” you say—reassure him, maintain the ARC. “Now, what was that auditing question?”

“Oh, you asked me ‘Do birds fly?’ “

And you say, “That’s right. Do birds fly?”

Back in session, you see.

You can’t do this: You can’t put it into a can and put a label on it and say “This is how you do it always,” because it’s always something peculiar; but you can say these three steps are followed.

I will give you another example. You say, “Do birds fly?” and he says, “I have a blinding headache.”

“You do?” you say. “Is it bothering you (that’s the ARC) too much to carry on with the session (and you’ve reached number three at once)?”

“Oh no—it’s pretty bad though.”

“Well, let’s go on with this, shall we?” you say. “Maybe it’ll do something with it (maintaining ARC).”

He says, “Well, all right,” and you’re right back onto it again: “Do birds fly?”

One of the trickiest of these is “What in my question reminded you of that?” The fellow says, “Well, so and so,” and he explains it to you and you say, “Well, good. Do birds fly?” and you’re right back in session again.

Three parts, and—that is the important thing—you have to learn how to handle these things.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder





LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1959,1973, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1973
REISSUED 19 SEPTEMBER 1974
(Only change is signature)
Remimeo
HAS Course


AXIOM 28 AMENDED


AXIOM 28.

COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE-POINT ACROSS A DISTANCE TO RECEIPT-POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT-POINT A DUPLICATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE-POINT.

The formula of Communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect, with Intention, Attention and Duplication WITH UNDERSTANDING.

The component parts of Communication are Consideration, Intention, Attention, Cause, Source-point, Distance, Effect, Receipt-point, Duplication, Understanding, the Velocity of the impulse or particle, Nothingness or Somethingness. A non-communication consists of Barriers. Barriers consist of Space, Interpositions (such as walls and screens of fast-moving particles), and Time. A communication by definition, does not need to be two-way.

When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated, with the receipt-point now becoming a source-point and the former source-point now becoming a receipt-point.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: nt .rd
Copyright © 1973, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1973R

Remimeo REVISED 15 NOVEMBER 1974
All (Revisions are in this type style)
Supervisors
All Students CANCELS
TR Courses BTB OF 7 APRIL 1973



GRADIENTS IN TRs

(Taken from LRH Tape of 30 June 1961,
“Training on TRs—Talk on Auditing”)



Time after time you’re going to find somebody in an Organization trying to teach the TRs this way: Go on to TR 0 and stick there.

Eight months later he’ll still be doing the TR 0.

You’re going to find that consistently, because the element of ENDURE enters into it. That is improper.

Here is the way you do the TRs. You’ll find it very valuable.

You do TR 0, flunking only TR 0. You go on to TR 1. The guy didn’t pass TR 0. He just got accustomed to it a little bit.

You do TR 1, flunking only TR 1. Don’t flunk anything else.

TR 2, flunking only TR 2.

TR 3, flunking only TR 3.

TR 4, flunking only TR 4.

Now come back to TR 0. Get the guy better at TR 0.

Then go through it again, flunking only the TR he is on. It’s kind of like running the CCHs—they get a little bit of a win at it and you go on to the next one.

About the third run through or maybe the fifth run through, according to your judgement, you start TR O and you insist that it’s pretty good; and you should really start cuffing him around. Flunk only the one he’s on but start cuffing him around hard. Give him the business. Give him things he can’t possibly confront. Try to shake him up.

Now—start in TR 0 and give him the works. TR 1 and give him the works. TR 2—3—4. Flunk only the TR that he’s on, but give him the works. Don’t give him a chance.

Run through the TRs that way a couple of times, flunking only the TR that he’s on, giving him the works, pushing his buttons. Give him something to confront for sure.

And then start the business of TR 0, mess him up, TR 1, mess him up—and flunk TR 1 AND TR 0.

TR 2, mess him up, flunk TR 2, TR 1, TR 0.

Get him on TR 3, messing him up and flunking TR 3, TR 2, TR 1, TR 0.

Get him on TR 4, messing him up and flunking TR 4, TR 3, TR 2, TR 1, TR 0.

Thereafter in running the TRs always give him the works. Flunk everything in that battery of TRs.

If you do that, you shorten considerably the time it takes to learn the TRs.

In other words, you approach this with a gradient scale.

We did learn about gradient scales many years ago and we should continue to apply that knowledge.

Let them get used to each TR.

You’ll find out they progress much faster if you do it that way.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1961,1973, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1973RA
Remimeo Issue I
Qual Secs REVISED 20 FEBRUARY 1974
Cramming REISSUED 19 SEPTEMBER 1974
Offs (Only change is signature)



Cramming Series 10RA



CRAMMING



The datum that “Qual does not take orders” solves the Admin Cramming dilemma of the staff member crammed four times on the Dev-T Pack.

It is up to Qual to handle, fully and totally. This means, not following the exact order, but finding the real Why on the person and handling it at once.

Qual’s function is correction. By policy Qual does not take orders on What to do to correct.

Where an exec wants certain material covered, that’s okay. Cover it. But find the WHY! And on a repeat order, realize it was a wrong Why and really work it over.

Several staff have been crammed several times on the Dev-T Pack. Means Qual takes orders.

The PRODUCT of Qual Admin Cramming is a functioning producing staff member who can produce on post.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1973, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JULY 1973
Remimeo

ASSIST SUMMARY

REFERENCE:
HCO PL 7 Aug 71 Interne Okay to Audit Checksheet,
Issue II Assists Pack
HCO B 5 July 71 C/S Series 49, Assists
HCO B 23 July 71 Assists, A Flag Expertise Subject
HCO B 12 Mar 69 Physically Ill Pcs and Pre OTs
Issue II
HCO B 24 Apr 69 Dianetic Use
HCO B 14 May 69 Sickness
HCO B 23 May 69 Auditing out Sessions,
Narrative Versus Somatic Chains
HCO B 24 July 69 Seriously Ill Pcs
HCO B 27 July 69 Antibiotics
HCO B 15 Jan 70 The Uses of Auditing
HCO B 1 Dec 70 Dianetics—Triple Flow Action
HCO B 5 Jan 71 Going Earlier in R3-R
and Exteriorization Intensives
HCO B 9 Oct 67 Assists for Injuries
HCO B 22 July 70 Touch Assist
HCO B S May 69 Touch Assists
HCO B 2 Jan 71 Illegal Auditing
HCO B 15 July 70 Unresolved Pains
(Reissued 25 Nov 70)
HCO B 7 Apr 72 Touch Assists, Correct Ones


Injuries, operations, delivery of babies, severe illnesses and periods of intense emotional shock all deserve to be handled with thorough and complete assists.

Medical examination and diagnosis should be sought where needed, and where treatment is routinely successful, medical treatment should be obtained. As an assist can at times cover up an actual injury or broken bone, no chances should be taken, especially if the condition does not easily respond. In other words where something is merely thought to be a slight sprain, to be on the safe side an X-ray should be obtained, particularly if it does not at once respond. An assist is not a substitute for medical treatment but is complementary to it. It is even doubtful if full healing can be accomplished by medical treatment alone and it is certain that an assist greatly speeds recovery. In short, one should realize that physical healing does not take into account the being and the repercussion on the spiritual beingness of the person.

Injury and illness are PREDISPOSED by the spiritual state of the person. They are PRECIPITATED by the being himself as a manifestation of his current spiritual condition. And they are PROLONGED by any failure to fully handle the spiritual factors associated with them.

The causes of PREDISPOSITION, PRECIPITATION and PROLONGATION are basically the following:

1. Postulates.
2. Engrams.
3. Secondaries.
4. ARC Breaks with the environment, situations, others or the body part.
5. Problems.
6. Overt Acts.
7. Withholds.
8. Out of communicationness.

The purely physical facts of injuries, illnesses and stresses are themselves incapacitating and do themselves often require physical analysis and treatment by a doctor or nutritionist. These could be briefly catalogued as:

A. Physical damage to structure.
B. Disease of a pathological nature.
C. Inadequacies of structure.
D. Excessive structure.
E. Nutritional errors.
F. Nutritional inadequacies.
G. Vitamin and bio-compound excesses.
H. Vitamin and bio-compound deficiencies.
I. Mineral excesses.
J. Mineral deficiencies.
K. Structural malfunction.
L. Erroneous examination.
M. Erroneous diagnosis.
N. Erroneous structural treatment.
O. Erroneous medication.

There is another group which belongs to both the spiritual and physical divisions. These are:
i. Allergies.
ii. Addictions.
iii. Habits.
iv. Neglect.
v. Decay.

Any of these things in any of the three groups can be a cause of non-optimum personal existence.

We are not discussing here the full handling of any of these groups or what optimum state can be attained or maintained. But it should be obvious that there is a level below which life is not very tolerable. How well a person can be or how efficient or how active is another subject entirely.

Certainly life is not very tolerable to a person who has been injured or ill, to a woman who has just delivered a baby, to a person who has just suffered a heavy emotional shock. And there is no reason a person should remain in such a low state, particularly for weeks, months or years when he or she, could be remarkably ASSISTED to recover in hours, days or weeks.

It is in fact a sort of practised cruelty to insist by neglect that a person continue on in such a state when one can learn and practise and obtain relief for such a person.

We are mainly concerned with the first group, 1-8. The group is not listed in the order that it is done but in the order that it has influence upon the being.

The idea has grown that one handles injuries with touch assists only. This is true for someone who as an auditor has only a smattering of Scientology. It is true for someone in such pain or state of case (which would have to be pretty bad) that he cannot respond to actual auditing.

But a Scientologist really has no business “having only a smattering” of auditing skills that could save his or the lives of others. And the case is very rare who cannot experience proper auditing.

The actual cause of not handling such conditions is, then, to be found as iv. NEGLECT. And where there is Neglect, v. DECAY is very likely to follow.

One does not have to be a medical doctor to take someone to a medical doctor. And one does not have to be a medical doctor to observe that medical treatment may not be helping the patient. And one does not have to be a medical doctor to handle things caused spiritually by the being himself.

Just as there are two sides to healing—the spiritual and the structural or physical, there are also two states that can be spiritually attained. The first of these states might be classified as “humanly tolerable”. Assists come under this heading. The second is spiritually improved. Grade auditing comes under this second heading.

Any minister (and this has been true as long as there has been a subject called religion) is bound to relieve his fellow being of anguish. There are many ways a minister can do this.

An assist is not engaging in healing. It is certainly not engaging in treatment. What it is doing is ASSISTING THE INDIVIDUAL TO HEAL HIMSELF OR BE HEALED BY ANOTHER AGENCY BY REMOVING HIS REASONS FOR PRECIPITATING, AND PROLONGING HIS CONDITION AND LESSENING HIS PREDISPOSITION TO FURTHER INJURE HIMSELF OR REMAIN IN AN INTOLERABLE CONDITION.

This is entirely outside the field of “healing” as envisioned by the medical doctor and by actual records of results is very, very far beyond the capability of psychology, psychiatry and “mental treatment” as practised by them.

In short, the assist is strictly and entirely in the field of the spirit and is the traditional province of religion.

A minister should realize the power which lies in his hands and his potential skills when trained. He has this to give in the presence of suffering: he can make life tolerable. He can also shorten a term of recovery and may even make recovery possible when it might not be otherwise.

When a minister confronts someone who has been injured or ill, operated upon or who has suffered a grave emotional shock, he should be equipped to do and should do the following:

A CONTACT ASSIST where possible and where indicated until the person has reestablished his communication with the physical universe site. To FN.

A TOUCH ASSIST until the person has reestablished communication with the physical part or parts affected. To FN.

HANDLE ANY ARC BREAK that might have existed at the time a) with the environment, b) with another, c) with others, d) with himself, e) with the body part or the body, and f) with any failure to recover at once. Each to FN.

HANDLE ANY PROBLEM the person may have had a) at the time of illness or injury, b) subsequently due to his or her condition. Each to FN.

HANDLE ANY OVERT ACT the person may feel he or she committed a) to self, b) to the body, c) to another, and d) to others. Each to FN.

HANDLE ANY WITHHOLD a) the person might have had at the time, b) any subsequent withhold, and c) any having to withhold the body from work or others or the environment due to being physically unable to approach it.

HANDLE ANY SECONDARY, which is to say emotional reactions, before, during or after the situation. This must be run from the first intimation something was wrong or going to happen or being told something had happened. This is by chain to FN. And then Flow 2 to FN and then Flow 3 to FN.

HANDLE ANY ENGRAM of actual physical duress. Run Flow 1 by chain to FN. Then Flow 2 to FN. Then Flow 3 to FN. It is understood here that Flow One was the physical incident itself, not necessarily something done to the person but as something that happened to him or her.

POSTULATE TWO-WAY COMM. This is two-way comm on the subject of “any decision to be hurt” or some such wording. This is done only if the person has not

already discovered that he had decisions connected to the incident. It is carried to FN. One must be careful not to invalidate the person.

Where a person is injured, given a contact or touch assist and then medical examination and treatment, he is given the remainder as soon as he is able to be audited. The drug “five days” does not need to apply. But where the person has been given an assist over drugs, one must later come back to the case when he is off drugs and run the drug part out or at least make sure that nothing was submerged by the drugs. It is not uncommon for a person to be oblivious of certain parts of a treatment or operation at the time of initial auditing, only to have a missing piece of the incident pop up days, months or even years later. THIS is the reason injuries or operations occasionally seem to persist despite a full assist: a piece of it was left unhandled due to a drugged condition during the operation; such bits may come off unexpectedly in routine auditing on some other apparently disrelated chain.

It can happen that a person is in the midst of some grade auditing at the time of an injury or illness or receiving an emotional shock. The question arises as to whether or not to disrupt the grade auditing to handle the situation. It is a difficult question. But certainly the person cannot go on with grade auditing while upset or ill. The usual. answer is to give a full assist and repair the case to bridge it back into the grade auditing. The question however may be complicated in that some error in the grade auditing is also sitting there, not to cause the illness or accident but to complicate the assist. This question is handled fully only by study of the case by a competent Case Supervisor. The point is not to let the person go on suffering while time is consumed making a decision.

SUMMARY

Religion exists in no small part to handle the upsets and anguish of life. These include spiritual duress by reason of physical conditions.

Ministers long before the Apostles had as a part of their duties the ministering to the spiritual anguish of their people. They have concentrated upon spiritual uplift and betterment. But where physical suffering impeded this course, they have acted. To devote themselves only to the alleviation of physical duress is of course to attest that the physical body is more important than the spiritual beingness of the person which, of course, it is not. But physical anguish can so distract a being that he deserts any aspirations of betterment and begins to seek some cessation of his suffering. The specialty of the medical doctor is the curing of physical disease or non-optimum physical conditions. In some instances he can do so. It is no invasion of his province to assist the patient to greater healing potential. And ills that are solely spiritual in nature are not medical.

The “psych-iatrist” and “psych-ologist” on the other hand took their very names from religion since “psyche” means soul. They, by actual statistics, are not as successful as priests in relieving mental anguish. But they modernly seek to do so by using drugs or hypnotism or physical means. They damage more than they help.

The minister has a responsibility to his people and those about him to relieve suffering. He has many ways to do this. He is quite successful in doing so and he does not need or use drugs or hypnotism or shock or surgery or violence. Until his people are at a level where they have no need of physical things, he has as a duty preventing their spiritual or physical decay by relieving where he can their suffering.

His primary method of doing so is the ASSIST.

As the knowledge of how to do them exists and as the skill is easily acquired, he actually has no right to neglect those for whose well-being he is responsible, as only then can he lead them to higher levels of spiritual attainment.


LRH:nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1973 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [Added to by HCO B 6 Jan 74, Assist Summary-Addition.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1973

Tours Hats (HCO PL 25 June 1972 Reissued
ARC Brk Regs as an HCO B without change.)
Est Os
Qual Secs
Dirs Qual Flub Catch Series 4
Validity
ARC Brk

RECOVERING STUDENTS
AND PCS


ARC Brk Regs and Tours Personnel (as well as Ethics Officers) collide with students and pcs who have blown (run away from) the org.

The recovery of these and getting them back on the line is of great interest to such personnel.

In the first place, they muddy up a field. In the second place EVERY ONE OF THEM CAN BE GOTTEN BACK IN.

If you leave them about they spoil prospects.

And there’s nothing more startling to their friends than to have these people who have been nattering around suddenly turn up (repaired) saying, “OK it’s all fine now. They’re great guys.”

Because Tech does work, this is not hard to do. Down deep they know that we do have the answer. It’s an apparent refusal to apply it to them they’re concerned about.

Poor offbeat Supervision, poorly trained auditors, lack of cramming in an org get in your way. So you have a deep interest that tech, in both Courses and Auditing, is straight.

STUDENTS

Students who doped in Class, nattered or got upset have been known to blow (leave hurriedly).

But also, students who are interrupted too often when F/Ning may also blow! On a “w/h of nothingness”.

These points-”not helped by the Super” and “interfered with too much”-must BOTH be checked on getting blown students back.

ARC Brk Registrars and Tours people run into these blown students. They must know how to handle.

There are 5 main blow reasons:

1. Misunderstood words (or no materials).

2. No help or WC Method 4 from the Supers (or no Super).

3. Interference from the Supers that stopped them from getting on.

4. Personal out-Ethics resulting in a w/h.

5. Simply booted off for reasons best known to God or Registrars (like suddenly saying “You must now buy Method 1” etc, thus violating the “deliver what we promise” rule).

The interference and boot-off reasons are the ones you’d least suspect. Both generate a lot of H, E & R (Human Emotion and Reaction).

The reasons most pcs blow are

1. Out lists

2. No auditing

3. Invalidation of case or gains

4. Told they’d attained it and hadn’t.

Of these the out list (meaning overlist or wrong items) produces the most fantastic HE&R. Needs repair with an “L4B”.

No auditing includes being sent to Ethics or Cramming (on Solo) or just stalled. Remedy is to deliver what’s promised.

Invalidation of case or gains includes being made to go on past a win. This acts as an invalidation. Some pcs who made it are hung up from then on out because no one asked them to declare it. Remedy is to get it declared.

When told they had attained it and hadn’t they feel cut off from all further help. Remedy is to repair it by getting off the suppress and finish up the job in the org.

TO HANDLE ANY OF THIS YOU MUST REALIZE THAT TECH DOES WORK IN BOTH STUDY AND AUDITING.

The most gross errors have to exist before it doesn’t work.

Auditors can be trained to audit and can audit. But some SP in an org gets some out tech order in force like “Auditors mustn’t do TR 0 in Cramming as it stirs up their cases” (which is a complete lie and which was just found as NY’s reason for poor tech and down stats).

ACTION

When handling the blown student or pc you can assess the above points on a meter. Or just know them by heart and rattle them off and you’ll get the real reason right now.

The object is to put the student or pc back on the rails.

The above points are all valid.

A very fast way to handling auditing outnesses is to give a FREE AUDITING CHECK using HCO B 31 Dec 71, Revised 16 May 72, C/S Series 53RC. To it one adds “No Auditing” at the end under L. One has a good auditor (who has good TRs and who knows how to read a meter well) assess it on the blown or upset pc.

One or more of these items will give a Long Fall Blowdown. You indicate this to the pc. You don’t handle it. You just say, “The reason you were upset was (whatever read).” The pc should suddenly magically feel better.

DON’T try to Audit it further on a FREE CHECK. Tell the pc to go to the org to get everything handled now.

Route the assessed sheet “To the PC FOLDER OF (pc’s name). PUT IN FOLDER FOR FIRST AUDITING ACTION,” and sign it.

The above checklists can be done on students by discussion. Don’t use the C/S 53RC and the pc checklist both as the pc checklist above is on the C/S 53RC.

The difference is C/S 53RC has to be done by an auditor. The other list can be done in 2 way comm socially.

In phoning people and running into ARC Broken pcs or students the two short checklists can be used.

Sea Org Missions have successfully used another approach. They say they’re there to handle the org and make it a safe place. The response is very gratifying.

THE PUBLIC HATES LIKE HELL TO BE DENIED DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY .

After all you’re just handing them their future happiness on a silver platter.

Don’t just avoid such people. And don’t bother to listen to the natter. The above actions are the reasons.

Puts you right on top of the situation.

That’s where Tours and ARC Brk Regs and auditors should be.

I recall one old fellow who blew an org staff (SH), hated everybody. Stayed away for years. A student auditor ran into him socially, grabbed a meter and put in Level III (Change and ARC Break) on him. And bang there he was writing to me about how great it all was!

Bad Supervision or untrained or careless auditors or flubbing Admin personnel make a lot of trouble for us. But the vast majority of org staffs are very fine. So don’t get down on the org. Get the flubbers unpopular. And get back those who have been flubbed. There are no dog pcs or bad students.


ETHICS ACTION

Whenever you find one of these you should make a brief report. One copy goes to the Ethics Officer of the org, as a knowledge report. The other goes to FLUB CATCH CONTROL TRAINING AND SERVICES FLAG.

You have to give the when and the who and the what.

Then the org itself and Flag can come down on the outness and correct it.


SUMMARY

Just knowing these points there are no blown students or pcs you can’t get back or get signed up again.


LRH:nt jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972, 1973 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1973
Remimeo
Art Series 2

ART, MORE ABOUT
Ref: HCO B 30 Aug AD15, ART

How good does a professional work of art have to be? This would include painting, music, photography, poetry, any of the arts whether fine or otherwise. It would also include presenting oneself as an art form as well as one’s products.

Yes, how GOOD does such a work of art have to be?

Ah, you say, but that is an imponderable, a thing that can’t be answered. Verily, you say, you have just asked a question for which there are no answers except the sneers and applause of critics. Indeed, this is why we have art critics! For who can tell how good good is. Who knows?

I have a surprise for you. There IS an answer.

As you know, I searched for many years, as a sort of minor counterpoint to what I was hardwork doing, to dredge up some of the materials which might constitute the basis of art. Art was the most uncodified and most opinionated subject on the planet after men’s ideas about women and women’s ideas about men and Man’s ideas of Man. Art was anyone’s guess. Masterpieces have gone unapplauded, positive freaks have gained raves.

So how good does a work of art have to be to be good?

The painter will point out all the tiny technical details known only to painters, the musician will put a score through the Alto horn and explain about valve clicks and lip, the poet will talk about meter types, the actor will explain how the position and wave of one hand per the instructions of one school can transform a clod into an actor. And so it goes, art by art, bit by bit.

But all these people will be discussing the special intricacies and holy mysteries of technique, the tiny things only the initiate of that art would recognize. They are talking about technique. They are not really answering how good a work of art has to be.

Works of art are viewed by people. They are heard by people. They are felt by people. They are not just the fodder of a close-knit group of initiates. They are the soul food of all people.

One is at liberty of course to challenge that wide purpose of art. Some professors who don’t want rivals tell their students “Art is for self-satisfaction” “It is a hobby.” In other words, don’t display or exhibit, kid, or you’ll be competition! The world today is full of that figure-figure. But as none of this self-satisfaction art meets a definition of art wider than self for the sake of self, the professional is not interested in it.

In any artistic production, what does one have as an audience? People. Not, heaven forbid, critics. But people. Not experts in that line of art. But people.

That old Chinese poet who, after he wrote a poem, went down out of his traditional garret and read it to the flower-selling old lady on the corner had the right idea. If she understood it and thought it was great, he published. If she didn’t he put it in the bamboo trash can. Not remarkably, his poems have come down the centuries awesomely praised.

Well, one could answer this now by just saying that art should communicate to people high and low. But that really doesn’t get the sweating professional anywhere as a guide in actually putting together a piece of work and it doesn’t give him a yardstick whereby he can say “That is that!” “I’ve done it.” And go out with confidence that he has.

What is technique? What is its value? Where does it fit? What is perfectionism? Where does one stop scraping off the paint and erasing notes and say “That is that”?

For there is a point. Some artists don’t ever find it. The Impressionists practically spun in as a group trying to develop a new way of viewing and communicating it. They made it-or some of them did like Monet. But many of them never knew where to stop and they didn’t make it. They couldn’t answer the question “How good does a piece of art work have to be to be good?”

In this time of century, there are many communication lines for works of art. Because a few works of art can be shown so easily to so many there may even be fewer artists. The competition is very keen and even dagger sharp. To be good one has to be very good. But in what way and how?

Well, when I used to buy breakfasts for Greenwich Village artists (which they ate hungrily, only stopping between bites to deplore my commercialism and bastardizing my talents for the gold that bought their breakfasts) I used to ask this question and needless to say I received an appalling variety of responses. They avalanched me with technique or lack of it, they vaguely dwelt on inherent talent, they rushed me around to galleries to show me Picasso or to a board fence covered with abstracts. But none of them told me how good a song had to be to be a song.

So I wondered about this. And a clue came when the late Hubert Mathieu, a dear friend, stamped with youth on the Left Bank of the Seine and painting dowagers at the Beaux Arts in middle age, said to me “To do any of these modern, abstract, cubist things, you have to first be able to paint!” And he enlarged the theme while I plied him in the midnight hush of Manhattan with iced sherry and he finished up the First Lady of Nantucket’s somewhat swollen ball gown. Matty could PAINT. Finally he dashed me off an abstract to show me how somebody who couldn’t paint would do it and how it could be done.

I got his point. To really make one of these too modern things come off, you first had to be able to paint. So I said well, hell, there’s Gertrude Stein and Thomas Mann and ink splatterers like those. Let’s see if it really is an art form. So I sharpened up my electric typewriter and dashed off the last chapters of a novel in way far out acid prose and put THE END at the bottom and shipped it off to an editor who promptly pushed several large loaves down the telephone wire and had me to lunch and unlike his normal blase self said, “I really got a big bang (this was decades ago, other years, other slang) out of the way that story wound up! You really put it over the plate.” And it sent his circulation rating up. And this was very odd because you see the first chapters were straight since they’d been written before Matty got thirsty for sherry and called me to come over and the last chapters were an impressionistic stream of consciousness that Mann himself would have called “an advanced rather adventurous over-Finneganized departure from the ultra school.”

So just to see how far this sort of thing could go, for a short while I shifted around amongst various prose periods just to see what was going on. That they sold didn’t prove too much because I never had any trouble with that. But that they were understood at all was surprising to me for their prose types (ranging from Shakespeare to Beowulf) were at wild variance with anything currently being published.

So I showed them to Matty the next time he had a ball gown to do or three chins to paint out and was thirsty. And he looked them over and he said, “Well, you proved my point. There’s no mystery to it. Basically you’re a trained writer! It shows through.”

And now we are getting somewhere, not just with me and my adventures and long dead yesterdays.

As time rolled on, this is what I began to see: The fellow technician in an art hears and sees the small technical points. The artist himself is engrossed in the exact application of certain exact actions which produce, when done, his canvas, his score, his novel, his performance.

The successful artist does these small things so well that he also then has attention and skill left to get out his message, he is not still fiddling about with the cerulean blue and the semiquaver. He has these zeroed in. He can repeat them and repeat them as technical actions. No ulcers. Strictly routine.

And here we have three surrealist paintings. And they each have their own message. And the public wanders by and they only look with awe on one. And why is this one different than the other two? Is it a different message? No. Is it more popular? That’s too vague.

If you look at or listen to any work of art, there is only one thing the casual audience responds to en masse, and if this has it then you too will see it as a work of art. If it doesn’t have it, you won’t.

So what is it?

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE ITSELF ADEQUATE TO PRODUCE AN EMOTIONAL IMPACT.

And that is how good a work of art has to be to be good.

If you look this over from various sides, you will see that the general spectator is generally unaware of technique. That is the zone of art’s creators.

Were you to watch a crowd watching a magician, you would find one common denominator eliciting uniform response. If he is a good magician he is a smooth showman. He isn’t showing them how he does his tricks. He is showing them a flawless flowing performance. This alone is providing the carrier wave that takes the substance of his actions to his audience. Though a far cry from fine art, perhaps, yet there is art in the way he does things. If he is good, the audience is seeing first of all, before anything else, the TECHNICAL EXPERTISE of his performance. They are also watching him do things they know they can’t do. And they are watching the outcome of his presentations. He is a good magician if he gives a technically flawless performance just in terms of scenes and motions which provide the channel for what he is presenting.

Not to compare Bach with a magician (though you could), all great pieces of art have this one factor in common. First of all, before one looks at the faces on the canvas or hears the meaning of the song, there is the TECHNICAL EXPERTISE there adequate to produce an emotional impact. Before one adds message or meaning, there is this TECHNICAL EXPERTISE.

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE is composed of all the little and large bits of technique known to the skilled painter, musician, actor, any artist. He adds these things together in his basic presentation. He knows what he is doing. And how to do it. And then to this he adds his message.

All old masters were in there nailing canvas on frames as apprentices or grinding up the lapis lazuli or cleaning paintbrushes before they arrived at the Metropolitan.

But how many paintbrushes do you have to clean? Enough to know that clean paintbrushes make clean color. How many clarinet reeds do you have to replace? Enough to know which types will hit high C.

Back of every artist there is technique. You see them groping, finding, discarding, fooling about. What are they hunting for? A new blue? No, just a constant of blue that is an adequate quality.

And you see somebody who can really paint still stumbling about looking for technique—a total overrun.

Someplace one says, “That’s the TECHNICAL EXPERTISE adequate to produce an emotional impact.” And that’s it. Now he CAN. So he devotes himself to messages.

If you get this tangled up or backwards, the art does not have a good chance of being good. If one bats out messages without a TECHNICALLY EXPERT carrier wave of art, the first standard of the many spectators seems to be violated.

The nice trick is to be a technician and retain one’s fire. Then one can whip out the masterpieces like chain lightning. And all the great artists seem to have managed that. And when they forked off onto a new trail they mastered the technique and then erupted with great works.

It is a remarkable thing about expertise. Do you know that some artists get by on “Technical expertise adequate to produce an emotional impact” alone with no messages? They might not suspect that. But it is true.

So the “expertise adequate” is important enough to be itself art. It is never great art. But it produces an emotional impact just from quality alone.

And how masterly an expertise? Not very masterly. Merely adequate. How adequate is adequate? Well, people have been known to criticize a story because there were typographical errors in the typing. And stories by the non-adept often go pages before anyone appears or anything happens. And scores have been known to be considered dull simply because they were inexpertly chorded or clashed. And a handsome actor has been known not to have made it because he never knew what to do with his arms, for all his fiery thunderings of the Bard’s words.

Any art demands a certain expertise. When this is basically sound, magic! Almost anyone will look at it and say Ah! For quality alone has an emotional impact. That it is cubist or dissonant or blank verse has very little bearing on it; the type of the art form is no limitation to audience attention generally when it has, underlying it and expressed in it, the expertise adequate to produce an emotional impact.

The message is what the audience thinks it sees or hears. The significance of the play, the towering clouds of sound in the symphony, the scatter-batter of the current pop group, are what the audience thinks it is perceiving and what they will describe, usually, or which they think they admire. If it comes to them with a basic expertise itself able to produce an emotional impact they will think it is great. And it will be great.

The artist is thought of as enthroned in some special heaven where all is clean and there is no sweat, eyes half closed in the thrall of inspiration. Well maybe he is sometimes. But every one I’ve seen had ink in his hair or a towel handy to mop his brow or a throat spray in his hand to ease the voice strain of having said his lines twenty-two times to the wall or the cat. I mean the great ones. The others were loafing and hoping and talking about the producer or the unfair art gallery proprietor.

The great ones always worked to achieve the technical quality necessary. When they had it they knew they had it. How did they know? Because it was technically correct.

Living itself is an art form. One puts up a mock-up. It doesn’t happen by accident. One has to know how to wash his nylon shirts and girls have to know what mascara runs and that too many candy bars spoil the silhouette, quite in addition to the pancreas.

Some people are themselves a work of art because they have mastered the small practical techniques of living that give them a quality adequate to produce an emotional impact even before anyone knows their name or what they do.

Even a beard and baggy pants require a certain art if they are to be the expertise adequate to produce an emotional impact.

And some products produce a bad misemotional impact without fully being viewed. And by this reverse logic, of which you can think of many examples such as a dirty room, you can then see that there might be an opposite expertise, all by itself, adequate to produce a strong but desirable emotional impact.

That is how good a work of art has to be. Once one is capable of executing that technical expertise for that art form he can pour on the message. Unless the professional form is there first, the message will not transmit.

A lot of artists are overstraining to obtain a quality far above that necessary to produce an emotional impact. And many more are trying to machine gun messages at the world without any expertise at all to form the vital carrier wave.

So how good does a piece of art have to be?


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: nt.jh
Copyright © 1973
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JULY 1973

BPI

SCIENTOLOGY, CURRENT STATE OF THE
SUBJECT AND MATERIALS



There is a possibility that some Scientologists have not realized the extent of technical materials which exist in Dianetics and Scientology on the subject of the spirit, mind and life.

For instance, there are about 25,000,000 words on tape in archives which provide the consecutive path of discovery.

When placed chronologically with books, HCOBs, HCO PLs and other issues this gives a nearly complete record of all discoveries and applications in these subjects.

The total numbers of words or even the number of tapes and issues to date have not been reliably calculated.

From time to time various efforts have been made to transcribe and issue all the materials. The task should be done, especially before the decay of magnetic tape, some of which was of poor quality, eradicates the material. But proper and safe equipment and trustworthy technicians who would not turn out an overt product have been lacking. A project of assembly in the 1960s was balked by inadequate record pressing material available in the society around us. A more strenuous and reliable effort should be made to place these archives into a more durable form than magnetic tape.

More or less complete sets of all materials exist in many places on the planet to safeguard against destruction.

It is from this tremendous archives that study packs and other materials are made up. These and their checksheets are very numerous and available.

A chronological study of materials is necessary for the complete training of a truly top grade expert in these lines. He can see how the subject progressed and so is able to see which are the highest levels of development. Not the least advantage in this is the defining of words and terms, for each, when originally used, was defined, in most cases, with considerable exactitude, and one is not left with any misunderstoods. It is for this reason that the Saint Hill Briefing Course checksheet should consist only of the chronological materials, studied in chronological order, excepting only the Study Tapes (Primary Rundown) which should be done first if not previously done properly.

An enormous amount of this material does exist in issuable form. While not strictly technical, HCO PLs, almost all of them, now exist in books grouped by subjects and 1 think will soon exist in chronological form also. It is projected that this be done with HCOBs, but these of course should be only in chronological and complete order and the points where books and tapes were part of this track should be indicated. Transcriptions and edited versions of tapes (which do not however rearrange meaning or alter data) exist for a great many tapes and it is projected that these shall also be the subject of a future issue. For instance, the “Philadelphia Lectures” have recently been transcribed and could easily be edited into volumes for issue and should be, due to their popularity.

The subject of Scientology is to some degree developed in reverse order. The task was to undercut the current level of Man and this was the general target. Therefore one finds the higher levels publicly spoken of most frequently in the earlier books and tapes (between ‘51 and ‘55). In seeking full application to others and attainment for them of their potentials it was necessary to codify the materials and develop processes for them.

Any difficulties people were having with going Clear were handled in the mid ‘60s and OT levels as they exist in Advanced Orgs were completed by ‘68. There are perhaps 15 levels above OT VII fully developed but existing only in unissued note form, pending more people’s full attainment of OT VI & VII.

In the early ‘70s the bottom was found with the discoveries of exactly what psychosis was and the development of processes to handle it. This was outside the scope of organizations at the time and is not in general use; but it did finalize the task of undercutting low enough to include all spiritual and mental materials, then, within the subject of Scientology, in a state of applicability.

Many people believe that Scientology materials contain mainly processes. They think of Scientology as processing. This is a very narrow view. It is understandable enough as processing is the way out for them. But this neglects the more considerable materials which deal with basics and fundamentals; processes are only one use of these.

Other people, having gotten their smallest toe damp as an HAS then wander off to other fields looking for answers, whereas had they taken Dianetics or Scientology Grade training, to say nothing of the Saint Hill Briefing Course, they would have found more fundamentals than exist in all other subjects combined, a fact which any advanced student of Scientology can confirm.

Still others think that the “newest” is of course the most advanced and are looking for new “processes” to be issued or new materials; whereas the process to resolve their case was most likely issued in earlier years. An amusing instance of this is one whole continental area where an exact set of principles was isolated and exact processes released that handle that exact national type; yet, waiting for something new because they did not know the old, they were found earlier this year to be ignoring this rundown even on new preclears and of course were having a hard time of it for those ARE the basic processes for that continent, for those people DO have that barrier.

For quite a while I have had the “hat of finder of lost tech”. Whole sections of knowledge drop out of view, whole arrays of processes (and administrative principles) go out of use and preclears there and the organization of the area sag; but recovery is swift the moment the “lost” knowledge is pulled out of their own file cabinets and restored .

Further, people in organizations are quite often at high case levels. They have already experienced the bridging knowledge which connects the subject to the man in the street. It is not new to THEM. They sometimes err in believing it is not new to the world. Thus gaps are permitted to exist. The solution is to recover the “lost” tech.

But it is also true that many in organizations work very hard to keep the knowledge bridge in. And do well in accomplishing it.

Within the same civilization, many other subjects than Scientology exist. Many of these other subjects are in a very primitive state while pretending a very advanced position. Psychiatry and Psychology are a pair of these. Their pretenses, inhumanities and even cruelties muddy up the field of the spirit and mind. Because they produce negative or even damaging results and because they were “authority” before Scientology began to guide the field toward saner and more civilized levels, Scientology’s task of handling the public is made far more difficult than if the public had not been so harmed and made suspicious of the field of the mind. Yet the most mind-wrenching problems Psychiatry and Psychology practitioners think they have (they have not confronted the real ones) give way before the lowest most pedestrian levels of Scientology. There is an amusing story of a Scientologist who attended a social meeting of Psychiatrists and Psychologists and listened to them for a while as they moaned about their patients and their own cases and then, being compassionate, began to explain to them in a sort of technical baby talk the nature and resolution of these “vast” “unsolvable” “problems”. As he took no offense at their ignorant arrogance which first greeted him and as he did seem to have a grasp of their troubles, they kept him up until four AM going over their “problems” in detail and gave him more and more absorbed attention and began to cognite. They were very tame and very respectful when he left, certain they had heard the guru of all time: and this is amusing because he was not a trained auditor in any sense of the word and had only read a few Scientology books! Yet to them he was their dean as a professional by comparative and sensible knowledge.

Many Scientologists have had similar experiences. In the field of Scientology Admin tech a staff member who had not had an Org Exec Course but had been hatted in HCO went home for a vacation. His father who, like some fathers, was certain his son was stupid, permitted him, with misgivings, to reorganize the administration of his medical clinic along Scientology lines. The son trained the small staff for only a week, lines began to whizz, patients began to get handled, records went straight, income rose and the father became absolutely convinced that his son was the brightest organizational genius in the country; yet in the org they had considered he had a long way to go to be a good Ethics Officer! Gives you some comparative idea of where the lowest rudimentary levels of Scientology sit in relation to current technologies.

Above such small bits of fringe information the bulk of Scientology knowledge towers into mountains. It is accessible, in the main, to those who seek it. The only barriers are usually their own lack of command of their own language and the misconceptions of study ground into them from kindergarten on. Means of solving these are also available and are daily applied to countless newcomers over the world.

The actual barrier in the society is a failure to practice truth. Living lives of white lies, they find it difficult to grasp that truth actually exists. This can hang on as a habit during the first studies of a student and he can defeat himself utterly by continuing a dishonesty in his study—skipping this, not doing that. For Scientology is the road to truth and he who would follow it must take true steps.

Some, seeing out of their own ambitious eyes and as jealous of any imagined rival as any ferocious boy friend, seek to assert that Scientology is interested in healing. This is something like saying that a Cadillac engineer is interested only in window polish. For when you begin to handle the causative force in Man he often also gets well. The “proofs” of supposing Scientology is a healing activity are abundant enough if one sees the recovery lists in any org. But they were not processed to heal them, only to free them. A recent example of this occurred when a preclear broke her ankle and was given medical treatment. Naturally the org was anxious to get on with her program of processing and the ankle injury was in the way. After weeks in medical hands with the ankle getting worse, the engram of the injury was run out, the ankle got well and the person was again being routinely processed a few days later. The auditor could be said to have been engaged in healing. All he was doing was getting a body difficulty out of his road so he could get on with it.

Recently, having found bottom on the mind and spirit some years ago, I have been looking into physical nutrition and biochemistry. These latter levels lie below the spirit and mind and could be loosely considered to be an undercut as they do impede spiritual gain.

Many people are mainly fixated on the body and living as they do in an intensely materialistic society, they are caught between being a body in the work-a-day world and achieving spiritual freedom. This is of course paradoxical. The game of being a body is the only game they have in their eyes. Thus if something is wrong with their body they manifest having heavy problems and they are anxious at the thought of losing a body: in other words they have a hidden standard of body health as their measure of spiritual attainment which, though illogical, is where they are and what they are doing.

Scientology has long pursued the firm policy of sending the sick to the medical doctor. There is no place they can send the insane as to send them to psychiatry would be to condemn them to horror, and so orgs do not usually handle them at all as they are not equipt to do so even when technically able.

But the sick have been another matter. The gentlemanly thing to do was to give the doctor his due and trust that he would respect the courtesy. Instead, anxious for a total monopoly of health which he is quite incapable of delivering especially in the USA, he seeks to eradicate all fancied rivals. Thus this policy will one day come to an end. It is quite legal to heal by spiritual means and even part of the law of most states and countries and, indeed, was the sole province of religion for thousands of years before the medical doctor came along. But this is no reason why Scientology would make any effort to replace the medical doctor since he has considerable value in the mechanics of bones and structural matters. The only place he falls down is in handling general illnesses, especially of a chronic nature.

Medicine has been overtaken in healing by nutritionists and biochemists. They still seek to exclude these skills from their knowledge and experience. Indeed, when demanding $46,000,000 to research heart disease from a not always bright Congress in the U.S., medicine was contradicted by no less than the head of Health, Education and Welfare who stated that their “research” as planned did not include biochemistry, a rather strange omission since this is the most result-filled field. It goes without mention that the demand also excluded nutritional research. Many individual doctors are prone to attack any patients they find “on vitamins” or who timidly mention Vitamin E. And one is struck with the fact that heart disease is the largest income source, I believe, of the doctor.

Thus there is a blindness in medical circles to the most productive and curative practices in the field of illness and thus, policy or not, organizations will soon have to bend to public demand and route the bill to doctors only when they have broken bones or need surgery to get the bullets or steering wheels out, and all others to the nutritionist who DOES use all the modern developments in food, vitamins, minerals and advanced biochemistry and use them intelligently.

An estimation of this latter field was therefore in order and I have for some time now been engaged in an evaluation of it and a study of it.

What I have found is that the field lacks coordination of its knowledge, not just from nutritionist to nutritionist but in the works of the same person. A tremendous amount of material has been brought forth in the last three decades. It is in a state of near chaos.

Liquefied grass and other dietary fads have become confused into the sober routine subject of nutrition. Food fadism and nutritional knowledge are interlocked in the public mind to such a degree that some unscrupulous fellow who knows better could advise people to eat only tree bark and they accommodatingly would. For instance there are books and books and books out currently, by M.D.s and others who should have done their homework, inveighing against “cholesterol”: This is a biochemical composition of animal oils and fats. They say it gets into the arteries and causes strokes and heart attacks. Well, that is all very well. But did you also know that every glandular secretion in the body, the secretions which keep one young and functioning are ALL made by the glands from cholesterol? If people do not take in cholesterol bearing foods they, by simple logic, could be seen to rapidly age and die. What’s wanted is the knowledge of how to keep cholesterol controlled not how to take everyone off cholesterol. One would think the American Medical Association owned shares in undertaking parlors.

A coordination of actual knowledge in these fields of nutrition and biochemistry is what is lacking. Apparently researchers are clever enough to isolate materials but are not wise enough to coordinate them fact against fact into an intelligible subject.

While examining this scene I have found that nutrition and biochemistry ARE the leaders, however. The subjects are actually arts and in a rather primitive state. But illnesses still puzzling medicine are in many cases quite old hat to the nutritionist.

If one wanted further proof, medical organizations, especially in the US, are fighting nutrition with their usual violence where their pocket book is threatened— black propaganda, government seizure orders and all the routine mechanisms medicine has employed in its history to “safeguard” its interests are in full play against the health food store and the vitamin counter. That is enough to prove the point that nutrition is the leader in our contemporary times where physical health body treatment is concerned.

While the medical doctor and his psychiatry branch flood out the useless and destructive “tranquilizers”, the nutritionist hands out a couple tablets of magnesium which actually cool a person off beautifully and far more effectively without the physical damage carried by the tranquilizer.

The medical doctor and his psychiatry branch gave the world its greatest wave of drug addiction. Their friend the German-oriented psychologist, with his man-is-animal teaching of the young and destruction of orthodox religion, has given the world its greatest period of crime. They are on their way out even though they are fighting a dirty and violent rearguard action. So why bet on losers? They won’t make it.

Nutrition’s star is rising into a blazing sun in the field of physical treatment of the body. It is also wise enough to know and repeatedly state that spiritual and mental stress MUST be handled before too much result can be obtained, which is perfectly true.

Thus I have going at this particular time a project of codification and coordination of what is known in the fields of nutrition and biochemistry, not to be wiser than they, but to get some order into this field so that its potential can be more fully realized.

This work is almost incidental to Scientology research. I am completing something I started in 1945, which was a survey of biochemistry potentials in order to decide a direction of research: did the mind monitor structure or structure, as medicine thought, monitor the mind? The former was in 1945 found to be the true case to an overwhelming degree.

But at the same time, when people are so body fixated that they have problems of a physical nature too intense to admit of any other consideration, bringing them true power and freedom becomes difficult unless one pays some attention to where their attention is fixated.

Malnutrition, deficiencies in vitamins and minerals, chronic illnesses and unhealing wounds are all needlessly distracting but they are nevertheless distracting.

There apparently exist easy ways to handle these things. There is no sense in processing someone for a hundred hours only to find his only interest is curing his headache and to discover that he has a headache because he is allergic to bread and eats bread nearly as his sole diet! Or to find that the overweight fellow is just getting processed to get his body thin and after scores of hours discover he is living on candy bars and has been diabetic for years! Not when you can simply take the former off bread and wheat and give the latter some trivalent chromium and protein and put a guard on the candy store. Make no mistake—one CAN process over the top of these things and even handle, for the spirit and mind dominate them. But why? It’s far easier to parallel the mind and get the distraction handled so one can THEN get to why he got that way in the first place if he is still interested, though well. One can do things the hard way or the easy way.

So nutrition and biochemistry are vital subjects and, due to medical influence, very badly neglected subjects even in the presence of positive and even vital value.

My current review of these is in the nature of an assist to processing. As such, of course, they have to embrace the factors of predisposition to, precipitation and prolongation of physical illness.

It has already been established, prior to present records, while I was working with the general field of life in 1945, and has been confirmed by contemporary researchers in nutrition and biochemistry that Stress is the basic cause in physical illness. Thus, such nutritional research cannot supplant the handling of stress. Further, conditions can exist where nutrition and biochemistry cannot work at all until stress is relieved by processing. Therefore, in lower stages of handling there is a band where thought and physical beingness tend to merge. In this lower zone, assist type processing and nutritional or biochemical aids seem to be simultaneously necessary. In such instances one must alternate them or co-apply them.

There are also a few deficiencies which produce manifestations quite similar in appearance to insanity.

Where the illness or injury is acute and severe immediate physical attention is mandatory and can be assisted only by the lightest possible address to the mental factors, perhaps as light as simply being comforting or gentle. In a case such as a person in a long continued coma, where nutrition is intravenous, processing is still possible by gently causing the person’s hand to make repeated contact on command with a pillow or the bed. Thus it can be seen, processing can reach a long way down.

Above all this physical level material of course, the subject has been for a long time wrapped up. Persons continuing to play the body game limit themselves in various ways and by the nature of life and this civilization have their ups and downs even when well processed. If they have attained a relatively high state as a bodied person they can however be rehabilitated, usually simply by running out their overt acts and withholds and restoring their exterior perception: they are, however, despite their continued physical beingness, quite capable of easily assuming their full potentials: they usually prefer to go on with the game by imposing limitations, for instance to continue using their eyes. One rarely sees them do the stunts and tricks of the Indian fakir even where they can since they have risen above exhibitionism or the need to overwhelm or prove things and they are of course continuing to play the game of human being, since that is the main game they have available around them.

There is undoubtedly a considerable amount of neating up that I could do, including making all materials more readily available, seeing to the compilation of a very extensive dictionary of terms, filling in incidental gaps where material may not have been fully recorded. These are difficulties of a minor nature compared to the research in making the result attainable.

It has been difficult working in a confused and, yes, even primitive society that is starved for workable knowledge in the humanities. The very condition that made it vital to seek out and release the material also made it difficult to do the job in the first place.

Scientology now has more than enough data and technology to handle even the broad problems in the humanities. The main task now is getting it fully used, and along this line there are hundreds of thousands working every day around the world.

Scientology is the fastest growing Religion on the planet by actual surveys and statements by sociologists. And this is the more remarkable as in this period orthodox Religions have shrunk before the materialistic onslaught of our times.

The materials of Scientology are the result of forty-three years of search, coordination and application to millions. The organizations of Scientology have been building and expanding for nineteen years (despite the fears and hates and jealousies of this civilization) on five continents and making it all the way, thanks to the magnificent people of Scientology.

We are very rich in materials, in results and in the potential future. Through our hardest times we have endured. Into our brightest times we are expanding.

These materials contain the full basics of the only game in the universe where everyone wins, the game of triumphant life itself.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.jh
Copyright © 1973
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 AUGUST 1973
Remimeo


PEP


I’ve been doing some research lately. That’s mostly what I have been doing. And while this is not the main line of research I thought 1 might mention it in passing.

Something like four centuries ago Man’s diet began to undergo a radical change. What he ate before that was European, Asian. Whole grain barley, various proteins, various wheats and other foods were not necessarily abundant but they made up a radically different diet than modern Man consumes.

With the discovery of the New World, for the first time there was an abundance of SUGAR. Up until then sugar came from a few scarce plants and beehives and was far too expensive for any broad general consumption. But the wealth of the West Indies was not really gold. It was the product of the sugar cane: BROWN AND WHITE SUGAR.

Also the Americas gave the world many new plants such as maize (the African’s “mealy meal”), the potato and other carbohydrates and today a startlingly large amount of the European and African diet consists of plants first found in America. Almost all these foods are mainly carbohydrate, which is to say, low on protein.

Thus Man’s diet changed. And the changes were in the direction of abundant Sugar and Carbohydrate and away from a high protein diet.

And with this change, it could be said, there went Man’s pep.

Sugar is a deceptive thing. It appears to give one energy. But it does so by by-passing the body’s production of its own sugar. Alcohol is also deceptive. It apparently by-passes the ability to make sugar which is why it messes up the liver. In other words sugar in abundance by-passed the basic energy producing mechanisms of the body.

Straight sugar makes the stomach and digestive processes alkaline. This is the opposite to acid. Food needs acid to digest. Therefore, as just one part of all this scene, when one doesn’t eat protein and digest his food he winds up in a state of malnutrition—a general breakdown of body functions due to lack of adequate nourishment.

Sugar, that is supposed “to produce energy” does so only at the expense of physical health for sugar does not build up a body, it only burns it up.

The result of a heavy intake of sugar and carbohydrates is to feel tired all the time—no pep. A diet of candy bars and cokes may appear to put energy there but eventually no body is left to burn it!

Well, today they start little babies out on sugar and carbohydrate as an “all right diet”. No protein. The result is these fat babies you see ballooning in their perambulators. They are starting life with two-and-a-half strikes on them. The rest of the third strike is added by cokes and candy bars. And there goes the old ball game. You get a civilization that is tired, no endurance.

The degeneration can be reversed if one knocks off the cokes and candy bars and sugar in the coffee and tea and begins to concentrate on an intake of a good percentage of protein. After a few weeks or months, one starts to feel peppy. The old body has begun to build itself back.

If one is going to run a car, he has to feed it the right fuel and oil. If one is going to run a body it has to be fed the right food and that has to include protein.

We have seen aboard a lot of diet fads. That’s what they were. “Eat liquefied carrots and you will fly.” “Chomp only Vitamin X and you will soar.” Well, bad diets like that give dieting a bad name like “crazy”. We’ve had food cranks around who only ate hazelnuts or Chinese herbs. Well, that’s a different subject entirely than what I’m talking about. I think those diets shouldn’t even be wished off on the birds.

All I’m talking about is eating your chow instead of living off candy bars, cokes and milk and sugared coffee.

By eating your hamburger and vegetables and leaving alone the candy bars and cokes, you will begin to build up a head of steam. It takes far longer for actual food to build up into energy than it does sugar.

Most of the bodies around got started off on a sugar-carbohydrate baby formula and got to believing that if something tasted sweet it was good. Well, cocaine probably tastes great too, but it won’t build up a body and the pep it imparts is very false indeed as it does so by ripping the body apart.

Man’s diet changed over the last four centuries. And he’s now got a lot of welfare and sick populations. And he sure pushes the stuff which got him into that condition— sugar and carbohydrates.

America got even for being discovered and raped. She gave the world hordes of new carbohydrates and principally she gave the world abundant raw sugar. An interesting revenge.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.ts
Copyright © 1973 by
L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1973
Remimeo
HCO Secs
E/Os
MAAs
Tech Secs PTS HANDLING
Ds of P
PTS Pack (PTS = Potential Trouble Source)


There are two stable data which anyone has to have, understand and KNOW ARE TRUE in order to obtain results in handling the person connected to suppressives.

These data are:

1. That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.

2. That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: A. Discover. B. Handle or disconnect.

Persons called upon to handle PTS people can do so very easily, far more easily than they believe. Their basic stumbling block is thinking that there are exceptions or that there is other tech or that the two above data have modifiers or are not sweeping. The moment a person who is trying to handle PTSs gets persuaded there are other conditions or reasons or tech, he is at once lost and will lose the game and not obtain results. And this is very too bad because it is not difficult and the results are there to be obtained.

To turn someone who may be PTS over to an auditor just to have him mechanically audited may not be enough. In the first place this person may not have a clue what is meant by PTS and may be missing all manner of technical data on life and may be so overwhelmed by a suppressive person or group that he is quite incoherent. Thus just mechanically doing a process may miss the whole show as it misses the person’s understanding of why it is being done.

A PTS person is rarely psychotic. But all psychotics are PTS if only to themselves. A PTS person may be in a state of deficiency or pathology which prevents a ready recovery, but at the same time he will not fully recover unless the PTS condition is also handled. For he became prone to deficiency or pathological illness because he was PTS. And unless the condition is relieved, no matter what medication or nutrition he may be given, he might not recover and certainly will not recover permanently. This seems to indicate that there are “other illnesses or reasons for illness besides being PTS”. To be sure there are deficiencies and illnesses just as there are accidents and injuries. But strangely enough the person himself precipitates them because being PTS predisposes him to them. In a more garbled way, the medicos and nutritionists are always talking about “stress” causing illness. Lacking full tech they yet have an inkling that this is so because they see it is somehow true. They cannot handle it. Yet they recognize it, and they state that it is a senior situation to various illnesses and accidents. Well, we have the tech of this in more ways than one.

What is this thing called “stress”? It is more than the medico defines it—he usually says it comes from operational or physical shock and in this he has too limited a view.

A person under stress is actually under a suppression on one or more dynamics.

If that suppression is located and the person handles or disconnects, the condition diminishes. If he also has all the engrams and ARC Breaks, problems, overts and withholds audited out triple flow and if ALL such areas of suppression are thus handled, the person would recover from anything caused by “stress”.

Usually the person has insufficient understanding of life or any dynamic to grasp his own situation. He is confused. He believes all his illnesses are true because they occur in such heavy books!

At some time he was predisposed to illness or accidents. When a serious suppression then occurred he suffered a precipitation or occurrence of the accident or illness, and then with repeated similar suppressions on the same chain, the illness or tendency to accidents became prolonged or chronic.

To say then that a person is PTS to his current environment would be very limited as a diagnosis. If he continues to do or be something to which the suppressive person or group objected he may become or continue to be ill or have accidents.

Actually the problem of PTS is not very complicated. Once you have grasped the two data first given, the rest of it becomes simply an analysis of how they apply to this particular person. A PTS person can be markedly helped in three ways: (a) gaining an understanding of the tech of the condition (b) discovering to what or to whom he is PTS (c) handling or disconnecting.

Someone with the wish or duty to find and handle PTSs has an additional prior step: He must know how to recognize a PTS and how to handle them when recognized. Thus it is rather a waste of time to engage in this hunt unless one has been checked out on all the material on suppressives and PTSs and grasps it without misunderstoods. In other words the first step of the person is to get a grasp of the subject and its tech. This is not difficult to do; it may be a bit more difficult to learn to run an E-Meter and considerably more difficult to learn how to list for items, but there again this is possible and is much easier than trying to grope around guessing.

With this step done, a person has no real trouble recognizing PTS people and can have success in handling them which is very gratifying and rewarding. Let us consider the easiest level of approach:

i) Give the person the simpler HCO Bs on the subject and let him study them so that he knows the elements like “PTS” and “Suppressive”. He may just cognite right there and be much better. It has happened.

ii) Have him discuss the illness or accident or condition, without much prodding or probing, that he thinks now may be the result of suppression. He will usually tell you it is right here and now or was a short time ago and will be all set to explain it (without any relief) as stemming from his current environment or a recent one. If you let it go at that he would simply be a bit unhappy and not get well as he is discussing usually a late lock that has a lot of earlier material below it.

iii) Ask when he recalls first having that illness or having such accidents. He will at once begin to roll this back and realize that it has happened before. You don’t have to be auditing him as he is all too willing to talk about this in a most informal manner. He will get back to some early this-lifetime point usually.

iv) Now ask him who it was. He will usually tell you promptly. And, as you are not really auditing him and he isn’t going backtrack and you are not trying to do more than key him out, you don’t probe any further.

v) You will usually find that he has named a person to whom he is still connected! So you ask him whether he wants to handle or disconnect. Now as the sparks will really fly in his life if he dramatically disconnects and if he can’t see how he can, you persuade him to begin to handle on a gradient scale. This may consist of imposing some slight discipline on him such as requiring him to actually answer his mail or write the person a pleasant good roads good weather note or to realistically look at how he estranged them. In short what is required in the handling is a low gradient. All you are trying to do is MOVE THE PTS PERSON FROM EFFECT OVER TO SLIGHT GENTLE CAUSE.

vi) Check with the person again, if he is handling, and coach him along, always at a gentle good roads and good weather level and no H E and R (Human Emotion and Reaction) if you please.

That is a simple handling. You can get complexities such as a person being PTS to an unknown person in his immediate vicinity that he may have to find before he can handle or disconnect. You can find people who can’t remember more than a few years back. You can find anything you can find in a case. But simple handling ends when it looks pretty complex. And that’s when you call in the auditor.

But this simple handling will get you quite a few stars in your crown. You will be amazed to find that while some of them don’t instantly recover, medication, vitamins, minerals will now work when before they wouldn’t. You may also get some instant recovers but realize that if they don’t you have not failed.

The auditor can do “3 S&Ds” after this with much more effect as he isn’t working with a completely uninformed person.

“3 S&Ds” only fail because of wrong items or because the auditor did not then put in triple rudiments on the items and then audit them out as engrams triple flow.

A being is rather complex. He may have a lot of sources of suppression. And it may take a lot of very light auditing to get him up to where he can do work on suppressives since these were, after all, the source of his overwhelm. And what he did to THEM might be more important than what they did to HIM but unless you unburden HIM he may not get around to realizing that.

You can run into a person who can only be handled by Expanded Dianetics.

But you have made an entrance and you have stirred things up and gotten him more aware and just that way you will find he is more at cause.

His illness or proneness to accidents may not be slight. You may succeed only to the point where he now has a chance, by nutrition, vitamins, minerals, medication, treatment, and above all, auditing, of getting well. Unless you jogged this condition, he had no chance at all: for becoming PTS is the first thing that happened to him on the subject of illness or accidents.

Further, if the person has had a lot of auditing and yet isn’t progressing too well, your simple handling may all of a sudden cause him to line up his case.

So do not underestimate what you or an auditor can do for a PTS. And don’t sell PTS tech short or neglect it. And don’t continue to transfer or push off or even worse tolerate PTS conditions in people.

You CAN do something about it.

And so can they.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1973
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

MISSION INTO TIME

L. Ron Hubbard

Published

September 1972


The central text of Mission Into Time (originally published in 1968 in abridged form in a limited edition entitled (A Test of Whole Track Recall) is edited from a lecture given by L. Ron Hubbard to members of the Sea Organization and students of the Advanced Organization aboard a Sea Organization vessel. It is a report on missions sent out to Sardinia, Sicily and Carthage to see if specific evidence could be found to substantiate L. Ron Hubbard’s recall of incidents in his own past, centuries ago, which occurred in these areas that he had not revisited previously in the current lifetime. Maps, color photographs and diagrams enhance his account, as do the historical background sketches of the areas inspected.

The book begins with perhaps the best biography of L. Ron Hubbard in print. It includes his explorations and expeditions in the physical universe in this century on planet earth, as well as his explorations into the realm of the mind.

In an essay on Whole Track Ron relates how whole track incidents began to appear during Dianetic engram running as early as 1950, and how he, assisted by Mary Sue Hubbard, rolled up his sleeves and started to investigate the whole track in 1951. He says:

“For every one individual, existence consists of the physical universe and everything that is
in it at this exact, present-time instant, and the track which consists of everything that has been. And that is the total is-ness as far as this thing called reality is concerned.”

Ron goes on to show how it is that “unless we admit the evidence before us that one has lived more than one life, we don’t Clear anyone or make them feel better. To make an O.T., one has to be willing to look at the time track. Unless you pay attention to only one lifetime as a fallacy and audit past lives and whole track, you make minimal gains.”

Although this is excellent data for all Scientologists, new or advanced, it can also be understood by newcomers, as all terms used in it are defined in the excellent glossary. As a whole it demonstrates rather forcefully that, as L. Ron Hubbard has said, “The weird idea is that one only lives but once.”

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 OCTOBER 1973

Remimeo
C/S Series 87


NULLING AND F/Ning PREPARED LISTS


A prepared list is one which is issued in an HCOB and is used to correct cases. There are many of these. Notable amongst them is C/S 53 and its corrections.

It is customary for the auditor to be required to F/N such a list. This means on calling it that the whole list item by item is to F/N.

Now and then you get the extreme oddity of a list selected to exactly remedy the case not reading but not F/Ning.

Of course this might happen if the list did not apply to the case (such as an OT prepared list being used on a Grade IV, heaven forbid). In the case of lists to correct listing, and in particular the C/S 53 series, it is nearly impossible for this situation to occur.

A C/S will very often see that the auditor has assessed the list on the pc, has gotten no reads, and the list did not F/N.

A “reasonable” C/S (heaven forbid) lets this go by.

Yet he has before him first-class evidence that the auditor

1. Has out-TRs in general,

2. Has no impingement whatever with TR-1,

3. Is placing his meter in the wrong position in the auditing session so that he cannot see it, the pc and his worksheet,

4. That the auditor’s eyesight is bad.

One or more of these conditions certainly exist.

To do nothing about it is to ask for catastrophe after catastrophe with pcs and to have one’s confidence in one’s own C/Sing deteriorate badly.

An amazing number of auditors cannot make a prepared list read for one of the above reasons.

Putting in suppress, invalidation or misunderstood words on the list will either get a read or the list will F/N.

The moral of this is that prepared lists that do not read F/N. When prepared lists that do not read do not F/N or when the auditor cannot get a prepared list to F/N, serious auditing errors are present which will defeat a C/S.

In the interest of obtaining results and being merciful on pcs, the wise C/S never lets this situation go by without finding what it is all about.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:rhc.nt.rd
Copyright © 1973
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 AUGUST 1971RC
Issue II
REVISED 21 OCTOBER 1973
REVISED 23 OCTOBER 1973
Remimeo REVISED 6 FEBRUARY 1974
(Only change is addition of No. 21a.)

EFFECTIVE AFTER 1st Thursday in
February 1974


PC COMPLETIONS—SECOND REVISION


This second revised issue cancels all earlier and any local org or continental issues assigning Paid Completion Points.

To maintain uniformity any right of orgs or continental areas to assign completion points is revoked. Orgs may request additions or amendments when required but such become effective only when officially issued by Flag.

For statistical purposes an audited completion must be PAID and have attested with an F/N VGIs and written a success story for the action. This does NOT mean that you would interrupt an auditing rundown to send the pc to Examiner and attest and success on each step of a rundown where completion points are awarded for separate steps (e.g. Drug RD is one attest when full RD completed. One then counts total points for the 3 sections of the RD).

Any quickie or incompetent completion falsifies the statistic and is subject to fine or penalty.

Changes below are in this type style.

The completions list follows:

1. Interiorization Rundown - 1.

2. Life Repair—1.

3. Student Rescue Intensive—1.

4. Progress Pgm—1.

5. Hubbard Consultant (HC) List (Data Series)—1.

6. Word Clearing Method One—2.

7. C/S Series 54. (Pc Assessment Form and handling)—2.

8. Drugs, Medicine, Alcohol Class VIII Remedy (3 way recall, secondaries, engrams)- 1.

9. Pains, Somatics, Emotions each reading drug fully handled by R3R Triple 1. (E.g. 5 drugs fully handled = 5 points. Count this way to conform with majority interpretation.)

10. Prior Assmt to Drugs—1.

11. Dianetics Completion—5.

12. ARC Str Wire Triple Exp—3 (no credit singles).

13. Each Expanded Grade—5 (no credit single or triple).

14. HCO B 24 July 69—1.

15. Touch and Dianetic Assists to fully handle injury or postoperative or post-birth, etc—2.

16. Auditing repair—1/2.

17. GF Method 5 handled if not part of a repair—1/2.

18. GF 40 Expanded fully handled, lists and engrams, by itself whether part of another program or not—3.

19. C/S Series 53 handled to F/N on all items (F/Ning assessment) whether part of another program or not—l.

19a. Full false TA RD successfully resolved—2.

20. L3B Rundown—2.

21. PTS Rundown (full rundown)—2.

21a. Introspection Rundown—2.

22. Study Correction List fully handled - 2.

23. Int Rundown Correction List fully handled - 1/2.

24. Word Clearing Correction List fully handled—1/2.

25. Objective Processes (full battery to get pc off or handle Drugs before Drug RD)—3.

26. Each Expanded Dianetics separate RD—1.

26a. Expanded Dianetics Rundown fully completed (in addition to single points for each part)—5.

27. Incidental Rundowns such as Money Process if contained in an LRH HCO B —1/2.

28. 12 1/2 Hour Intensive—5 points for each completed within the week.

PENALTY: l point loss for every percent below 90% F/N VGIs Examiner for the previous day. Example: 75% only F/N VGIs = 15 point loss.

GAIN: Add one point for every percent above 90% F/N VGIs at Examiner.

For every 9 points made I point may be added for staff auditing providing it is actually delivered.

Items such as L-IC and L-4B are part of the session or action in which they are used, or part of an auditing repair pgm, and are covered by the points for those actions.

Student Co-auditing: There are no points calculated or used for student co-auditing completions (except only as stated in the Student Completions HCO B) or for free public completions done by students or public as these can be part of student completion requirements.

SH

29. Power Set-up GF + 40 Method 5 and Handle—2.

30. POWER Single—5.

31. POWER TRIPLE—15.

32. Complete Your Case items as per regular auditing as above. Added Bonus for Case flying and fully handled—5.

AO

33. Set-up for Solo or other advanced level: as per regular auditing above.

33a. Case truly flying and ready for R6EW auditing. Added Bonus—5.

33b. Successful Case Consultation—1.

34. R6EW Solo Auditing Completion—5.

35. Clearing Course Solo Auditing Completion—10.

36. OT I Solo Auditing Completion—5.

37. OT II Solo Auditing Completion—5.

38. OT III Solo Auditing Completion—10.

39. OT III Exp Solo Auditing Completion—5.

40. OT IV Audited Section Completion—5.
Solo Aud Section Completion—5.

41. OT V Solo Auditing Completion 5.

42. OT VI Solo Auditing Completion—5.

43. OT VII Audited Section Completion - 5.
Solo Aud Section Completion—3.

44. OT VIII Points to be assigned when released.


PENALTIES
ALL ORG PENALTIES

45. For every pc in the area who is refunded after auditing (after this HCO B is in effect). MINUS 25.

46. (Excepting AOs.) For every pc in the area who does not buy and pay for further auditing to complete the grade or cycle he is on (after this HCO B is in effect). MINUS 10.

47. For every pc who is backlogged more than one week. MINUS 5.


SH PENALTIES

48. For every pc who does not go on to Power after cleanup and case handling (after this HCO B is in effect). MINUS 10.

49. Every pc who does not successfully complete his Power including Va within three months after being enrolled on any part of it (after date of this HCO B). MINUS 25.

50. Any pc found to have been run on Power more than once. MINUS 10.

51. Any Grade Va who has not enrolled on the R6EW Course within 3 months. Retroactive to start of org and subtracted each week. MINUS 1.


AO PENALTIES

52. “Nothing found” and no progress on any R6EW, Clear or OT Grade. (Means Drug RD was unflat and Pre-OT not properly set up but put on CC or OT Grades or both.) (Effective after date of this HCO B.) MINUS 25.

53. Every R6EW, Clear or Pre-OT in AO’s zone or area who has not signed up for next grade within 3 months of finishing his last one up to OT Vl (effective FROM DATE OF FOUNDING OF ORG AND SUBTRACTED EACH WEEK). MINUS 1.

54. Every Solo Student who does not audit for one week while assigned auditing on R6EW, Clear or on a Grade. (Effective from date of this HCO B.) MINUS 10.

55. Any R6EW, Clear or Pre-OT who leaves while on the next grade which is incomplete. (Effective from date of this HCO B.) MINUS 5.

56. Solo Auditor backlogged more than 24 hours for a Case Consultation or Review. (Effective from date of this HCO B.) MINUS 5.

57. Any evidence of an R6EW, Clear or Pre-OT being evaluated for by giving him the EP, being invalidated on his gains or assigned unjust Ethics penalty by another student or staff member. (Effective from date of this HCO B.) MINUS 50.

58. Any AO student now on SOLO Auditing who is found not to be able to fully operate a meter, run engrams or who has errors traceable to False TA HCO B not being applied. (Effective from date of this HCO B.) MINUS 25.

Points for any omitted or added rundowns will have points issued on request by Training and Services Aide.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder



LRH:nt .rd jh
Copyright © 1971,1973, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




[The original issue of the above HCO B which is in Volume VII, page 371, was revised by staff on 16 November 1972. It was then revised by LRH on 21 October 1973, adding the penalty sections and making the changes in this type style. A further revision by LRH on 23 October 1973 added the words “and pay for” and “or cycle” to number 46 and “R6EW, Clear or” to number 52. The 6 February 1974 revision adds number 21a to the completions list.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 NOVEMBER 1973
Remimeo
Pc Examiners



PRECLEAR DECLARE? PROCEDURE

(Reference: HCO PL 30 May 70, “Cutatives”
HCO PL 10 May 70, “Single Declare”
HCO B 24 Feb 72, C/S Series 71 A,
“Word Clearing OCAs”.)


In order to ensure the results of Scientology, it is vital that Examiner Declare? procedure is known and invariably applied.

1. Pc Examiner checks the folder to ensure that all processes run to EP correctly with NO Out Tech uncorrected.

2. When folder passed as OK, get Qual I and I to call Tech Services for the pc to be sent to the Pc Examiner.

3. Pc Examiner shows pc a written statement of the Ability Attained from the Grade Chart or HCO B for that particular Grade or completion and has the pc read it.

4. Ask pc: “Do you have any doubts or reservations concerning attesting to (whatever the attest is)?” If the Examiner gets an instant read on the question, he does not ask the attest question, and sends the folder back to the C/S.

5. If no instant read, ask the attest question, “Would you like to attest to ......”

6. If pc F/N VGIs on the Declare, indicate the F/N and end off the cycle.

Note. The presence of any Bad Indicators, or no F/N, or high or low TA or read on the “Doubts” question is the immediate signal to end off the action smoothly and quickly.

Absolute honesty must be maintained by a Pc Examiner on every cycle handled. Remember: The integrity of Scientology and the hope for Beings in this Universe is entrusted to Examinations.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt jh
Copyright © 1973
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 NOVEMBER l 973R
REVISED 4 DECEMBER 1973
(Revisions in this type style)
Remimeo
Tech
FEAR OF PEOPLE LIST—R

TO BE DONE ONLY BY AUDITORS WHOSE EYESIGHT, METER POSITION AND TR 1 HAVE BEEN CHECKED OUT AND WHO CAN THEREFORE MAKE A LIST READ ON A PC, SEE THE READ AND MARK IT.

This action is primarily for use in Qual to handle timid tech staff who back off from handling thetans or people or pcs or psychos or individuals. It may also be used on public and as part of Integrity Processing.

ASSESSMENT LISTS

TERMINALS LIST EMOTIONS LIST

People _________ Blaming (item assessed) _________
Thetans _________ Failures with _________
Pcs _________ Apathetic about _________
Psychos _________ Neglect of _________
Individuals _________ Hopelessness regarding _________
Others _________ Propitiation toward _________
Girls _________ Terrified of _________
Women _________ Desperation about _________
Men _________ Fear of _________
Boys _________ Afraid of creating a bad
Children _________ effect on _________
Addicts _________ Afraid of consequences
PTSes _________ Regarding _________
Older People _________ Fear of invalidation by _________
Seniors _________ Fear of doing something
Important People _________ wrong with _________
Fear of being found out
by _________
Fear of failure with _________
Afraid to take responsibility
for _________
Anxious about _________
Pretense concerning _________
Unwilling to help _________
Contempt for _________
Anger at _________
Hatred of _________
Suppressing _________

HANDLING STEPS

1. Assess the TERMINALS LIST.

2. Using best reading item from the TERMINALS LIST assess the EMOTIONS LIST. (Example: If “Girls” gave best read on TERMINALS LIST, then assess EMOTIONS LIST using “Girls”—”Blaming Girls _” “Failures with Girls” etc.)

3. Take best reading item from EMOTIONS LIST assessment. Run item R3-R triple to F/N Cog VGIs and erasure.

4. Proceed to handle (R3-R) each reading item from EMOTIONS LIST assessment in descending order of reads (largest to smallest read).

5. Repeat 2 to 4 with each reading item from the original TERMINALS assessment.

6. When all reading items from both assessments handled, reassess the TERMINALS LIST and repeat steps 2 to 5 on any items now reading.

7. This may be continued to an F/Ning Terminals List but somewhere along the line pc should have major cognition with wide F/N and statement to the effect that he no longer has any fear or back-off from people, thetans, pcs, psychos, or individuals. End off at such a point.

8. Note that the charge on a terminal could be blown on R3-R on major reading item from the Emotions List. In such a case the other reading items from the emotions assessment would F/N when taken up. This would be most likely to occur if “Fear of . . .” is run to good cog and then further reading “Fear” or “Afraid of” items are attempted.

9. Should the person R/S on assessment or handling just continue the action through to EP in the usual way but circle the R/S, note in front of folder and on Auditor Report for later handling.

10. Whether done in Qual or Tech the assessment sheets, worksheets and auditor report sheets must go into the pc folder and be recorded on the summary sheet.

EP of the action is thetans or people or pcs or psychos or individuals, etc solved and the person gotten off of any irrational back-off. We are in the thetan and people business after all.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: nt.rd
Copyright © 1973
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 NOVEMBER 1973
Issue I
Remimeo
All Levels
Flag Internes
LRH Comms

Reissued from

21st ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE
TRAINING DRILLS


NAME: Anti-Q and A TR.

COMMANDS: Basically, “Put that (object) on my knee.” (A book, piece of paper, ashtray, etc can be used for object.)

POSITION. Student and Coach sitting facing each other at a comfortable distance and one at which the Coach can reach the Student’s knee with ease.

PURPOSE:

(a) To train Student in getting a Pc to carry out a command using formal communication NOT Tone 40.

(b) To enable the Student to maintain his TRs while giving commands.

(c) To train the Student to not get upset with a Pc under formal auditing.

MECHANICS: Coach selects small object (book, ashtray, etc) and holds it in his hand.

TRAINING STRESS: Student is to get the Coach to place the object that he has in his hand on the knee of the Student. The Student may vary his commands as long as he maintains the Basic Intention (not Tone 40) to get the Coach to place the object on the Student’s knee. The Student is not allowed to use any physical enforcement, only verbal commands. The Coach should try and get the Student to Q and A. He may say anything he wishes to try and get him off the track of getting the command executed. The Student may say what he wishes in order to get the command done, as long as it directly applies in getting the Coach to place the object on the Student’s knee.

The Coach flunks for:

(a) Any communication not directly concerned with getting the command executed.

(b) Previous TR.

(c) Any upsetness demonstrated by Student.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1958, 1959, 1973
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 NOVEMBER 1973
Remimeo Issue II
All Levels
Flag Internes C/S Series 89

F/N WHAT YOU ASK OR PROGRAM

Ref: HCO B 23 Dec 72 Integrity Processing Series 20
HCO B 21 Nov 73 The Cure of Q and A

When an Auditor asks one question but F/Ns something else it is simply a version of QandA.

Example: AUDITOR: Do you have a problem? PC: (ramble-ramble) I was thinking of last night’s dinner. AUDITOR: That F/Ns.

Every few folders you pick up, if you can find examples of this:

The Auditor is not trained not to Q and A.

He is NOT getting answers to his questions.

When the Auditor starts something (such as a question or process) he MUST F/N what he started EVEN THOUGH HE DID SOMETHING ELSE DURING IT AND GOT AN F/N ON SOMETHING ELSE. HE MUST F/N THE ORIGINAL ACTION.

The result can be:

(a) Missed W/H phenomena.
(b) High or low TA an hour after the pc “F/Ned at Examiner”.
(c) A stalled case.
(d) An undone program.
(e) An unhandled pc.
(f) Continual need for repair programs.

To get this disease out of an HGC requires that Auditors go through an Anti-Q and A handling.

C/S Q AND A

C/Ses can also Q and A. They simply handle whatever the pc originates to the Examiner or Auditor, over and over and on and on.

The result is:

A. Incomplete Programs.
B. Tripled or quadrupled C/S effort as the case never seems to get solved.
C. Loads of repair programs.

Yet a C/S who does it will never look for it as THE primary error being committed.

The remedy is to have the C/S do an Anti-Q and A program.


LRH: nt.jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1973 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[IP Series 20 has been converted to BTB 23 Dec 72R, IP Series 17R, Volume IX, page 289.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 NOVEMBER 1973

Remimeo
All Auditors
All Levels
Flag Internes
LRH Comms

THE CURE OF Q AND A
MAN’S DEADLIEST DISEASE


Q and A is a dreadful malady which has to be cured before an Auditor (or an Administrator) can get results.

THE DISEASE OF Q AND A

Auditor: Spot that wall. Pc: My neck hurts. Auditor: Has it been hurting long? Pc: Ever since I was in the Army. Auditor: Are you in the Army now? Pc: No but my father is. Auditor: Have you been in comm with your father lately? Pc: I miss him. Auditor: That F/Ned, end of process. The Auditor has failed to note that he never got the pc to spot the wall or that he has run the pc all over the track flattening nothing, restimulating the pc.

A DEADLY BACTERIA

When an Auditor asks a Question and F/Ns something else he can mess a pc up badly.

Auditor: Do you have a withhold? That reads. Pc: It’s just a 2D perversion. What I was really thinking about was my raise I got today. Auditor: That F/Ns. Pc (later in session): You run a lousy org here. Charge too much .... Auditor in mystery, caves in. THAT IS SIMPLY Q AND A IN ANOTHER COAT.

ADMINISTRATIVE DELIRIUM

When an Administrator Qs and As it puts him straight down the org board and into a spin.

LRH Comm: You have a target here to move the file cases. Staff Member: I didn’t understand some of the words. LRH Comm: Here’s a word clearing order for Qual. (Next day.) LRH Comm: Did you go to the word clearer? Staff Member: I’m on Medical Lines now. LRH Comm: How long have you been ill? Staff Member: Since the Ethics Officer was mean to me. LRH Comm: I’ll go see about your ethics folder ....

And there goes the old soccer game. NO TARGET DONE BECAUSE THE EXECUTIVE COULD NOT HANDLE Q AND A.

C/S Q AND A

Case Supervisors (blush for the thought) are often guilty of Q and A and infect their area with its bacteria.

Pc to Examiner: I have a cold. C/S: Run spot spots to cure his cold. Pc to Auditor: It’s really I’m PTS to my Aunt. C/S: Do PTS RD on Aunt. Pc to Examiner: It’s really my foot. C/S: Do touch assist on foot ....

What C/S ever got a pc’s program done that way?

Where you find undone programs in folders you find goofing Auditors and Q and A type Case Supervisors.

FUMIGATION

There are definite cures for this dreadful and disgraceful malady. It must be handled as it results in a breaking out of bogged cases and blows, high and low TAs and very red faces when the Paid Completions Stat is counted.

The Cure is pretty violent and very few have courage enough to go through with it as their confront at the beginning is too low, what with their no-interest items left in restim on their drug rundowns or no TRs to begin with or no Supervisor when they took the Course.

The direct result of all this is a symptom known as “patty-cake”. This is a child game of clapping hands and putting palms together and has meant since 1950 Dianetics NOT HANDLING CASES. The signs of patty-cake are a weak slouching posture, bags under the eyes, a bowed spine and hangdog pathetic eyes. The respiration is quick and panicky, the palms sweat and. one starts at pins dropping in the next room.

However for those sturdy souls who want to Clear a planet and who really want to handle things they can prop themselves up in bed and somehow get through this program:


1. This HCOB starrate. _________

2. HCOB 24 May 62 “Q and A” starrate. _________

3. HCOB 13 Dec 61 “Varying Sec Check Questions”. _________

4. HCOB 22 Feb 62 “Withholds, Missed and Partial”. _________

5. HCOB 29 Mar 63 “Summary of Security Checking”. _________

6. HCOB 7 Apr 64 “All Levels—Q and A”. _________

7. TRs the Hard Way. _________

8. Upper Indoc a Rough Way. _________

9. Handling the Auditor’s, C/S’s or Administrator’s Not Done
or No Interest item Drug RD. _________

10. 35 hours Op Pro by Dup in Co-Audit receiving and giving. _________

11. HCOB 29 July 63 “Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
Training Drills”, Section “Q and A Drill”. _________

12. HCOB 20 Nov 73 Issue I Anti-Q and A Drill.

13. HCOB 20 Nov 73 Issue II “F/N What You Ask or Program”. _________

14. A final end result demonstrated that the person CAN SEE
SITUATIONS AND HANDLE THEM. _________


For, of course, the reason the person Qs and As is that he can’t confront or see the existing scene and so can’t handle it.

Q and A is the DISEASE OF DODGING LIFE.

When such a person tries to get a question or program done and the other person says or does something else, the Q and Aer goes into a sort of overwhelm or cave-in and just rides along at effect.

PEOPLE WHO GET THINGS DONE ARE AT CAUSE. When they are not, they Q and A.

Thus it IS a kind of illness. Chronic Overwhelm. It is NOT cured by drugs or electric shocks or brain operations.

It is cured by making oneself strong enough in confront and handle to live!


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:ntjh
Copyright © 1973
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER 1973

Remimeo
Tech & Qual
All Levels
All Tech Checksheets

DRY AND WET HANDS
MAKE FALSE TA


A couple of years ago some auditors were solving high TA problems by putting hand cream on the pc’s hands when they were calloused and talcum powder on a pc’s hands when they were too wet. Since no research had been done they were censured.

Research has now been done on this matter of dry and wet hands.

Apparently when a person has taken certain medicines or chemicals, or uses detergent soaps or is in contact with certain chemicals (such as those in some furniture polishes) the ordinary skin oils vanish. These oils are needed to make an electrical contact with the cans.

When these oils are absent, there is no adequate electrical contact and the “TA is High”.

When a person is deficient in certain minerals or vitamins such as magnesium or B complex, his hands can be excessively wet.

Either of these two conditions in hands or feet can produce an incorrect TA position.

The dry condition produces a false high TA.

The overly wet condition produces a false low TA.

The TA depends on normally moist hands. This does not mean the meter works on “sweat”. It does mean the meter works only when there is a correct electrical contact.

Too much and too greasy hand cream could produce too low a TA.

Too much powder or drier could produce too high a TA.

Therefore one must not go to extremes.

DRY HANDS

The excessively “dry” hand is seen as shiny or polished looking. It feels very dry.

The correct treatment is to use a “vanishing cream” (obtainable from any cosmetics store) not a greasy hand cream.

The “vanishing cream” is so called because it rubs all the way into the skin and leaves no excess grease.

This restores normal electrical contact.

There are many such creams. It makes no difference which is used so long as it vanishes into the skin.

It is doubtful if it would have to be applied more than once—at session start—as it lasts for a long while.

This would apply to some footplate cases as well (whose hands are defective or too heavily calloused).
If a cream leaves smears on a can, it is too heavily applied or too little absorbed.

Vanishing type cream is usually smeared on, rubbed in and can then be thoroughly wiped off. The hands (or feet) will usually produce, then, a normal TA and meter response.

WET HANDS

Anti-perspirants can be applied to too wet hands. There are many brands of these, often a powder or spray.

It can be wiped off after application and should work for two or three hours.

It can be applied to hands or feet (for footplates).

If the TA then goes too high, use vanishing cream on top of it.


SUMMARY

While much work could be done still, the above is enough for a practical result.


WARNING

Hi TAs and Lo TAs do not widely F/N. If you are getting wide persistent F/N with the TA too high (above 3) or too low (below 2) you have a pc whose hands are too dry or too wet. Using this HCO B should correct it and in future sessions you should continue the remedy on that pc.

NOTHING in this HCO B excuses the misreading or falsifying of a TA. Get the TA in normal range with this HCO B before you start calling processes ended.

C/S 53 RF and the False TA Checklist HCO B 29 Feb 1 972R, Revised 23 Nov 73, are your tools for handling too high and too low TAs.

The only other conditions I know of that make an auditor mess up a pc’s TA are:

(a) A discharged meter (registers high).

(b) An incorrectly set meter by trim button.

(c) A “fleeting F/N” where the pc F/Ns so briefly the auditor misses it and overruns.

(d) Bad TRs.

(e) Unflat processes.

(f) Overrun processes.

(g) Heavy drugs or medicines.

False TA often comes to light when the auditor runs out of reasons it is high or low and it dawns on him that he is dealing with false TA. In the latter case he should know all MATERIALS ON THIS SUBJECT OF FALSE TA (given on HCO B 29 Feb 1972R, Revised 23 Nov 73, as references) AND REMEDY THE FALSE TA SITUATION AND THEN RESUME NORMAL AUDITING. He must not go on calling high or low TA F/Ns just by assuming the TA is false.

Given a contact the meter always tells the truth.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:clb.rd Founder
Copyright © 1973
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1973
(Cancels HCOB 31 Dec 1971 RC)
Remimeo Reissued 25 Nov 73

C/S Series 53RF

SHORT HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT C/S

This is the basic prepared list used by Auditors to get a TA up or down into normal range. A GF Method 5 may also be used after TA is in normal range to get pc’s case handled better.

_______________________________________________________PC Name________________Date

1. Assess pc Method 5 on this sheet. (Go down the list calling off the items to the pc, watching the meter. Mark any Tick, SF, F, LF, LFBD [to what TA], speeded rise or Blow Up.) NOTE: A C/S 53RF should be reassessed and all reads handled until it F/Ns on assessment.

A. Interiorization __________ Invisible __________
Went in __________ Black __________
Go in __________ Loss __________
Can’t get in __________
Want to get out __________ F. Same thing run twice __________
Kicked out of spaces __________ Same action done by
another auditor __________
B. List errors __________
Overlisting __________ G. Doing something with
Wrong items __________ mind between sessions __________
Upset with giving __________ Some other practice __________
items to auditor __________
H. Word Clearing errors __________
C. Some sort of W/H __________ Study errors __________
Are you withholding
something __________ I. False TA __________
Is another withholding Wrong sized cans __________
something from you __________ Tired hands __________
Are others withholding Dry hands or feet __________
something from others __________ Wet hands or feet __________
Has another committed Loosens can grip __________
overts on you __________
Have you committed J. Auditor overwhelming __________
any overts __________ Feel attacked __________
Have others committed Something wrong with
overts on others __________ F/Ns __________
Not saying __________ Items really didn’t read __________
Problems __________ Bad auditing __________
Protest __________ Incomplete actions __________
Don’t like it __________
Audited over out ruds __________ K. Can’t have __________
Feel sad __________ Low Havingness __________
Rushed __________
Tired __________ L. PTS __________
ARC Brk __________ Suppressed __________
Upset __________
M. Something went on too
D. Drugs __________ long __________
LSD __________ Went on by a release
Alcohol __________ point __________
Pot __________ Overrun __________
Medicine __________ Auditor kept on going __________
Over-repair __________
E. Engram in restimulation __________ Puzzled by auditor
Same engram run twice __________ keeps on __________
Can’t see engrams too Stops __________
well __________
N. Something else __________
O. Repairing a TA that __________ Physically ill __________
isn’t high Faulty Meter __________
Repairing a TA that Nothing wrong __________
isn’t low __________

2. Use only the small falls or falls or BDs. The rises will however show where mass lies.

A. If A or any of the A Group, and the pc has had an Int RD, do an Int RD Correction List, and handle the reads. (HCOB 29 Oct 71 Amended 31 Dec 71.)

If pc has never had an Int RD, then give him a standard Int RD providing you have checked out on the Int-Ext pack and are good at R3R.

B. If any of these read, do an L4B on the earliest lists you can find that have not been corrected. Lacking these do an L4B in general. You can go over an L4B several times handling each read to F/N until the whole L4B gives nothing but F/Ns.

C. If any of these, handle with 2wc and earlier similar to F/N. If more than one reads do biggest read first and then clean up each of the others E/S to F/N. If all read on assessment you have to get an F/N for each or 17 F/Ns. On overts and withholds, get what, and E/S to F/N. On out ruds, find which rud and handle. (See GF40RR HCOB 30 June 71 Revised 13 Jan 72.) Feel sad, handle the ARC Break. (Feel sad = ARC Brk of long duration.)

D. Rehab releases on each “drug” taken to F/N. Complete the Drug RD per C/S Series 48R after handling all reads on this assessment. If pc has had a Drug RD, do L3B on it, and handle.

E. If any of these, do L3B and handle according to what is stated to do on L3B.

F. Clean up any protest and inval and rehab to F/N.

G. Find out what it is. If Yoga or Mystic exercises or some such 2wc E/S it to first time done, find out what upset had occurred before that and if TA now down do L1C on that period of pc’s life.

H. If Word Clearing, do a Word Clearing Correction List, handle all reads. If Study errors, 2wc E/S to F/N, and add a Study Correction List to the pc’s program.

I. False TA is wrong cans. Use HCOBs 24 Oct 71, 12 Nov 71, 15 Feb 72, 18 Feb 72, 29 Feb 72, HCOB 23 Nov 73, all on False TA. Then clean up the bypassed charge with ( I ) Assess for best read (a) TA worries (b) F/N worries. (2) Then 2wc times he was worried about (item) E/S to F/N. (3) Rehab a time he felt really keyed out to F/N.

J. These are auditor errors. Low TA is generally caused by overwhelming TRs and incomplete actions. A high TA can be caused by an auditor overrunning F/Ns or failing to call them. Or trying to assess through an F/N and mistaking an F/N right swing for a read. These items are all 2wc E/S to F/N. Auditors who made them need Cramming badly or retread.

K. Can’t have or Hav. Find correct Havingness process and remedy.

L. PTS or Suppressed. Check for SP or get a full PTS RD.

M. Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N on each (or date to blow, locate to blow if qualified).

N. 2wc to find what. Note BD item. If BD item covered by one of these categories handle per instructions. If not just 2wc to F/N and get further C/S instructions for handling if necessary.

O. Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate if no F/N on first. If false TA handle per I above.

General. Handle Int RD (A) if it reads at all before handling rest as nothing will go right if Int is still out. For the remainder prefer to handle any BD group if you get a BD. If in doubt about what to do, return to the C/S.


LRH: BW: BL:nt.jh
Copyright © 1971,1972, 1973 Revised by
by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 DECEMBER 1973

Remimeo
All Auditors
All Levels
Flag Internes
LRH Comms
THE REASON FOR Q AND A



Q and A means “Question and Answer”.

When the term Q and A is used it means one did NOT get an answer to his question. It also means not getting compliance with an order but accepting something else.

Example: Auditor: Do birds fly? Pc: I don’t like birds. Auditor: What don’t you like about birds? FLUNK. It’s a Q and A. The right reply would be an answer to the question asked and the right action would be to get the original question answered. TR 4 (handling origins) can apply here. The moment TR 4 is violated (Ack and return the pc to original Question) and the original unanswered question is not again asked the Auditor just drifts along with the pc. Things get restimulated, nothing gets really handled or run.

In Administration the same thing can happen. The executive gives an order, the junior says or does something else, the executive does not simply TR 4 it and get the original order done, and the result is chaos.

Executive: Phone Mr. Schultz and tell him our printing order will be there this afternoon. Junior: I don’t know his number. Executive: Don’t you have a phone book? Junior: The phone company didn’t send one this year as our bill was overdue. Executive (the fool) goes to Accounts to see what about the phone bill. Mr. Schultz never gets his call. The printing order arrives but Mr. Schultz doesn’t know it ....

Example: Executive: Do target 21 now. Junior: I don’t have any issue files. Executive: What happened to them? Junior: Mimeo goofed. Executive: I’ll go see Mimeo ....

DISPERSAL

Q and A is simply Postulate Aberration.

Aberration is non-straight line by definition.

A sick thetan who is all caved in can’t direct a postulate at anything. When he tries, he lets it wobble around and go elsewhere.

The difference between a Degraded Being and an OT is simply that the DB can’t put out a postulate or intention in a direct line or way and make it hold good.

The insane are a great example of this. They are insane because they have evil intentions. But they can’t even make these stick. They may intend to burn down the house but they usually wind up watering the rug or do some other non sequitur thing. It’s not that they don’t mess things up. The whole point here is that they can’t even properly destroy what they intend to destroy. Even their evil intentions wobble, poor things.

But not all people who Q and A are insane.

When a person is running at effect he Qs and As.

He is confronted by life, he does not confront it.

He is usually a bit blind to things as his ability to look AT is turned back on him by his lack of beam power. Thus he gives the appearance of being unaware.

His emotional feeling is overwhelm.

His mental state is confusion.

He starts for B, winds up at—A.

Other not too well intentioned people can play tricks on a Qer and Aer. When they don’t want to answer or comply they artfully bring about a Q and A.

Example: Bosco does not want to staple the mimeo issue. He knows his senior Qs and As. So we get this. Senior: Staple that issue with the big stapler. Bosco: I hurt my thumb. Q and A Senior: Have you been to see the Medical Officer? Bosco: He wouldn’t look at it. Q and A Senior: I’ll go have a word with him. (Departs.) Bosco gets back to reading “Jesse James Rides Again” humming softly to himself. For HIS trouble is, he Qs and As with the Mest Universe!

BODY Q AND A

Some people Q and A with their bodies. The body is, after all, composed of Mest. It follows the laws of Mest.

One of these laws is Newton’s first law of motion: INERTIA. This is the tendency of a Mest object to remain motionless until acted upon by an exterior force. Or to continue in a line of motion until acted upon by an exterior force.

Well, the main force around that is continually acting on a human body is a thetan, the being himself.

The body will remain at rest (since it is a Mest Object) until acted upon by the thetan that is supposed to be running it.

If that being is an aberrated non-straight line being THE BODY REACTS ON HIM MORE THAN HE REACTS ON THE BODY. Thus he remains motionless or very slow. When the body is in unwanted motion, the being does not deter the motion as the body is acting upon him far more than he is reacting on the body.

As a result, one of the manifestations is Q and A. He wants to pick up a piece of paper. The body inertia has to be overcome to do so. So he does not reach for the paper, he just leaves the hand where it is. This would be no action at all. If he then weakly forces the motion, he finds himself picking up something else like a paper clip, decides he wants that anyway and settles for it. Now he has to invent why he has a paper clip in his hand. His original intention never gets executed.

Some people on medical lines are just there not because of actual illness but because they are just Qing and Aing with their body.

People also Q and A with themselves. They want to stop drinking and can’t. They want to stop or change something about themselves or their body and then disperse off onto something else.

Freud read all sorts of dire and awful things into simple Q and A. He invented intentions the person must have that made him “sublimate”. All Freud succeeded in doing was making the person introspective looking for wrong whys.

The right why was simple—the person could not go in a straight line to an

objective and/or could not cease to do something he was compulsively doing.

The very word ABERRATION contains the idea of this—no straight line but a bent one.

THE CURE FOR THIS SORT OF THING (Q and A with a body) IS OBJECTIVE PROCESSES.

And a very willing and bright thetan CAN simply recognize it for what it is—not enough push!

And instead of going to the MO for a slight ache, he just pushes on through.

As the ache is a recoil of body Q and A in a lot of cases, the ache itself goes away as soon as one simply pushes through.

Painters and artists buy the idea they are benefited by aberration. “Be glad you are neurotic” was a trick being played by the late and unlamented psychiatrists on artists.

One paints because he can push into execution what he visualizes. The best painters were the least aberrated.

Greenwich Village or Left Bank artists, when they don’t paint, never suspect it’s because they just can’t overcome hand inertia to push a paint brush!

People live Q and A lives. They never become what they desire to be because they Q and A with life about it.

Schopenhauer, the German philosopher of doom, even had a dirty crack about being able to do things: “Stubbornness is the will taking the place of the intellect.” By this, one is “intellectual” if he Qs and As.


SUMMARY

People who can’t get things done are simply Qing and Aing with people and life.

People who CAN get things done just don’t Q and A.

All great truths are simple.

This is a major one.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.jh
Copyright © 1973
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 DECEMBER 1973
Remimeo

C/S Series 90


THE PRIMARY FAILURE


References: HCO B 28 Feb 1971, C/S Series 24,
“Metering Reading Items”, and
HCO B 15 Oct 1973, C/S Series 87,
“Nulling and F/Ning Prepared Lists”.


A C/S who cannot get a result on his pcs will find the most usual biggest improvement by getting the offending Auditors’ ASSESSING handled.

We used to say that “the Auditor’s TRs were out” as the most fundamental reason for no results.

This is not specific enough.

THE MOST COMMON REASON FOR FAILED SESSIONS IS THE INABILITY OF THE AUDITOR TO GET READS ON LISTS.

Time after time I have checked this back as the real reason.

It became evident when one could take almost any “null” (no read) list in a pc’s folder, give it and the pc to an Auditor who COULD assess and get nice reads on it with consequent gain.

Example: Pc has a high TA. C/S orders a C/S 53RF. List is null. Pc goes on having a high TA. C/S gets inventive, case crashes. Another C/S and another Auditor takes the same pc and the same list, gets good reads, handles. Case flies again.

What was wrong was:

(a) The Auditor’s TR 1 was terrible.

(b) The Auditor couldn’t meter.

REMEDY

One takes the above two reference HCO Bs and gets their points fully checked on the flunking Auditor.

The C/S gets the Auditor’s TR 1 corrected. In doing the latter one may find a why for the out TR 1 like a notion one must be soft-spoken to stay in ARC or the Auditor is imitating some other Auditor whose TR 1 is faulty.

QUAL CRAMMING

It can happen that these actions are reported done in Qual and the Auditor still flubs.

In this case the C/S has to straighten out Qual Cramming by doing the above reference HCO Bs on the Cramming Officer and getting the Cramming Officer’s TR I ideas unscrewed and straight.

REQUIREMENTS

It takes correct metering and IMPINGEMENT to make a list read.

If the auditor does not have these, then drug lists, Dianetic lists, correction lists will all go for nothing.

As the prepared list is the C/S’s main tool for discovery and correction an auditor failure to get a list to respond or note it then defeats the C/S completely.


SUMMARY

THE ERROR OF AN AUDITOR BEING UNABLE TO GET A LIST TO READ ON A METER IS A PRIMARY CAUSE OF C/S FAILURE.

To win, correct it!


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt. jh
Copyright © 1973
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1973
Remimeo
All Levels
Add Level II
Ethics Officers THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H
Masters at Arms AND CONTINUOUS OVERT
C/Ses WITH DATA ON DEGRADED BEINGS
AND FALSE PTS CONDITIONS

Reference: (1) Tape List and HCO B List of Level II,
Page 4 HCO P/L 26.1.72, Issue VI, concerning Withholds and Overts.
(2) “Admin Know-How—Alter-Is and Degraded Beings”, HCO B 22 Mar 67.


There are two special cases of withholds and overts. They do not occur in all cases by a long ways. But they do occur on a few cases. These are CONTINUOUS MISSED WITHHOLDS and CONTINUOUS OVERTS.

This is not quite the same as “The Continuing Overt Act” HCO B 29 September 65. In that type the person is repeating overt acts against something usually named.

THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H

A Continuous Missed Withhold occurs when a person feels some way and anyone who sees him misses it.

Example: A doctor feels very unconfident of his skill. Every patient who sees him misses the fact that he is not confident. This reacts as a missed withhold.

It is of course based upon some bad incident that destroyed his confidence (usually of an engramic intensity).

But as the person actively withholds this, then those seeing him miss the withhold.

This could work in thousands of variations. A woman feels continuous disdain for her child but withholds it. The child therefore continuously misses a withhold. All the phenomena of the missed w/h would continuously react against the child.

Probably all dishonest social conduct brings about a Continuous Missed Withhold. The politician who hates people, the minister who no longer believes in God, the mechanic who privately believes he is a jinx on machinery, these all then set up the phenomena of missed withholds on themselves and can dramatize it in their conduct.

THE CONTINUOUS OVERT

A person who believes he is harmful to others may also believe that many of his common ordinary actions are harmful.

He may feel he is committing a Continuous Overt on others.

Example: A clothing model believes she is committing a fraud on older women by displaying clothing to them in which they will look poorly. In her estimation this is a Continuous Overt Act. Of course all older women miss it on her.

Appearance, just being alive, can be considered by some as an overt.

Missed withhold phenomena will result.

DEGRADED BEINGS

The Continuous Withhold and Continuous Overt are probably a basis of feeling degraded.

Degraded Beings, as described in “Admin Know-How—Alter-Is and Degraded Beings”, HCO B 22 Mar 67, are that way at least in part because they have some Continuous Missed Withhold or a fancied Continuous Overt Act.

This makes them feel degraded and act that way.

HANDLING

One can add to any program a check for a Continuous Missed Withhold or Continuous Overt as an additional version of rudiments.

A master question, which could be broken down into three lists which would have to be done by the laws of L&N, would be, “When anyone looks at you what feeling (action, attitude) of yours do they miss?” Then, “When was it missed?” “Who missed it?” and “What did he do that made you believe it had been missed?”

Another approach, less dangerous in that lists aren’t made, would be:

For Continuous Missed Withhold the question could be, “Is there some way you feel that others don’t realize?” And with 2wc uncover it. Then ask, “Who misses this?” with answer, followed by, “When has someone missed it?” with E/S to an earlier time. Followed by, “What did he (or she) do that made you think he (or she) knew?” This will key it out and can change behavior.

For Continuous Overt Act it would be, “Is there something you do that others do not know about?” With 2wc to cover it and get what it is. Then ask, “Who has not found out about it?” with an answer. And then, “When did someone almost find out?” “What did he (or she) do that made you think he (or she) knew?”

Each of the above questions should be F/Ned.

MOTION

People who have Continuous Withholds or Overts tend to be very slow, flubby and impositive. They have to be very careful. And they make mistakes. Slowness or robotness are keys to the presence of Continuous Missed Withholds or Overts.

PTS

Quite often a case is FALSELY LABELED PTS when in fact it is really a matter of Continuous Missed Withholds and Continuous Overts.

When a “PTS” person does not respond to PTS handling easily then you know you are dealing with Continuous Missed Withholds and/or Continuous Overts.

SUMMARY

These conditions are not present in all cases. When they are you have a Degraded Being. When a “PTS” person does not respond to PTS handling, try Continuous Missed Withholds and Continuous Overts. You can prevent blows, handle much HE and R and change character in this way.


LRH:nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1973 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JANUARY 1974

Remimeo

ASSIST SUMMARY
ADDITION


TO LIST OF REFERENCES ADD:

HCO B 11 July 73 ASSIST SUMMARY
HCO B 6 Jan 74 ASSIST SUMMARY ADDITION
ANY TAPE OR MATERIALS ON “PRIOR CONFUSION”
ANY TAPE OR MATERIALS ON “POSTULATES AND INJURIES”
(1952 Autumn, London Lectures, etc)
HCO Bs ON MISTAKES BEING MADE IN PRESENCE OF
SUPPRESSION, 1968.


ADD TO PAGE 4 OF HCO B 11 July 73 after POSTULATE TWO-WAY COMM:

PRIOR CONFUSION: Fixed ideas follow a period of confusion. This is also true of engrams that hang up as physical injury. Slow recovery after an engram has been run can be caused by the Prior Confusion mechanism. The engram of accident or injury can be a stable item in a confusion. By 2-way comm see if a confusion existed prior to the accident, injury or illness. If so, it may be 2wced earlier similar to F/N.

MYSTERY POINT: Often there is some part of an incident which is mysterious to a preclear. The engram itself may hang up on a mystery. A thetan could be called a “mystery sandwich” in that he tends to stick in on mysteries. 2wc any mysterious aspect of the incident. 2wc it earlier similar to F/N Cog VGIs.

SUPPRESSIVE PRESENCE: Mistakes or accidents or injuries occur in the presence of suppression. One wants to know if any such suppressive influence or factor existed just prior to the incident being handled. This could be the area it occurred in or persons the preclear had just spoken to. 2wc any suppressive or invalidative presence that may have caused a mistake to be made or the accident to occur. 2wc E/S to F/N Cog VGIs.

AGREEMENT: Get any agreement the person may have had in or with the incident. There is usually a point where the person agrees with some part of the scene. If this point is found it will tend to unpin the pc from going on agreeing to be sick or injured.

PROTEST: 2wc any protest in the incident.

PREDICTION: The person is usually concerned about his recovery. Undue worry about it can extend the effects into the future. 2wc (a) how long he/she expects to take to recover. (b) Get the person to tell you any predictions others have made about it. 2wc it to an F/N Cog VGIs. Note—avoid getting the person to predict it as a very long time by getting him to talk about that further.

LOSSES: A person who has just experienced a loss may become ill. This is particularly true of colds. 2wc anything the pc may have lost to F/N.

PRESENT TIME: An injured or sick person is out of present time. Thus running HAVINGNESS in every assist session is vital. This not only remedies havingness but also brings the preclear to present time.

HIGH OR LO TA: A C/S 53 RF should be used to get the TA under control during assists if it cannot be gotten down. It must be done by an auditor who knows how to meter and can get reads.

ILLNESS FOLLOWING AUDITING: It can occur that a pc gets ill after being audited where the “auditing” is out tech. When this occurs or is suspected, a Green Form should be assessed only by an auditor who can meter and whose TR 1 gets reads. The GF reads are then handled. Out Interiorization, bad lists, missed w/hs, ARC Breaks and incomplete or flubbed engrams are the commonest errors.

BEFORE-AFTER: Where an injured or ill pc is so stuck that he has a fixed picture that does not move, one can jar it loose by asking him to recall a time before the incident and then asking him to recall a time after it. This will “jar the engram loose” and change the stuck point.

UNCONSCIOUSNESS: A pc can be audited even if in a coma. The processes are objective, not significance processes. One process is to use his hand to reach and withdraw from an object such as a pillow or blanket. One makes the hand do it while giving the commands. One can even arrange a “signal system” where the pc is in a coma and cannot talk by holding his hand and telling him to squeeze one’s hand once for yes, twice for no. It is astonishing that the pc will often respond and he can be questioned this way.

TEMPERATURE ASSISTS: There is an HCO B on how to do assists that bring down the temperature. Holding objects still repetitively is the basic process.

Quite often an injury or illness will miraculously clear up before one has run all the steps possible. If this is the case one should end off any further assist.

All auditing of injured or ill people must be kept fairly light. Errors in TRs (such as a bad TR 4), errors in tech rebound on them very heavily. An ill or injured person can easily be audited into a mess if the processes are too heavy for him to handle and if the auditor is goofing. Very exact in-tech, good TRs, good metering sessions are all that should be tolerated in assists.

An auditor has it in his power to make pcs recover spectacularly. That power is in direct proportion to his flawlessness as an auditor. Only the most exact and proper tech will produce the desired result.

If you truly want to help your fellows, that exact skill and those results are very well worth having.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JANUARY 1974
Remimeo
THE TECHNICAL BREAKTHROUGH OF 1973!

THE INTROSPECTION RD

(Steps of list 1 to 17
are subject to possible correction.)


I have made a technical breakthrough which possibly ranks with the major discoveries of the Twentieth Century. It is certainly the greatest advancement of 1973 and is now being released after a final wrap-up of research. It is called the Introspection Rundown.

The purpose of the Introspection RD is to locate and correct those things which cause a person to fixate his attention inwardly, on himself or his bank. This RD extroverts the person so that he can see his environment and therefore handle and control it.

RESEARCH

In 1970 the actual cause of PSYCHOSIS was isolated (as given in HCO B C/S Series 22, “Psychosis”, 28 November 1970). In the ensuing years this has been proven beyond doubt to be totally correct.

But what is a psychotic break?

Man has never been able to solve the psychotic break. In fact, human beings are actually afraid of a person in a psychotic break and in desperation turn to psychiatry to handle.

Psychiatry, desperate in its turn, without effective tech, resorts to barbarities such as heavy drugs, ice picks, electric and insulin shock which half kill the person and only suppress him. The fact remains there has never been a cure for the psychotic break until now.

The key is WHAT CAUSED THE PERSON TO INTROSPECT BEFORE THE PSYCHOTIC BREAK.

The breakthrough was made on a person who, after a series of wrong indications, went into a full-blown psychotic break—violence, destruction and all.

The psychiatrist at this point would have sharpened up his ice pick, filled his syringes with the most powerful (and deadly) drugs he could find and turned up the volts. His “handling” would have been a final destruction of the individual.

What was done was an auditor went into the room, sat the person down and corrected the last severe point of wrong indication. Subsequent times of wrong indication in his life were cleared up, the person came out of the psychotic break and into p.t.

THIS MEANS THE LAST REASON TO HAVE PSYCHIATRY AROUND IS GONE.

The psychotic break, the last of the “unsolvable” conditions that can trap a person, has been solved.

And it’s quite simple, really.

THEORY

Def. INTROSPECTION: “(L. from introspicere, to look within) a looking into one’s own mind, feelings, reactions, etc; observation and analysis of oneself.” Webster’s New World Dictionary.

Def. INTROVERSION: “(from intro- + L. vertere, to turn) 2.... a tendency to direct one’s interest upon oneself rather than upon external objects or events.” Webster’s New World Dictionary.

The essence of the Introspection RD is looking for and correcting all those things which CAUSED the person to look inward worriedly and wrestle with the mystery of some incorrectly designated error. The result is continual inward looking or self auditing without relief or end.

In a normal person this becomes a diminished activity, unhappiness or illness. In an R/Ser this becomes insanity and a psychotic break occurs at the last severe point of wrong indication.

AUDITOR TRAINING

Auditors selected to do this RD must have recently done a HARD TRs Course and the Anti-Q&A materials.

They must be able to recognize a ROCK SLAM, which is a particular E-Meter phenomenon. They must be Class IV Expanded Dianetics auditors of proven skill on routine cases. They must not themselves be R/Sers. (The last requisite is waived in a self-salvage co-audit group where all R/S.)

They need flawless TRs, no Q&A. This Rundown is very simple but cannot be flubbed, as that will compound the errors and cause further introspection in the pc. It is better not to deliver this RD than to flub any part of it. C/Ses take note. It is an Ethics Offense to attempt this Rundown without the auditor having done the prerequisite training and a further offense for an auditor to flub on it.


STEPS OF THE RD

(On a normal person do Steps 000, 0000, 00000
and 000000.)

O. On a person in a psychotic break isolate the person wholly with all attendants completely muzzled (no speech).

00. Give Vitamins (B Complex, including niacinamide) and minerals (calcium and magnesium) to build the person up.

000. Locate by study or research of the person’s case or via associates or 2-way comm the latest point of introversion which will be just at the beginning of the current psychotic break.

0000. Indicate the substance of it to the person to release the By-Passed Charge.

00000. Indicate and handle the point of introversion and its chain. (Indication by itself can be a separate step before auditing.)

000000. Continue the RD as below.

1. Verify/correct all L&N lists if not already done correctly.

2. Verify/correct all Why Finding, 3 May PLs, PTS Interviews, etc. (See C/S Series 78.)

3. Word Clear the definitions of “Introspection”, “Introversion” and “Extroversion”.

4. Trace back the chain of being told his purposes were incorrect. To F/N Cog VGIs.

5. Trace back the chain of being “told” he had purposes that he didn’t actually have. To F/N Cog VGIs.

6. Trace back the chain of being asked for things that didn’t exist. To F/N Cog VGIs.

7. Trace back the chain of someone saying W/Hs existed that didn’t. To F/N Cog VGIs.

8. Trace back the chain of not having his withholds accepted. To F/N Cog VGIs.

9. Trace back the chain of someone accusing him of something he hadn’t done. To F/N Cog VGIs.

10. Trace back the chain of accusing himself of things he hadn’t done. To F/N Cog VGIs.

11. Trace back the chain of being heavily invalidated for something he didn’t do. To F/N Cog VGIs.

12. Trace back the chain of being validated for something he knew was wrong. To F/N Cog VGIs.

13. Trace back the chain of being told he was PTS when he wasn’t. To F/N Cog VGIs.

14. Trace back the chain of being interrogated for no reason. To F/N Cog VGIs.

15. Trace back the chain of being told he was someone he wasn’t. To F/N Cog VGIs.

16. Trace back the chain of not having his actual identity believed. To F/N Cog VGIs.

17. Objective Havingness to F/N.

At any time after Step 2 Objective Havingness should be done at session end. If one of the chains in Steps 3-15 turns out to be false the pc will introvert further. In such a case indicate the fact of it having been unnecessary and get an F/N. Then run Objective Havingness. If the TA goes high (or low) and won’t come into range, assess a C/S 53RF and handle.

In the case of a pc in a psychotic break, the C/S would have to locate the last severe wrong indication, indicate the fact to the pc and get it corrected (as with a wrong item) as the first action.

EXTROVERSION

Def. EXTROVERSION: “. . . Means nothing more than being able to look outward....” “An extroverted personality is one who is capable of looking around the environment....” “A person who is capable of looking at the world around him and seeing it quite real and quite bright is of course in a state of extroversion.” (Problems of Work.)


The end phenomena of the Introspection RD is the person extroverted, no longer looking inward worriedly in a continuous self-audit without end.

The EP on a person in a psychotic break is the end of the psychotic break.

The RD is very simple and its results are magical in effectiveness. Flubs can wreck it so don’t permit them.

You have in your hands the tool to take over mental therapy in full. You need not fear the insane or the psychotic break any longer.

Here also is the cure for the continual self-auditing pc who is dug into his bank. It works on all pcs in fact with rave results.

Do it flawlessly and we all win.

THIS PLANET IS OURS.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:ams.nt jh
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 JANUARY 1974
Remimeo

DIANETICS
R3R COMMANDS
HAVE BACKGROUND DATA


A Cramming action has just uncovered that at least some Dianetic Auditors do not know the reason for each R3R command and, not knowing why the commands exist, miss on cases.

A Cramming Officer or Supervisor can achieve a remarkable result by making an Auditor get the why of each R3R Dianetic command from the original materials.

The following development and use of this Cramming technique by Mike Mauerer follows:

“CASE HISTORY”

“George Baillie, a Flag Interne, working on his Dianetics OK to Audit, was ordered to study the 1963 Dn HCO Bs (“Time Track and Engram Running by Chains” Bulletins, Bulletins 1 and 2). He read the HCO Bs but had not studied them vigorously enough and for application.

“As Interne Supervisor I worked with him covering these HCO Bs and Original Thesis. During the course of this action many confusions (primarily roteness) were handled. Among them were things like ‘What is the purpose of Step 6 of R3R, “What do you see?” ‘ He had previously thought it was to ‘orient’ the Pc to the incident or some such, but basically it came down to the fact he had never worked out the purpose of the command as related to the mechanics of the bank and time track. After some working he finally got the fact that Command 4 (duration) is to turn on the visio and that before moving the Pc through the incident one would have to know the Pc had visio so he could move through. Conversely, if the picture was not ‘turned on’ then the duration would have to be corrected. Another was the Step 3 Command (Move to that incident) on which the Interne thought that by repeating the auditing command when the Pc ‘couldn’t get there’ you would handle the time track. This of course is failure to handle an origination and failure to handle time for the Pc. He finally realized that obviously the Pc didn’t have the correct date in the first place and it is the Auditor’s action to find and get the correct date and thus move the somatic strip to that incident.

“Each command of R3R was taken up and its purpose demo’d out against the basic definitions and mechanics of the time track. One other of the things discovered by this Interne was that Command Nine (What happened?) has a purpose of running out the Locks created in PT, in session, by virtue of the fact that you’re reminding the Pc of Secondaries and Engrams right there! (This is of course covered in Original Thesis.)

“Probably the most stunning and revealing thing covered was the fact that in Original Thesis Chapter ‘Exhaustion of Engrams’, para 3, it says, ‘The principle of recounting is very simple. The preclear is merely told to go back to the beginning and to tell it all over again. He does this many times. As he does it the engram should lift in tone on each recounting. It may lose some of its data and gain other. If the Preclear is recounting in the same words time after time, it is certain that he is playing a memory record of what he has told you before. He must then be sent immediately back to the actual engram and the somatics of it restimulated. He will then be found to somewhat vary his story. He must be returned to the consciousness of somatics continually until these are fully developed, begin to lighten and are then gone.’ This of course totally invalidates the use of a completely rote system and requires an understanding of what is happening to the Pc, bank, etc.

“Needless to say, this Interne went through many changes, now feels in comm with his Pcs and not ‘stuck’ to some rote procedure which truly inhibits the real gains to be gotten from Dianetics Engram Running. As evidence to this action and its resultant gains in the Interne’s ability to audit, the following is a brief description of a case he audited today applying 1963 engram running and Original Thesis to these cases.

“Case has run many hours of Dianetics with a hidden standard to do with his hand. Has been trying since earliest Dianetic sessions to get this handled. The somatic had been addressed by many different wordings and many chains but had never blown, yet chains had apparently gone to EP. The Auditor was C/Sed to find the actual somatic and run it out. It was found in session that the somatic had been run out to ‘EP’ so an L3B was done. From the L3B the Auditor found it was one incident in restim and proceeded to flatten the somatic chain connected with it. During this the Auditor on occasion had to correct three dates and two durations, but the spectacular part was Pc began on Steps 9 and D to say the same thing regarding incident each time. This being indicative of Pc running a memory record, Auditor moves Pc to the actual Engram, somatics intensify and then blow (for the first time), Pc exterior with VVGIs. Exam result is quite spectacular.

“All the above serves to once again validate the results of the Dianetics materials when they are applied in full.”




L. RON HUBBARD
Founder



LRH:ams.nt.ts
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1971R
Remimeo
Dn Chkshts REVISED 28 JANUARY 1974
Ext Chkshts
Class IV (Changes in this type style)
Class VI
Class VII I M P O R T A N T
Class IX
L3RC

DIANETICS AND EXT RD REPAIR LIST

(Revises L3B)

This list includes the most frequent Dianetic errors. Use up to Question 28 as the usual use. Then if the situation does not solve, use the rest of the list.

A high or low TA and a bogged case can result from failures to erase a chain of incidents.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REPAIR A CHAIN OR ENGRAM WITHOUT USING THIS LIST as it can have different or several errors.

REMEMBER THAT YOUR PC MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY TRAINED TO UNDERSTAND ALL THESE QUESTIONS: IF ONE READS AND HE SAYS HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND IT, CLEAR IT AND REASSESS (don’t explain it and take it as it read on a misunderstood not on a fact).

RUNNING PCS ON DIANETICS WITHOUT A FULL AND COMPLETE DN C/S 1 INDOCTRINATION IS A FOOLISH ACTION.

TAKE ANY READ FOUND TO F/N BY INDICATION OR FULL REPAIR OF IT.

1. The Item or symptom being run had no charge on it. __________
Indicate it was a false read, spot when it was run, where it was
run and get an F/N.
2. The same incident or pictures were run before. __________
Indicate that an overrun has occurred. If no F/N spot when,
spot where and get an F/N.
3. A session was started on a new item while an old one was not
erased. __________
TA would have been high on an old item or the Interiorization
Rundown and the auditor went on anyway with a new item.
Find what the old item was and repair it with a new assessment
on the earlier chain. Indicate fact to the pc.
4. The item being run described just one incident. (Narrative Item.) __________
Find the somatics, emotions, attitudes of the incident and run
them as chains as per Standard Dianetics.
5. The incident had an earlier beginning. __________
Move the pc to the earlier beginning and proceed as per
Standard Dianetics R3R.
5a. There was an earlier misrun incident restimulated. __________
This would be an incident that was never resolved (erased) and
to handle it: Find out what it was and do an L3RC on it
6. There were earlier incidents stirred up and not erased. __________
Find what chain or item and run it to completion by R3R. This
condition sometimes leaves pc with the ARC Brk effect of
by-passed charge and is a basic example of by-passed charge.
7. Stirred up earlier unrun incidents. (Same as 6.) __________
8. When running one item went into another instead and ran a
different set of pictures. __________
Jumped chain.
9. When you said it was erased it still had a mass. __________
Auditor does ABCD again on the item one or two more times to
get BD F/N. If TA goes up ask for earlier beginning or earlier
similar on same incident to F/N.
10. You were protesting. __________
Find out what was being protested and handle it.
11. You were still taking drugs or medicine that had not worn off. __________
12. You had a misunderstood on the commands. __________
Clear them up.
13. You had a misunderstood on what you were supposed to be
doing. __________
Clear it up, get it done right.
14. A wrong item was given. __________
This could also be a listing error. If not sure what it is, shift to
L4BR. Otherwise find it and indicate it as a wrong item and
that all other actions connected with it were wrong. You can
also date the session in which it occurred. And you can also find
earlier similar wrong items.
15. Has an earlier Dianetic upset been restimulated? __________
Find the earlier one and straighten it out. Also it can go back 2
or 3 more earlier mix-ups. Straighten out as you go back. Then
always check for “any earlier Dianetic upset” if you get no F/N.
16. There was an Incorrect date. __________
Correct it.
17. There was an Incorrect duration. __________
Correct it.
18. There was a false date. __________
Find the real date despite the false date in the incident.
19. There was a false duration. __________
Find the real duration despite the false duration in the incident.
20. Is there a stuck picture? __________
Do 1—19 again on the picture and handle.
21. Is there a persistent mass? __________
(Handle as in 24.)
22. Was this or an earlier action unnecessary? __________
23. Was there nothing wrong in the first place? __________
24. Did you have trouble with a pressure item or with pressure on
an item? __________
Date it exactly by meter and find out where it occurred in the
universe. If done exactly right, it will blow up and vanish and
F/N. If this doesn’t work, do this list 1 down to 24 on it and
correct it to F/N.
25. Did you move out of your head earlier in auditing? __________
Do Ext RD. (Ref. HCO B 16 Dec 71, C/S Series 35R.)
26. Was your Exteriorization Rundown messed up? __________
Check folder on each flow and on the 2wc next day to be sure
each flow was run to erasure and the 2wc to F/N. Remember
that an auditor report can be a false report, and if you can’t
find the error in the folder, then do 1 to 24 on each flow. DO
NOT AUDIT A PC FURTHER UNTIL THE EXT RD IS
TOTALLY CORRECTED. IF YOU DO THE TA WILL RISE,
WON’T COME DOWN AND PC WILL BE UPSET OR ILL.

IN CHOOSING WHICH OF THESE READING ITEMS TO HANDLE, ALWAYS HANDLE EXT RD ITEMS FIRST. THEN HANDLE THE REST.

DO NOT CONTINUE AUDITING A PC WHOSE EXT RD WAS MESSED UP AND NOT CORRECTED.

ANY ERROR REMAINING ON AN EXT RD IS DEADLY.

27. Were you being asked things you couldn’t answer? __________
28. Did the auditor refuse to accept what you were saying? __________
Get this and earlier similar instances until you get an F/N VGIs.

FROM HERE ON ASSESS FURTHER ONLY IF PC TA OR UPSET REMAIN UNHANDLED.

IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING READ, INDICATE IT, GET AN F/N OR GET AN EARLIER SIMILAR UNTIL IT F/Ns.

29. Has an item read under protest? __________
30. Was there no interest in running item? __________
31. Was there no charge on item in the first place? __________
32. Has an item been misworded? __________
33. Were you more interested in running another item? __________
34. Was the item suppressed? __________
35. Was the item invalidated? __________
36. Was more than you could see demanded? __________
37. Were 2 or more engrams found on the same date? __________
38. Did you skid into another incident? __________
39. Did you move to another chain? __________
40. Did you change the item while running it? __________
41. Were you running an item different from that assessed? __________
42. Was an Implant restimulated? __________
43. Were earlier errors on engrams restimulated? __________
44. Was important data by-passed? __________
45. Was an incident skipped? __________
46. Did 2 or more incidents get confused? __________
47. Has a withhold been missed? __________
48. Has an incident been left too heavily charged? __________
49. Has a chain been abandoned? __________
50. Has an incident been abandoned? __________
51. Were you prevented from running an incident? __________
52. Were processes changed on you? __________
53. Has basic on a chain been by-passed? __________
54. Has an erasure been denied you? __________
55. After it was erased did you have to put it back to erase it? __________
56. Were you running copies of the original after it had gone? __________
57. Have you gone past erasure into another chain? __________
58. Have several different chains been pulled in? __________
59. Has a cognition been chopped? __________
60. Has an F/N been indicated too soon? __________
61. Has the somatic gone but picture still there? __________
62. Should a basic be run through one more time? __________
63. Have you been held up by the auditor? __________
64. Were you distracted in session? __________
65.+ Did you go exterior in an incident? __________
66. Was an incident overrun? __________
67.+ Did you go exterior in session? __________
68.* Have you not wanted to go earlier than this life? __________
69. Has it been all black? __________
70. Was it all invisible? __________
71. Was the incident really a false or implanted occurrence? __________
72.* Have you had constantly changing pictures? __________
73. Have you never had any pictures? __________
74. Are you having to put it there to run it? __________
Get Earlier Similar times to F/N VGIs.
75. Are incidents being overrun? __________
76. Has some major auditing action been done twice? __________
77. Has there been an unnecessary action? __________
78. Was there nothing wrong in the first place? __________
79. Was the real reason missed? __________
80. Was something else wrong? __________
(Do a Green Form.)

NOTE:

+ If questions 65 or 67 read and the pc has not had Interiorization Rundown and the associated 2-way comm, the auditor ends off and sends folder to C/S so it can be C/Sed for Ext RD.

* If questions 68 or 72 read, after indicating BPC, the auditor would end off and return folder to C/S.

WARNING:

Do not use any Prepcheck-type buttons during engram running or add overts to this list as they will “mush” engrams.

LRH:ams.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971, 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JANUARY 1974R
REVISED 10 FEBRUARY 1974

Remimeo
Ex Dn
Spclsts
M7/4 *rate
Clay Demo

THE TECHNICAL BREAKTHROUGH OF 1973!

THE INTROSPECTION RD

(Changes HCO B 23 Jan 1974,
“The Introspection RD”.)


I have made a technical breakthrough which possibly ranks with the major discoveries of the Twentieth Century. It is certainly the greatest advancement of 1973 and is now being released after a final wrap-up of research. It is called the Introspection Rundown.

The purpose of the Introspection RD is to locate and correct those things which cause a person to fixate his attention inwardly, on himself or his bank. This RD extroverts the person so that he can see his environment and therefore handle and control it.


RESEARCH

In 1970 the actual cause of PSYCHOSIS was isolated (as given in HCO B C/S Series 22, “Psychosis”, 28 November 1970). In the ensuing years this has been proven beyond doubt to be totally correct.

But what is a psychotic break?

Man has never been able to solve the psychotic break. In fact, human beings are actually afraid of a person in a psychotic break and in desperation turn to psychiatry to handle.

Psychiatry, desperate in its turn, without effective tech, resorts to barbarities such as heavy drugs, ice picks, electric and insulin shock which half kill the person and only suppress him. The fact remains there has never been a cure for the psychotic break until now.

The key is WHAT CAUSED THE PERSON TO INTROSPECT BEFORE THE PSYCHOTIC BREAK.

The breakthrough was made on a person who, after a series of wrong indications, went into a full-blown psychotic break—violence, destruction and all.

The psychiatrist at this point would have sharpened up his ice pick, filled his syringes with the most powerful (and deadly) drugs he could find and turned up the volts. His “handling” would have been a final destruction of the individual.

What was done was an auditor went into the room, sat the person down and corrected the last severe point of wrong indication. Subsequent times of wrong indication in his life were cleared up, the person came out of the psychotic break and into p.t.

THIS MEANS THE LAST REASON TO HAVE PSYCHIATRY AROUND IS GONE.

The psychotic break, the last of the “unsolvable” conditions that can trap a person, has been solved.

And it’s quite simple, really.

THEORY

Def. INTROSPECTlON: “(L. from introspicere, to look within) a looking into one’s own mind, feelings, reactions, etc.; observation and analysis of oneself.” Webster’s New World Dictionary.

Def. INTROVERSION: “(from intro- + L. vertere, to turn) 2.... a tendency to direct one’s interest upon oneself rather than upon external objects or events.” Webster’s New World Dictionary.

The essence of the Introspection RD is looking for and correcting all those things which CAUSED the person to look inward worriedly and wrestle with the mystery of some incorrectly designated error. The result is continual inward looking or self auditing without relief or end.

In a normal person this becomes a diminished activity, unhappiness or illness. In an R/Ser this becomes insanity and a psychotic break occurs at the last severe point of wrong indication.

The pc who originates to the Examiner about his case or writes notes to the C/S or auditor is introverted and should have this RD.


AUDITOR TRAINING

Auditors selected to do this RD must have recently done a HARD TRs Course and the Anti-Q&A materials.

They must be able to recognize a ROCK SLAM, which is a particular E-Meter phenomenon. They must be Class IV Expanded Dianetics auditors of proven skill on routine cases. They must not themselves be R/Sers. (The last requisite is waived in a self salvage co-audit group where all R/S.)

They need flawless TRs, no Q&A. This Rundown is very simple but cannot be flubbed, as that -will compound the errors and cause further introspection in the pc. It is better not to deliver this RD than to flub any part of it. C/Ses take note. It is an Ethics Offense to attempt this Rundown without the auditor having done the prerequisite training and a further offense for an auditor to flub on it.

* * *

STEPS OF THE RD

(Steps O and 00 are for a person
in a psychotic break, not a
normal person.)

Put this checklist on inside front cover of folder as a pgm.
O. On a person in a psychotic break isolate the person wholly with
all attendants completely muzzled (no speech). _________
00. Give Vitamins (B Complex, including niacinamide) and minerals
(calcium and magnesium) to build the person up. _________
1. Locate by study or research of the person’s case or via associates
or 2 way comm the last severe point of introversion just prior
to the current psychotic break or illness. There may be several
severe points of introversion, prior or subsequent to the one
that triggered the break or illness. These points are identified by
their upsetting or worrisome effect on the pc. Each is noted down
for handling. _________
2. On each point, indicate the substance of it as a point of introversion
to release the By-Passed Charge. Each should BD and F/N. First
point indicated to F/N. _________
2B. Second point indicated to F/N. _________

2C. Third point indicated to F/N.
In the case of an out-list, the fact of a wrong item would be
indicated and the list corrected by the Laws of L&N. _________

3. Get the wording of each point stated by the pc as an item (i.e.
“What would you call such an incident?”) and its read and
handle by 2wc each flow E/Sim to F/N. First point 2wc’d
F-1230 to F/N. _________

3A. Second point 2wc’d F-1230 to F/N. _________

3B. Third point 2wc’d F-1230 to F/N. _________

4. Verify/Correct all L&N lists. _________

5. Verify/Correct all Why “lists”, PTS Interviews, 3 May PLs per
C/S Series 78. _________

6. R3R Quad item found in No. 3.
(“Locate an incident where_____.”) _________

6A. L&N for the Intention behind the subject in No. 3. Verify Q for
read before listing. _________

6B. R3R Quad the Intention. _________

6C. R3R Quad, L&N Intention & R3R Quad any other items found
(No. 3A, 3B, etc). _________

7. Clear the words “Introversion”, “Introspection”, “Extroversion”. _________

8. ARC BREAKS HANDLING. _________

8A. 2wc Has another ARC Broken you?
ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N. _________

8B. 2wc Have you ARC Broken another?
ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N. _________

8C. 2wc Have others ARC Broken anyone else?
ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N. _________

8D. 2wc Have you ARC Broken yourself?
ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N. _________

8E. 2wc Has anyone ever made you feel you had an ARC Break
when you didn’t? E/S to F/N. _________

8F. 2wc Have you ever made anyone else feel he had an ARC
Break when he didn’t? E/S to F/N. _________

8G. 2wc Have others ever made anyone else feel he had an ARC
Break when he didn’t? E/S to F/N. _________

8H. 2wc Have you ever made yourself feel you had an ARC
Break when you didn’t? E/S to F/N. _________

81. R3R Quad the item. _________

8J. L&N for the Intention behind “the forcing of upsets on people
who don’t have them.” _________

8K. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 8J. _________

9. WITHHOLDS HANDLING. _________

9A. 2wc Are you withholding something from anyone? E/Sim to
F/N. _________

9B. 2wc Is anyone else withholding something from you? E/Sim
to F/N. _________

9C. 2wc Are others withholding something from anyone else?
E/Sim to F/N. _________

9D. 2wc Are you withholding something from yourself? E/Sim to
F/N. _________

9E. 2wc Has anyone demanded W/Hs you didn’t have? E/Sim to F/N. _________

9F. 2wc Have you demanded withholds of anyone else they didn’t
have? E/Sim to F/N. _________

9G. 2wc Have others demanded withholds of anyone else they didn’t
have? E/Sim to F/N. _________

9H. 2wc Have you demanded W/Hs from yourself that you didn’t
have? E/Sim to F/N. _________

9I. R3R Quad “demanded non-existent W/Hs from .” _________

9J. L&N, Clear Q thoroughly and verify for read first, what purpose
would be behind “the demanding of non-existent W/Hs from others”? _________

9K. R3R Quad the item in No. 9J. _________

10. PROBLEMS HANDLING. _________

10A 2wc Has another given you a problem? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10B 2wc Have you given another a problem? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10C 2wc Have others given a problem to anyone else? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10D. 2wc Have you given yourself a problem? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10E. 2wc Has anyone ever made you feel you had a problem when you
didn’t? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10F. 2wc Have you ever made anyone else feel he had a problem when
he didn’t? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10G. 2wc Have others ever made anyone else feel he had a problem
when he didn’t? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10H 2wc Have you ever made yourself feel you had a problem when
you didn’t? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10I R3R Quad the item. _________

10J L&N for the Intention behind “the giving of problems to people
that don’t belong to them.” _________

10K R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 10J. _________

11. OVERTS HANDLING. _________

11A 2wc Has anyone else committed overts on you? E/Sim to F/N. _________

11B 2wc Have you committed overts on anyone else? Get what,
E/Sim to F/N. _________

11C 2wc Have others committed overts on anyone else? E/Sim to
F/N. _________
11D 2wc Have you committed any overts on yourself? E/Sim to F/N. _________

11L 2wc Has anyone ever accused you of something you didn’t do?
E/Sim to F/N. _________

11F 2wc Have you ever accused anyone else of something he didn’t
do? E/Sim to F/N. _________

11G 2wc Have others ever accused anyone else of something he
didn’t do? E/Sim to F/N. _________

11H 2wc Have you ever accused yourself of something you didn’t do?
E/Sim to F/N. _________

11I R3R Quad the item. _________

11J L&N for the Intention behind “the accusing of someone of non-
existent overts.” _________

11K R3 R Quad the Intention, in No. 11J. _________

12 NOT SAYING. _________

12A 2wc Are you not saying something about someone else or
something? Get what, E/Sim to F/N. _________

12B 2wc Is anyone not saying something about you? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12C 2wc Are others not saying something about anyone else? E/Sim
to F/N. _________

12D 2wc Are you not saying something about yourself? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12E 2wc Has anyone not accepted your W/Hs? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12F 2wc Have you not accepted someone else’s W/Hs? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12G 2wc Have others not accepted anyone else’s W/Hs? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12H 2wc Have you not accepted your own W/Hs? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12I R3R Quad “W/Hs weren’t accepted.” _________

12J L&N Intention behind “the rejecting of others’ W/Hs.” _________

12K R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 12J. _________

13. FALSE INCIDENTS HANDLING. _________

13A. 2wc Has anyone ever asked you for things that didn’t exist?
E/S to F/N. _________

13B. 2wc Have you ever asked anyone else for things that didn’t
exist? E/S to F/N. _________

13C 2wc Have others ever asked anyone else for things that didn’t
exist? E/S to F/N. _________

13D 2wc Have you ever asked yourself for things that didn’t exist?
E/S to F/N. _________

13E R3R Quad the item. _________

13F L&N for the Intention behind “the demanding of false incidents
from others.” _________

13G R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 13F. _________

14 PTS HANDLING. _________

14A 2wc Has anyone given you a false assignment that you were
being done in? E/S to F/N. _________

14B 2wc Have you given anyone a false assignment that he was being
done in? E/S to F/N. _________

14C 2wc Have others given anyone else a false assignment that they
were being done in? E/Sim to F/N. _________

14D 2wc Have you given yourself a false assignment that you were
being done in? E/S to F/N. _________

14E R3R Quad the item. _________

14F L&N for the Intention behind “giving others a false assignment
that they were being done in.” _________

14G R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 14F. _________

14H 2wc Has anyone been doing you in? E/S to F/N. _________

14I 2wc Have you been doing anyone else in? E/S to F/N. _________

14J 2wc Have others been doing anyone else in? E/S to F/N. _________

14K 2wc Have you been doing yourself in? E/S to F/N. _________

15 FALSE INTERROGATION HANDLING. _________

15A 2wc Has anyone ever interrogated you for no reason? E/S to
F/N. _________

15B 2wc Have you ever interrogated anyone else for no reason? E/S
to F/N. _________

15C 2wc Have others ever interrogated anyone else for no reason?
E/S to F/N. _________

15D 2wc Have you ever had yourself interrogated for no reason? E/S
to F/N. _________

15E R3R Quad the item. _________

15F L&N for the Intention behind “the false interrogating of others.” _________

15G R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 15F. _________

16 FALSE INVALIDATION HANDLING. _________

16A 2wc Has anyone ever heavily invalidated you unjustly? E/S to
F/N. _________

16B 2wc Have you ever heavily invalidated anyone else unjustly?
E/S to F/N. _________

16C 2wc Have others ever heavily invalidated anyone else unjustly?
E/S to F/N. _________

16D 2wc Have you ever heavily invalidated yourself unjustly? E/S
to F/N. _________

16E R3R Quad the item. _________

16F L&N for the Intention behind “the unjust invalidating of others.” _________

16G R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 16F. _________
17 FALSE VALIDATION HANDLING. _________

17A 2wc Has another ever validated you for something he knew was
wrong? E/S to F/N. _________

17B 2wc Have you ever validated anyone else for something you
knew was wrong? E/S to F/N. _________

17C 2wc Have others ever validated anyone else for something they
knew was wrong? E/S to F/N. _________

17D 2wc Have you ever validated yourself for something you knew
was wrong? E/S to F/N. _________

17E R3R Quad the item. _________

17F L&N for the Intention behind “the false validating of others.” _________

17G R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 17F. _________

18. “HIT” FOR NO REASON. _________

18A. 2wc Has anyone “hit” you too hard for no reason? E/S to F/N. _________

18B 2wc Have you “hit” anyone else too hard for no reason? E/S
to F/N. _________

18C 2wc Have others “hit” anyone else too hard for no reason? E/S
to F/N. _________

18D 2wc Have you gotten yourself “hit” too hard for no reason? E/S
to F/N. _________

18E R3R Quad the item. _________

18F L&N for the Intention behind “the ‘hitting’ of others unfairly.” _________

18G R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 18F. _________

19 INVALIDATED BEINGNESS HANDLING. _________

19A 2wc Has anyone ever challenged or questioned who you were?
E/S to F/N. _________

19B 2wc Have you ever challenged or questioned anyone else’s
identity? E/S to F/N. _________

19C 2wc Have others ever challenged or questioned anyone else’s
identity? E/S to F/N. _________

19D 2wc Have you ever challenged or questioned your identity? E/S
to F/N. _________

19E R3R Quad the item. _________

19F L&N for the Intention behind “the invalidating of others’ identity.” _________

19G R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 19F. _________

20. INVALIDATED INTENTIONS HANDLING. _________

20A 2wc Has anyone ever challenged or questioned your intentions?
E/S to F/N. _________

20B 2wc Have you ever challenged or questioned anyone else’s
intentions? E/S to F/N. _________


20C 2wc Have others ever challenged or questioned anyone else’s
intentions? E/S to F/N. _________

20D 2wc Have you ever challenged or questioned your own intentions?
E/S to F/N. _________

20E R3R Quad “misinterpreted intentions. “ _________

20F L&N for the Intention behind “the invalidating of the intentions of
others.” _________

20G R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 20F. _________

21 OBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS. _________


An HC List could be added here if the pc’s “think” is still weird.

NOTE: ITEMS THAT DON’T READ WON’T RUN. DON’T RUN OR LIST Q’s THAT DON’T READ OR YOU’LL REINTROVERT THE PC.

Frequent D of P Interview is vital whenever the case looks like it is not rapidly progressing. Also a quick assessment may be needed as a separate action to isolate possible charged areas of introspection.

At any time after Step 2, Objective Havingness should be done at session end. If one of the items in Steps 3-20 turns out to be false the pc will introvert further. In such a case indicate the fact of it having been unnecessary and get an F/N. Then run Objective Havingness. If the TA goes high (or low) and won’t come into range, assess a C/S 53RF and handle.

In the case of a pc in a psychotic break, the C/S would have to locate the last severe wrong indication, indicate the fact to the pc and get it corrected (as with a wrong item) as the first action.

EXTROVERSION

Def. EXTROVERSION: “. . . Means nothing more than being able to look outward....” “An extroverted personality is one who is capable of looking around the environment ....” “A person who is capable of looking at the world around him and seeing it quite real and quite bright is of course in a state of extroversion.” (Problems Of Work.)

The end phenomena of the Introspection RD is the person extroverted, no longer looking inward worriedly in a continuous self-audit without end.

The EP on a person in a psychotic break is the end of the psychotic break.

The RD is very simple and its results are magical in effectiveness. Flubs can wreck it so don’t permit them.

You have in your hands the tool to take over mental therapy in full. You need not fear the insane or the psychotic break any longer.

Here also is the cure for the continual self-auditing pc who is dug into his bank. It works on all pcs in fact with rave results.

Do it flawlessly and we all win.

THIS PLANET IS OURS.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:ams.Jh
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [Added to by HCO Bs 20 Feb 74, 6 Mar 74 and 20 Apr 74.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 FEBRUARY 1974
(Amended & Reissued 28 March 74
—only change is Series No.)
Remimeo

Expanded Dianetics Series 20


SERVICE FACSIMILE THEORY
AND EXPANDED DIANETICS


As a re-study of Service Facsimiles the following theory is released as background.

Note that this is background data for Class IV but is in actual practice used on Expanded Dianetics.

This sheds some light on Evil Purposes.

And a new approach comes to light for use in Expanded Dianetics.

NONE OF THIS ALTERS CLASS IV and NONE OF IT CANCELS OR CHANGES CLASS IV OR EARLIER DATA.


AN OUTLINED NEW XDN RD

Service Facs By Dynamics and sections thereof.

How to be right on the_____Dynamic Triple. (The exact Question needs to be worked out for various pcs.)

All L&N and therefore very dicey.

The theory is that a thetan even when pressed or suppressed to the absolute limit of near extinction will still try, even when “cooperating”, to some way be right.

A thetan cannot die. His only out is to try to stop something as he himself cannot stop living.

This gives rise to fixed ideas as he is trying to stop-therefore the ideas hold in time and continue.

His efforts to be right continue to stop him in a reverse flow.

This is true because he is already at near total effect. He also becomes the effect of his own fixed idea efforts to handle.

Just as a man being crushed by a house-size rock will still put his hands out to fend it off, so will a thetan continue to fend off his believed oppressions by stopping them.

Insistence on rightness is a last refuge of beingness. Thus one gets some very aberrated ones.

These he uses in situations where he thinks he might be found wrong.

These are called “Service Facsimiles”. “Service” because they “serve” him. “Facsimiles” because they are in mental image picture form. They explain his disabilities as well.

The facsimile part is actually a self-installed disability that “explains” how he is not responsible for not being able to cope. So he is not wrong for not coping.

Part of the “package” is to be right by making wrong.

The service facsimile is therefore a picture containing an explanation of self condition and also a fixed method of making others wrong.

A real handling would have to include:

A. What disability he uses to explain how he is not responsible for not fully coping with life or given situations.

B. A fixed postulate he uses to further assert that in actual fact he is still right.

C. The computation as contained in B to make others wrong so as to be right.

Handling therefore would include:

a. The disability R3 R Triple.

b. L&N for a fixed postulate on each dynamic he uses to be right.

c. A realization he is using this to make others wrong so he can be right.

All these conditions would have to be handled to fully handle a Service Fac to full EP.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH:ams.ntm jh
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 FEBRUARY 1974
Remimeo

C/S Series 91


MUTUAL OUT RUDS


It has been known for many many years that the phenomenon of “Mutual Out Ruds” existed.

This means TWO OR MORE PEOPLE WHO MUTUALLY HAVE RUDS OUT ON THE WIDER GROUP OR OTHER DYNAMICS AND DO NOT GET THEM IN.

Example: A husband-wife co-audit team never run O/Ws on the rest of the family because both of them have similar overts and so consider it usual.

Example: Prisoners engaged in co-auditing (as in Narconon) may have similar overts, withholds, ARC Brks and/or problems with the rest of society and so do not think of handling them as out-ruds.

Example: Two top class auditors co-auditing, have similar overts on the junior auditors and the org and so never think to get them in.

THIS CAN STALL CASES!

A C/S has to take this factor into account wherever he has a possibility of its occurring.

In one instance mutual out ruds went so far as four auditors, co-auditing, agreeing never to put their overts down on W/Ses “so they would not lose reputation”. Needless to say all four eventually blew.

If the C/S had done a routine check for mutual out ruds, this whole scene would have been prevented and four beings would not have ruined each other.

IN ANY SITUATION WHERE A SMALL PORTION OF A LARGER GROUP IS ENGAGED IN CO-AUDIT THE C/S MUST CHECK ROUTINELY FOR MUTUAL OUT RUDS.

This could even apply to an org or vessel which was separate from the rest of society around it: its members could develop mutual out ruds from the rest of society and cases could fail on this point.

Be alert to MUTUAL OUT RUD SITUATIONS AND HANDLE BY GETTING THEM IN ON THE REST OF THE SURROUNDING PEOPLE OR SOCIETY.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH:ams.rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 FEBRUARY 1974

Remimeo
Ex Dn Spclsts
M 7/4 * Rate
Clay Demo

INTROSPECTION RD
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS


RESPONSIBILITY STEP

An additional step to the rundown has been found necessary, especially in the case of a psychotic. This is the Responsibility Step. It consists of doing ARC Brks LD Triple, 2wc Recent Actions taking up the best reading overt and running Responsibility on it (i.e. What about_____could you be responsible for?). If no major increase in responsibility take up another reading overt and run Responsibility on that. Do this until there is a significant increase in responsibility. Follow this with running all E. Purps brought up during the Introspection steps of the RD. If the pc was found to R/S during the RD the C/S would order the R/Sing statements culled and assessed and those with good reads handled by L&N “What intention is connected with (statement)?” then R3R Quad. Additionally the C/S would note areas of low responsibility and order O/W run on those areas.


PROGRAMMING DATA

In the case of a psycho it is necessary to tailor the Introspection RD steps to the pc, instead of following it as a rote sequence at the risk of running unreading items on the pc. On any pc this is deadly. In a psycho it is pure dynamite.

To do this the C/S would order the subjects of the RD steps assessed, then handled in order of large reads. The Auditor’s TR- 1 and metering must be such that he can make a meter read. The RD could be made to fail on this point by missing hot subjects.


THE CLEARED CANNIBAL FACTOR

When you clear a cannibal what do you have? Experientially you have a cannibal. His experiential track is such that he’s been a cannibal for ages. That’s how he’s handled life and people around him, that’s what he knows how to do. This person is unaware of his responsibilities to other dynamics and is unfamiliar with proper behavior and responsible actions towards others. In the case of an SP, he has been busy destroying others for so long that when he’s somewhat cleaned up on this he does not know what else to do or how to act. It’s rather pathetic, actually.


ISOLATION

In a person in a psychotic break, it is necessary to isolate them for them to destimulate and to protect them and others from possible damage. While in isolation the person receives the Introspection RD done flawlessly on a short-session basis, gradiently winning and gaining confidence. Between sessions the muzzled rule is in force. No one speaks to the person or in his hearing.

There comes a point where the C/S must decide to release the person from isolation. To do this the C/S must know that the person can take responsibility for his actions as regards others, as well as toward himself.


C/S ACTION—
CLEARED CANNIBAL STEP

The C/S’s action is a direct comm line to the person by notes. The person is provided with paper and pen to reply. The C/S must determine the person’s responsibility level. Example: “Dear Joe. What can you guarantee me if you are let out of isolation?” If the person’s reply shows continued irresponsibility toward other dynamics or fixation on one dynamic to the exclusion of others damaged the C/S must inform the person of his continued isolation and why. Example: “Dear Joe. I’m sorry but no go on coming out of isolation yet. Your actions threatened the survival of hundreds of people indirectly and 6 families directly by burning down their houses. You are unaware of the effects this could have had and still only concerned about your own welfare. You must hate the human race quite a bit.”

The C/S has drawn a conclusion based on the information he has and lets the person know where he stands. He does not reintrovert the pc by asking him, “Why did you burn down those houses?” He draws an accurate conclusion and indicates it.

This will elicit a protest from the person and bring about an involvement in the dynamics concerned. It also serves to bring about an awareness of consequences. Example: “But. . . but. . . I never meant to threaten others’ survival. I just wanted to burn down the houses because I like fires. Gosh. . . I didn’t mean it. I don’t hate the human race. . . Oh! I really don’t hate the human race.” Cognition.

The person’s auditing is continued between these exchanges. The Auditor may have to clean up some ARC Breaks as the protest is coming off. Skillfully done, that’s all the Auditor should have to clean up, except maybe some more O/Ws. When it is obvious the person is out of his psychosis and up to the responsibility of living with others his isolation is ended.

SUMMARY

Handling the C/Sing and auditing on this RD requires a real understanding of Dianetics and Expanded Dianetics basics and the utmost precision of application. Its results are nothing short of miraculous. I hope this will be of further assistance to you.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH :ntm jh
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 MARCH 1974
Remimeo
Ex Dn Spclsts
M 7/4 * Rate
Clay Demo
INTROSPECTION RD
SECOND ADDITION
INFORMATION TO C/SES
FIXATED ATTENTION

Ref. Creation of Human Ability
R2-39 and R2-23


Sometimes the C/S runs into the case whose attention is solidly fixed on something. When attention is fixed we have an unawareness of other things than the object of fixation and a lessening of Self-Determinism to a point of Other Determinism. Example: The pc is always bringing up cars. He has trouble with cars, has ARC Breaks about cars, W/Hs about cars, commits overts on cars. It worries him all the time, is a constant problem.

The fixated attention case appears not to as-is and is usually stuck on the track in the “quiet” portion of an incident. Ahead of it and behind it is extreme randomity. This is not easily confronted so is not-ised. The solution is to get the pc to exercise his attention putting it here and there.


INTROVERSION AND ATTENTION

The pc whose attention is fixated manifests it in several ways. He will be continuously introverted on the area, will bring it up often in session but it doesn’t seem to blow. It also shows up in correspondence to the C/S, frequent originations at Examiner, a fixed vague stare, all evidence of introversion. The pc may not originate it.


ANATOMY AND REMEDY

This fixation shows up as a problem but it is usually a Hidden Standard, a special problem the pc thinks must be resolved before auditing can be seen to have worked. Hence the NCG (no case gain) aspect. It is always an old problem of long duration.

The remedy basically involves getting the terminal connected with the area of fixation located and having the pc put his attention on the terminal and take his attention off the terminal.

THE PROCESS

STEP 1—Determine exactly what the pc has attention fixed on, by folder inspection or 2wc for a BD F/N item.

STEP 2—Get the area translated into a terminal. This will read well and have a high degree of pc interest.

STEP 3—Fit the terminal in the commands: “Put your attention on terminal.” “Take your attention off terminal.” Clear and run it alternate repetitive to the EP of pc’s attention no longer fixed on the. area, F/N Cog VGIs. This is called Attention Subjective Repetitive.

STEP 4—Select two objects. Best are a red pen and a blue pen. Two bowling pins will also do. Place them three to four feet apart at a distance of three to four feet from the pc. Place them on white paper for visibility.

STEP 5—Name the objects and fit them in the commands: “Put your attention on the red pen.” “Put your attention on the blue pen.” Clear the commands and run them alternate repetitive to the EP of pc in control of his attention, F/N Cog VGIs. This is called Attention Objective Repetitive.

ALTERNATE STEP 5—Name the objects and fit them in the following commands: “Decide to put your attention on the red pen. Tell me when you’ve done so.” “Put your attention on it.” Then “Decide to put your attention on the blue pen. Tell me when you’ve done so.” “Put your attention on it.” Run this alternate repetitive until the pc is doing the decision step each time, then you can drop out the “Tell me when you’ve done so.” Run it to the EP of pc in control of his attention, F/N Cog VGIs. This is called Attention Objective Decision Repetitive.

NOTE: With both these objective attention processes the pc may swear you are hypnotizing him or something. The process actually runs out hypnotism. The pc will come through a band of Robotism and come out the other end IN CONTROL OF HIS OWN ATTENTION.

VITAL PROCESS DATA

It would never be okay to run Attention Subjective Repetitive on a significance (a no mass thing). It must be run on a terminal. This is a ONE-SHOT PROCESS, depending for its effectiveness on the correctness of the first item selected.

This item is usually unmistakable in a truly fixated case.


PROGRAMMING

Attention Subjective and Objective Repetitive fits in sequence on the Introspection RD between Steps 6C and 7.

If the terminal connected with the area of fixed attention could not be located then the area could not be addressed with Attention Subjective Repetitive, but in some other manner. It is unlikely that no terminal could be found on a truly fixated attention case.


ISOLATION

When a person is released from isolation after terminated handling of a psychotic break it is usual to welcome them back and restore any lost ARC for them from the group, if needed, with an announcement in the OODs.

The person would be interviewed as to whether he wanted to stay or go and what his intentions were.

Formal notification would be made that the person was back in good graces and he would be allowed to make up for any damage done, but not forced to do so. In the case of a crew member, it would be expected he would be assigned to the DPF or RPF where there was one, and told to make good.


ADDITIONAL
CLEARED CANNIBAL STEP

There is an additional tool for use by the C/S in raising the pc’s responsibility. The C/S sends to the pc HCO B 21 Jan AD10 “Justification” with a note asking the pc to please read the HCO B then tell the C/S if it has any application.

This would be done as the first of the series of C/S notes and pc replies on the Cleared Cannibal Step.

If the C/S receives any “rant and rave” in reply he would order it Dated and Located as the pc would be answering out of an incident.

Regardless, the Justification HCO B would have to be followed by O/Ws as the pc has W/Hs there to be restimmed and not running out the O/Ws could cause the TA to skyrocket.

C/SING ON PSYCHOS

C/Sing and auditing psychos is a very precise and even touchy business. There must be no mistakes and you cannot be heavy-handed on them. They are at the lowest point on the Effect Scale and therefore delicate at best and easily overwhelmed.

It is also policy that a C/S takes it easy on auditors handling psychos. They are very hard to audit and difficult to control. So don’t berate the auditor. If they get any kind of a result three cheers.

INTEGRITY

It has always been a rule that actions of one RD are not mixed in with another action or used randomly outside of the RD.

Recently I found that a technique from the Introspection RD was used to indicate by-passed charge or something when handling ruds. This is very wrong. This happened in the field as an isolated instance but is worth mentioning.

The integrity of any RD must be maintained or its effectiveness is reduced. When parts of a RD are used at random by a C/S it actually starts the pc on a RD that is left incomplete.

So don’t extract bits of this RD and use them on other actions. You would do yourself and the pc a disservice.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:ams jh
Copyright © 1974
By L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1971 RA

Remimeo (REVISED 28 JAN 1974)
DnChkshts (REVISED 8 MARCH 1974)
Int RD Chkshts
Class IV and
above. I M P O R T A N T

L3RD

DIANETICS AND INT RD REPAIR LIST


This list includes the most frequent Dianetic errors.

A high or low TA and a bogged case can result from failures to erase a chain of incidents.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REPAIR A CHAIN OR ENGRAM WITHOUT USING THIS LIST as it can have different or several errors.

REMEMBER TO CLEAR EACH WORD ON THIS LIST. IF A QUESTION READS AND THE PC SAYS HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND IT, CLEAR IT AND REASSESS (don’t explain it and take it as it read on a misunderstood not on a fact).

RUNNING PCS ON DIANETICS WITHOUT A FULL AND COMPLETE DN C/S 1 INDOCTRINATION IS A FOOLISH ACTION.

TAKE ANY READ FOUND TO F/N BY FULL REPAIR OF IT PER THE INSTRUCTIONS.

1. There was an Earlier Similar incident. _________
Indicate it, flatten the chain.

2. There was no Earlier Similar incident. _________
Indicate it. Determine if the chain is flat or if the last incident
needs to be run through again. Complete the chain to F/N by
indication or D/L if needed, or by flattening it.

3. There was an earlier beginning. _________
Indicate it. Handle with R3R and complete the chain.

4. There was no earlier beginning. _________
Indicate it. Complete the chain with R3R ABCD on last incident
if unflat.

5. An F/N was indicated too soon. _________
Indicate it. Flatten the last incident.

6. An F/N was indicated too late. _________
Indicate it. Spot the flat point, indicate the overrun, D/L if
necessary.

7. An F/N was not indicated at all. _________
Indicate it. Spot the flat point, indicate the overrun, D/L if
necessary.

8. There was no charge on an item in the first place. _________
Indicate it, and that it shouldn’t have been run, D/L if necessary.

9. Jumped chains. _________
Indicate it. Reorient to the original chain, spot flat point and indicate
the overrun, D/L if necessary, or flatten the chain.

10. Flubbed commands. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

11. Didn’t have a command. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

12. Misunderstood on the command. _________
Find it and clear it.

13. Incident should be run through one more time. _________
Indicate it. ABCD on the incident, flatten the chain.

14. Too late on the chain. _________
Indicate it. Get the Earlier Similar incident and complete the
chain with R3R.

15. Incident gone more solid. _________
Indicate it. Check for earlier incident or earlier beginning and
complete the chain.

16. Stopped running an incident that was erasing. _________
Indicate it. ABCD on the incident and erase it.

17. Went past basic on a chain. _________
Indicate it, D/L if necessary.

18. An earlier misrun incident restimulated. _________
Indicate it. Find out what it was and do an L-3RD on it.

19. Two or more incidents got confused. _________
Indicate it, sort it out with an L-3RD on it.

20. An implant was restimulated. _________
Indicate it, if no joy do an L-3RD on the time of the
restimulation.

21. The incident was really an implant. _________
Indicate it, D/L if necessary or L-3RD on it.

22. Wrong Item. _________
Indicate it was a wrong item and that all other actions
connected with it were wrong. If it is from an L&N list or if
any question or difficulty, L-4BR.

23. Not your item. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

24. Not your incident. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N. L-3RD if any trouble.

25. Same thing run twice. _________
Indicate it. Spot the first flat point, indicate the overrun, D/L
if necessary.

26. There was a wrong date. _________
Indicate it. Get the correct date and flatten the incident if
unflat.

27. There was no date for the incident. _________
Indicate it. Get the date and flatten the incident if unflat.

28. It was a false date. _________
Indicate it. Get the correct date and flatten the incident if unflat.

29. There was an incorrect duration. _________
Indicate it. Get the correct duration and flatten the incident if
unflat.

30. No duration was found for the incident. _________
Indicate it. Get the duration and flatten the incident if unflat.

31. There was a false duration. _________
Indicate it. Get the correct duration and flatten the incident if
unflat.

32. An earlier Dianetic upset was restimulated. _________
Locate what it was, indicate it. Sort it out with an L-3RD if
necessary.

33. An earlier ARC Break on engrams was restimulated. _________
Indicate it. Sort it out with an L-3RD, ARCU CDEINR or an
L-1C as applicable.

34. There was an ARC Break in the incident. _________
Indicate it. Flatten the incident if unflat. ARCU CDEINR at that
time if necessary.

35. You were protesting. _________
Indicate it, clean it up E/S to F/N.

36. Auditor demanded more than you could see. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N. L-1C if necessary.

37. Auditor refused to accept what you were saying. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N. L-1C if necessary.

38. You were prevented from running an incident. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N. Flatten the incident if unflat. L-1C if
necessary.

39. You were distracted while running an incident. _________
Indicate it, E/S to F/N. Flatten the incident if unflat. L-1C if
necessary.

40. Audited over an ARC Brk _________
Problem _________
Withhold. _________
Indicate it and handle the out rud. Do not pull W/Hs before the
engram or chain is repaired or it will mush engrams.

41. An item was suppressed. _________
Indicate it. Get the suppress off E/S to F/N, then run or flatten
the item.

42. An item was invalidated. _________
Indicate it. Get the inval off E/S to F/N, then run or flatten the
item.

43. An item was abandoned. _________
Indicate it, get the item back and run or flatten it.

44. The wording of the item was changed. _________
Indicate it. Get the correct wording and give it to him. Flatten it
if unflat.

45. Stuck picture. _________
Indicate it. Do an L3-RD on it. You can also unstick it by having
him recall a time before it and recall a time after it. D/L if necessary.

46. All black. _________
Spot the black field or picture. Get the correct duration. If no go,
L-3RD on it.

47. Invisible. _________
Spot the invisible field or picture. L-3RD on it.

48. Constantly changing pictures. _________
Indicate there was a misassessment and a wrong item was
taken off the list. Get the correct item and run it, or L-3RD
on that session.

49. There was a persistent mass. _________
L-3RD on it, or D/L.

50. There was trouble with a pressure item or pressure on an item. _________
L-3RD on it, or D/L.

51. You went exterior. _________
Indicate it, D/L if necessary or rehab. If TA high as a result of
this do an Int RD Correction List or send to the C/S if pc hasn’t
had Int RD.

52. Your Int RD was messed up. _________
Indicate it, Int RD Corr List if TA high. If TA OK, 2wc “going
into things” or clear up any misunderstoods on Int, Ext, etc.

53. Audited over Drugs or Medicine. _________
Indicate it. L-3RD on that time, then verify all chains to ensure
they erased.

54. A past death restimulated. _________
Indicate it, if it doesn’t blow run it out.

55. There was nothing wrong in the first place. _________
Indicate it. Continue the action you were on.

56. The real reason was missed. _________
Indicate it. Locate the real reason and handle or do a GF.

57. Something else wrong. _________
Locate what it is and sort it out or do a GF M5 and handle.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH:nt.mh
Copyright © 1971, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Organization Executive Course Books
& The Management Series

by L. Ron Hubbard


The simultaneous release by L. Ron Hubbard of the eight volumes of the Organization Executive Course and the additional volume of the Management Series may well go down as a landmark in the still unwritten history of our age.

Earlier, this vast body of material had been available only to Scientology staff members. But in December 1973 L. Ron Hubbard lifted any restrictions on the general sale of these books.

These materials cover L. Ron Hubbard’s comprehensive research and application in the field of personal and group organization, revealing the basic laws and principles which determine the survival of any activity or undertaking.

This body of data ranks in importance with Scientology’s auditing technology which L. Ron Hubbard also researched and developed.

These writings were originally published as HCO Policy Letters for the guidance of Scientology staff members. Their application by Scientology staff has enabled Scientology to expand at a phenomenal rate and become recognized as the fastest growing religion on the planet.

The enormous publishing task of collecting these writings by L. Ron Hubbard (issued mainly as Policy Letters from 1950 to 1969, with some later materials) and publishing them as volumes was begun in 1969. In 1970 Volume O was published and in the succeeding years the remaining volumes were issued. In addition to the Basic Staff Volume, there is a volume for each division of the seven division Organizing Board. The final volume, the Executive Division Volume, was issued in March 1974, followed by simultaneous publishing in the United States of all volumes. There will also be supplementary volumes issued to follow L. Ron Hubbard’s ever continuing developments in the technology of organizing and producing.

Eight hardbound large format volumes, 4,032 pages plus Management Series 544 pages. Separate 360 page Subject (title) Index. Available from your nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1974
Remimeo


TWC CHECKSHEETS
TWC, USING WRONG QUESTIONS


Two Way Comm is not an art. It is a science which has exact rules.

Foremost in the rules is:

DON’T USE A LISTING QUESTION IN TWO WAY COMM.

By a “listing question” is meant any question which directly or indirectly calls for items in the pc’s answer.

Use of “who”, “what”, “which” instantly turns a TWC into a listing question.

Listing questions are governed by the rules of Listing and Nulling.

If you use a listing question accidentally in TWC you can get the same bad reactions from a pc that you would get on a wrongly done list.

The reason for pc upsets in TWC is hidden as it is not apparently a listing process, rarely gets the correction a bad list would get.

Asking “who” or “what” or “which” during a TWC after the main question can also turn it into a Listing and Nulling process.

TWC questions MUST be limited to feelings, reactions, significances. They must NEVER ask for terminals or locations.

EXAMPLE: “Who upset you?” in TWC causes the pc to give items. This is a LIST. “What are you upset about?” does the same thing. “Which town were you happiest in?” is also a LISTING question NOT a TWC question. Any of these results in the pc giving items. They are not then nulled or correctly indicated. The pc can get VERY upset just as he would with a wrong list. Yet the session is not a “listing session” so never gets corrected.

EXAMPLE: “How are you doing lately?” is an example of a correct TWC question. It gets off charge and gets no list items. “Are you better these days than you used to be?” “How have you been since the last session?”

“What happened” is different than “What illness”, “What person”, “What town” which are listing questions.

REPAIR

When other things fail to locate the upset of a pc look into TWC processes in the folder and treat them as L&N processes where the pc has answered with items. The relief is magical.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH: ntm.rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 MARCH 1974
Remimeo

E-METERS
SENSITIVITY ERRORS


An auditor must set the Sensitivity of an E-Meter exactly right for each pc.

The setting is different for almost every pc.

TOO LOW

Too low a Sensitivity on some pcs (like Sens 5-32) will obscure reads and make them look like ticks. It will obscure an F/N. Whereas a Sens 16-128 will show reads and F/Ns.

A pc can be hindered by the auditor not setting the Sensitivity high enough to show reads and F/Ns. Items are missed as well as F/Ns.

TOO HIGH

When auditing a flying pc or a Clear or OT the auditor who sets the Sensitivity too high gets weird impressions of the case.

“Latent reads” on such a case are common. They aren’t latent at all. What happens is that the F/N is more than a dial wide at high Sensitivity and a started F/N looks like a read as its sweep is stopped by the pin on the right of the dial.

In this way uncharged items are taken up, the case is slowed, overrun and general upsets requiring repairs occur.

On one hand electrode an OT VII sometimes has a 3h dial wide F/N at Sens 5-32.

This would mean a 3/4 dial F/N at Sens 2-32 with two cans.

A Clear sometimes has a floating TA at Sens 32-32 instead of an F/N. He would have to be run at Sens 3-32 two cans to keep him on a dial or detect F/Ns.

This is a very important matter as the auditor will miss F/Ns, think beginning F/Ns are reads and as the Pre-OT is off the dial, miss reads.

Thus uncharged areas are run and charged ones are missed.

The result is very chaotic to repair.

Some lower level pcs also have a need for lower Sensitivity settings.

SUMMARY

Sometimes an easy pc looks very difficult just because of wrong Sensitivity settings.

Set the Sensitivity for the pc for a half dial F/N maximum or minimum.

Don’t get repairs.

Get wins.


LRH:ntm.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MARCH 1974
Remimeo
AO Auditors
Class VIII
END PHENOMENA

(Ref: HCO B 20 Feb 1970,
“Floating Needles and End Phenomena”)


Different types of auditing call for different handlings of End Phenomena.

End Phenomena will also vary depending on what you’re running.

The definition of END PHENOMENA is “those indicators in the pc and meter which show that a chain or process is ended”. Misapplication of this definition can result in underrun and overrun processes or actions and the pc snarled up with BPC.


TYPES OF EPs

In Power Processing the auditor waits for a specific EP and does not indicate an F/N until he has gotten the specific EP for the process. To miss on this in Power is disastrous, thus Power auditors are drilled and drilled on the handling of Power EPs.

In Dianetics, the EP of a chain is erasure, accompanied by an F/N, cognition and good indicators. You wouldn’t necessarily expect rave indicators on a pc in the middle of an assist, under emotional or physical stress until the full assist was completed though. What you would expect is the chain blown with an F/N. Those two things themselves are good indicators. The cognition could simply be “the chain blew”.

In Scientology, End Phenomena vary with what you’re auditing. An ARC Broken pc on an L-1C will peel off charge and come uptone gradually as each reading line is handled. Sometimes it comes in a spectacular huge cog and VVGIs and dial F/N, but that’s usually after charge has been taken off on a gradient. What’s expected is an F/N as that charge being handled moves off.

In Ruds it’s the same idea. When you’ve got your F/N and that charge has moved off, indicate it. Don’t push the pc on and on for some “EP”. You’ve got it.

Now a major grade process will run to F/N, Cog, VGIs and release. You’ll have an ability regained. But that’s a grade process on a set up flying pc.


F/N ABUSE

Mistakenly applying the Power EP rule to Ruds will have the pc messed up by overrun. It invalidates the pc’s wins and keys the charge back in. The pc will start thinking he hasn’t blown the charge and can’t do anything about it.

In 1970 I had to write the HCO B “F/Ns and End Phenomena” to cure auditors of chopping pc EPs on major actions by indicating F/Ns too soon. This is one type of F/N abuse which has largely been handled.

That bulletin and Power EP handling have been in some instances misapplied in the direction of overrun. “The pc isn’t getting EP on these chains as there’s no cognition, just ‘it erased’,” is one example. Obviously the C/S didn’t understand the definition of cognition or what an EP is. Another example is the pc spots what it is and F/Ns and the auditor carries on, expecting an “EP”.

OTs and EPs

An OT is particularly subject to F/N abuse as he can blow things quite rapidly. If the auditor misses the F/N due to too high a sensitivity setting or doesn’t call it as he’s waiting for an “EP”, overrun occurs. It invalidates an OT’s ability to as-is and causes severe upsets.

This error can also stem from auditor speed. The auditor, used to auditing lower level pcs or never trained to audit OTs, can’t keep up with the OT and misses his F/Ns or reads.

Thus overruns occur and charged areas are bypassed.

This could account for those cases who were flying then fell on their heads with the same problems that blew back again.


REMEDY

The remedy of this problem begins with thoroughly clearing all terms connected with EPs. This is basically Word Clearing Method 6, Key Words.

The next action is to get my HCO Bs on the subject of EPs and also related metering HCO Bs fully understood and starrated. This would be followed by clay demos of various EPs of processes and actions showing the mechanics of the bank and what happens with the pc and meter.

TRs and meter drills on spotting F/Ns would follow, including any needed obnosis drills and correction of meter position so that the auditor could see the pc, meter and his admin at a glance.

Then, the auditor would be gradiently drilled on handling the pc, meter and admin at increasing rates of speed including recognizing and indicating EPs when they occurred. When the auditor could do all of this smoothly at the high rate of speed of an OT blowing things by inspection without fumbling, the last action would be bullbaited drills like TRs 103 and 104, on a gradient to a level of competence whereby the auditor could handle anything that came up at speed and do so smoothly.

Then you’d really have an OT auditor. And that’s what you’ll have to do to make them.

SUMMARY

Overrun and underrun alike mess up cases.

Both stem from an auditor inability to recognize and handle different types of EPs and inexpertness in handling the tools of auditing at speed.

Don’t overrun pcs and have to repair them.

Let the pc have his wins.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder



LRH:ams.rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 APRIL 1971 RA
REVISED 24 MARCH 1974

Remimeo
C/S Series 32RA

USE OF DIANETICS
(Revised per HCO B 15 July 1971, Issue I,
“Quads Cancelled”—Revisions in this type style.)


It is mandatory important urgent that one does not audit three flow items until one has brought all earlier Dianetic Items into three flows.

TRIPLE

On a case where only Flow One (Single) has been run, you don’t suddenly run a Triple (F1, F2, F3) such as on the LX Class VIII lists until one has run the earliest Dn item ever run (or that can be found) on Dn Triple and then on forward on Triple up to the LX.

REASON

Auditing additional flows while earlier items remain Single restimulates the missing flows and stacks them up as mass. They can make a pc uncomfortable until run.

All the missing flows (that were not run) are still potential mass.

This mass restimulates like something too late on the chain when a flow not run on earlier items is run on later items.

Auditing itself is a sort of time track. The earliest session blows the later sessions.

FULL FLOW TABLE

Before running Triple Dianetics one makes a table of earlier items run. Like this:

full Flow Table

Flow
Date Item Previously Run Must Run

2/3/62 Guf Shoulder F 1 F 2, 3
3/3/67 Gowin Foot F 1 F 2, 3
30/4/67 Chowin Chump F 1 F 2, 3
29/9/68 LX Anger F 1, 2, 3
LX Peeved F 1, 2, 3
4/10/69 Feeling Numb F 1, 2, 3
5/9/70 EXT RD F 1, 2, 3
9/10/70 Feeling of Goof F 1, 2, 3
10/10/71 Dn Assist on Head F 1 F 2, 3

FLOWS

F 1 is FLOW ONE, something happening to self.

F 2 is FLOW TWO, doing something to another.

F 3 is FLOW THREE, others doing things to others.

F 0 as run in the Introspection RD is FLOW ZERO, self doing something to self.

R3R COMMANDS

Standard R3R Commands are used on Triple Dianetics.

They are the subject of another HCO B.

The Zero Command for the Introspection RD, however, is very easy being “Locate an incident of (loss or emotion) (pain and unconsciousness) when you caused yourself to have a(an) (item)” with the other commands of R3R as usual.

NARRATIVE

The question will come up, do we Triple Narrative items or Multiple somatic items.

The test is, did the flows already run F/N when they were originally run. If they did, include them. If they didn’t run exclude them.

This does not mean you omit everything that didn’t run.

REPAIR

While auditing this FULL FLOW DIANETICS you will find various chains that did not F/N when originally run.

These are included and should be concluded to F/N. This means one has to find out if they by-passed the F/N, went too early, jumped the chain, etc. Usually an L3RD assessed on that faulty action will give the answer. It is easy to make these old flubbed chains F/N unless you work at it too hard. Usually the reason they didn’t is visible on the old worksheet. The auditor forgot to ask for Earlier Beginning or by-passed the F/N or jumped the chain or tried to run it twice forgetting he’d run it before. Corny errors.

RESULT

The result of doing a FULL FLOW DIANETIC ACTION on a case is quite spectacular. The shadowy remains of somatics blow, mass blows and the pc comes up shining.

OFFERING FFD

Offering the public Full Flow Dianetics must include the cost of C/S work since it is sometimes lengthy. It is best to sell the action at a flat price that’s more than adequate to cover the auditing as well as the hours of FESing and FF table making as the time can be quite long.

The auditing can be remarkably brief. The greatest amount of time is usually spent on the C/Sing and table making.

A C/S must liaise with the Dissem Sec and Treasury Sec on selling it or he’ll find the org is losing money doing the C/Sing and tables.

A nice big fat flat price, not by hours, is best.

OT WARNING

When doing Triple Dianetics on Clears and OTs (and a very few others) it may be found that many chains are now missing or are just copies of the original. Don’t be disturbed. Pc says they’re gone now they’re gone. Just F/N the fact and carry on with the next flow or item.


LRH:ams.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1971, 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


[Added to by HCO B 4 April 1971-1R, Addition of 13 January 1975, Revised 22 February 1975, C/S Series 32RA-1 R, Use of Quad Dianetics, which is on page 377.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 MARCH 1974
Remimeo
Ex Dn C/Ses
Expanded Dianetics Series 21
Ref: Ex Dn Tape Lectures and Case Histories.


EXPANDED DIANETICS
DEVELOPMENTS SINCE
THE ORIGINAL LECTURES


Since the original lectures on Expanded Dianetics and Case Histories were released several HCO Bs were issued under my name which I did not authorize. These have been cancelled.

I thought I’d better cover the developments since the original materials and clear up any questions or conflicts that may have arisen over the unauthorized HCO Bs.


EXPANDED DIANETICS PROGRAMMING

Expanded Dianetics programming is not rote but each programme is laid out for that individual pc taking him from his current state to a shiny product.

The programme is worked out from data gotten by FES, OCA, Chart of Human Evaluation and D of P Interviews.

The product of an Ex Dn complete pc is visible by OCA, Chart of Human Evaluation, and pc satisfaction in having handled what he wanted handled.

Endless Ex Dn to no product occurs only when the C/S violates the basics of Ex Dn programming as covered in my tape lectures and the Case Histories, when the pc is run on actions that he doesn’t need and aren’t reading or when the pc was not set up for Ex Dn in the first place.


EXPANDED DIANETICS SET-UPS

Usually a C/S Series 53RF and a list correction are needed set-up actions if they haven’t been done. A thorough C/S-l and full word clearing are vital.

A Drug RD must be done or completed before Ex Dn is done or it will fail. This includes Objectives. You can’t do Ex Dn until Drugs are all handled.


TROUBLE ON ENGRAMS

The pc who cannot run engrams has misunderstoods on the commands and terms of R3R and Dianetics, or it’s drugs. The pc will be able to run drugs because that’s what he’s stuck in. He’ll run those automatically as long as you’ve done the necessary Word Clearing.

Pcs who won’t go backtrack are druggies or in recent shock of having died. This is handled by a thorough Drug RD and if necessary the usual Dianetic backtrack remedies As and Es double-assessed. Ss and Ps could be checked as well.
LATER EX DN RUNDOWNS

Class VIII C/S-6 list is useful in running out past bad auditing. It is fully covered on Tape 1. Other Class VIII lists are not used as you won’t get anywhere running AEIs from a significance.

Intentions in AEI Treble Assessments are run in order of read. Interest is not checked. As intentions exist on all 3 flows you could list for the intentions on the other 2 flows after you have listed the intentions connected with and run them R3R Triple. You can only list and run intentions connected with a terminal or mass or somatic never a significance.

The R3R commands are: F-1 “Locate an incident of another causing you to have the intention _____.” F-2 “Locate an incident of you causing another to have the intention______.” F-3 “Locate an incident of others causing others to have the intention_____.”

Good Intentions are never run. Never. The cure for a pc who is run on a good intention is a C/S Series 53RF. The cure for the auditor is to fully define the words: good, worthy, positive, pro-survival, evil, bad, unworthy, negative and contra-survival. Then have him re-study the related materials. If it recurs, get him audited on a 3 May PL and Ex Dn.

R3R all E. Purps culled from the folder is done as a first action in Ex Dn. Subsequent E. Purps brought up in sessions are noted and R3R’d later on in the programme before any PTS RD is done.

These E. Purps have to be verified as to wording and checked for read before running, but not interest.

Considerable charge can be bypassed if E. Purps are missed so this action is thoroughly done.

R/S Handling, also called the Responsibility RD, is done as OCA right-hand side handling. A list of all R/Sing statements is made then each taken up. The idea is an R/S will occur in connection with a terminal which will read when checked, and that’s what you want to run. The R/Sing statement itself will often mention a terminal. If not the auditor can do a brief TWC to find out the terminal connected with the statement.

Once the terminal is obtained the auditor lists (L & N) for the E. Purp F-l, 2 & 3 R3R Triple on each after it’s listed.

If no terminal can be found the auditor would have to L & N for the intention of someone who would (R/S statement).

The Wants Handled Rundown is shown in Cases B, C and F. The important points of the RD are to run it as a “wants to get rid of”, not a “wants to achieve” and to complete each thing the pc wants handled before going on.

Handling of each thing the pc wants handled is dictated by what the “thing” is. A somatic is run R3R Triple. The intention connected with it can also be run. An intention is run R3R Triple. If it’s a terminal, L & N for the intention connected with it and run it. You can also L & N and run the intentions on the other 2 flows. If it’s a condition L & N W/W would have it then list for and run that terminal’s intention. If it’s a doingness L & N for the intention of someone who would do that and run it.

Additional handling could be done such as PSEAIs double-assessed R3R Triple, handling it as a problem by finding and running out the prior confusion or tracing it back to the earlier problem it is a solution to and running that R3R Triple. Difficulties on this RD stem from not getting the thing the pc really wants handled which will read very well and run like a bomb, or errors in the L & N or R3R or out ethics holding the condition in place.
The Multiple-Flow E. Purp Rundown is a very high-powered action which must be precisely done. Its use is covered in C/S Series 22 and Case C. It consists of F-l: L & N “What Evil Impulse have others had toward you?” R3R Triple. F-2: L & N “What Evil Impulse have you had toward others?” R3R Triple. F-3: L & N “What Evil Impulse have others had toward others?” R3R Triple.


SUMMARY

An Ex Dn programme is designed for an individual. C/Sing and auditing are done to achieve a product.

When you’re paralleling the mind the meter will be reading like mad, the pc will be wildly interested and the results will follow big and fast.

With this broad change in Ex Dn I recommend that you re-listen to the Ex Dn tapes, review DMSMH and The Original Thesis as well as the ‘63 Time Track and R3R materials and re-study the Case Histories working out why each C/S and pgm was done. Better yet do a thorough Ex Dn C/S Course.

I’m counting on you to really apply these materials and expect to see lots of good results.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:ams jh
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 DECEMBER 1971R
Remimeo (HCO B 2 December 1970 Revised)
Int RD (Revised 30 March 1974)
Checksheet


C/S Series 23RA


INTERIORIZATION SUMMARY
(Revised and updated to include 1971 Int HCO Bs)
All changes are in this type style.


INTERIORIZATION CAN BE BADLY MISRUN.

The following HCO Bs cover Interiorization Rundowns.

HCO B 5 Mar 1971 “Exteriorization and High TA”
HCO B 11 Apr 1970 “Auditing Past Exterior”
HCO B 6 May 1970 “Blows—Auditing Past Exterior”
HCO B 30 May 1970 “Interiorization Intensive—2-Way Comm”
HCO B 20 Aug 1970 “Exteriorization Rundown Musts”
HCO B 24 Sept 1971 “Urgent—Interiorization Rundown”
HCO B 29 Oct 1971 “Int Rundown Correction List Revised”
HCO B 16 Dec 1971 C/S Series 35R (Revised) “Interiorization Errors”
HCO B 17 Dec 1971R C/S Series 23RA (this HCO B)

The examination of Interiorization Rundowns done in the field discloses that some auditors engaged in running it have not been fully checked out on it. HCO PL 26 Aug 1965 gives the correct way to do a starrate checkout. Clay demos must also be correctly done. These are covered in HCO B 11 Oct 1967 and HCO B 30 Oct 1970. These HCO Bs on Int Rundown, Starrates and Clay Demos plus HCO PL 20 July 1970, Issue III, 2-WC as below, make the necessary pack for checking out an auditor before letting him near an Int Rundown. And all Interiorization materials as above MUST BE CHECKED OUT STARRATE AND IN CLAY before a C/S permits one of his auditors to run it on a pc.


QUADS CANCELLED

“The disadvantages of Quad Dianetics outweigh any advantages in actual practice.

“Flow Zero is therefore cancelled as part of Dianetics and Lower Grades. “(LRH HCO B 15 July 71, “Quads Cancelled”.)


UNNECESSARY

“The words ‘went in’ and ‘go in’ MUST be said to the pc and cleared on the meter. If there is needle action, one runs an Int RD as per the Int Rundown Pack.

“If there aren’t any reads one does NOT do an Int Rundown on the pc as it is unnecessary and classifies as ‘running an unreading item’.

“When this test is omitted you get an unnecessary Int RD being done on a pc.

“This will eventually have to be repaired.


“FLUBBED R3R

“When the auditor does not do flubless auditing errors occur in the auditing itself. These will hang up an Int RD.

“OVERRUN

“It usually happens that an Int RD is overrun. It goes flat on Secondary F2, let us say. The auditor keeps on going past the win.

“This will hang up the Rundown.

“One of the ways an overrun occurs is the pc goes exterior during it. Yet the auditor keeps on.

“Another way is pc has a big Cog, big win. Auditor keeps going on with the RD.” —LRH (HCO B 24 Sept 71, ‘‘Urgent—Interiorization Rundown’’)


REPAIR OF INT

“If even years after an Int RD the pc has a high TA or a low TA, then Int trouble is at once suspected and the original Int RD and any repair of it is suspected and must be handled. “—LRH (From the LRH original HCO B C/S Series 35R, Revised 16 Dec 71, ‘‘Interiorization Errors”) (Handle it by HCO B 29 Oct 71, “Int Rundown Correction List Revised”.)

TWO-WAY COMM

There is a two-way comm step that follows a day or so after an Interiorization Rundown .

An auditor doing this step, preferably the same auditor, MUST BE CHECKED OUT ON TWO-WAY COMM.

No C/S should permit any auditor to do any 2-way comm until the auditor has been checked out on HCO PL 20 July 1970, Issue III, “Two-Way Comm Checksheet”. One can obtain these tapes easily from Pubs (as the Sea Org has recently forced in this line and quality and delivery). Pending such tapes one can certainly get the rest of the materials on the checksheet done by the auditor and let him do 2-way comm while being very watchful as a C/S.

C/SING INT

The correcting of an Interiorization Rundown is far harder than making sure that auditors can do the usual in the first place.

Nearly all a C/S’s hard work comes from auditors not well trained on courses (indifferent courses) and failing to check auditors out well on the materials before permitting them to deliver a new rundown.

The correction of Int is hard since until it is complete, other auditing is inadvisable. One, however, gets the Int Rundown done.


“INT IS A REMEDY

“The Int RD is not understood as a REMEDY. It is not something you do on all pcs.

“Pc goes Exterior in auditing.

“Later his TA goes high.

“Then you do an Int RD.

“You test Int for read as above. If it BDs you do an Int RD.

“You just don’t do one because a pc goes exterior.

“One reason unnecessary Int RDs get done is that the Registrar sells one. That makes the Reg a C/S. So the C/S and auditor run it.

“Maybe it wasn’t needed.

“So if it wasn’t needed it will eventually have to be repaired.”—LRH (HCO B 2
Sept 71, “Urgent—Interiorization Rundown”) (Repair with an Int RD Correction List Revised, HCO B 29 Oct 1971.)

The Interiorization Rundown is a REMEDY designed to permit the pc to be further audited after he has gone exterior.

The Int Rundown is NOT meant to be sold or passed off as a method of exteriorizing a pc. This is very important.

It is general auditing on usual Dianetics and Scientology actions that brings about Exteriorization.

When the pc goes or is found to be exterior one then orders the Interiorization Rundown. Otherwise the TA will misbehave.

The rundown is a REMEDY USED AFTER EXTERIORIZATION HAS OCCURRED BY REASON OF GENERAL AUDITING.

Anxiety to get exterior will prompt a pc to buy and a Registrar to sell an Interiorization Rundown. It is in effect just more auditing as far as the Registrar is concerned. When a pc has gone exterior the Registrar can insist on his buying enough hours for the remedy.

The Int Rundown stabilizes the exteriorization and makes it possible to audit the pc further.

DISABILITY

If an auditor can’t smoothly audit a rundown as simple as an Int Rundown, then he is exposed as being unable to run Standard Dianetics and should be cleared of his misunderstoods and overts and retrained.

The only real trouble one gets into on an Int Rundown stems from the inability of the auditor to run a smooth, good TRed R3R session. Pcs are not hard to run on it.


C/S WINS

A C/S cannot win at all if he is continually having to make up for flubby auditing by the auditor.

Therefore the C/S must be very sure his auditors are fully checked out on things they are to run before running them.

If there is no Qual Staff Training Officer or no Cramming, a C/S can fully afford to do the training and cramming himself. Otherwise he will lose far more than that time in C/Sing for auditors not checked out.

By the skill of his auditors you know the C/S. Not by his unusual solutions after flubs.

The Int Rundown is too easy to do to have any trouble—the trouble comes when the auditors are not checked out beforehand, starrate and in clay on new things the are to run.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:MH:ntm.rd (Updated with recent
Copyright © 1970, 1971 ,1974 LRH data by order of
by L. Ron Hubbard L. Ron Hubbard by
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Training & Services

[HCO PL 20 July 1970, Issue III, Two-Way Comm Checksheet, Bureau) mentioned above was revised on 25 November 1974 as a BPL.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1973
Remimeo (Cancels HCO B 31 Dec 1971RC)
REISSUED 4 APRIL 74

C/S Series 53RG
SHORT HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT C/S

This is the basic prepared list used by Auditors to get a TA up or down into normal range. A GF Method 5 may also be used after TA is in normal range to get pc’s case handled better.
____________________________________________________PC Name___________________Date

1. Assess pc Method 5 on this sheet. (Go down the list calling off the items to the pc, watching the meter. Mark any Tick, SF, F, LF, LFBD [to what TA], speeded rise or Blow Up.) NOTE: A C/S 53RG should be reassessed and all reads handled. until it F/Ns on assessment.

A. Interiorization __________ Invisible __________
Went in __________ Black __________
Go in __________ Loss __________
Can’t get in __________ Lost __________
Want to get out __________
Kicked out of spaces __________ F. Same thing run twice __________
Can’t go in __________ Same action done by
another auditor __________
B. List errors __________
Overlisting __________ G. Doing something with
Wrong items __________ mind between sessions __________
Upset with giving __________ Some other practice __________
items to auditor __________
H. Word Clearing errors __________
C. Some sort of W/H __________ Study errors __________
Are you withholding
something __________ I. False TA __________
Is another withholding Wrong sized cans __________
something from you __________ Tired hands __________
Are others withholding Dry hands or feet __________
something from others __________ Wet hands or feet __________
Has another committed Loosens can grip __________
overts on you __________
Have you committed J. Auditor overwhelming __________
any overts __________ Feel attacked __________
Have others committed Something wrong with
overts on others __________ F/Ns __________
Not saying __________ Overrun F/Ns __________
Problems __________ Missed F/Ns
Protest __________ Items really didn’t read __________
Don’t like it __________ Bad auditing __________
Audited over out ruds __________ Incomplete actions __________
Feel sad __________
Rushed __________ K. Can’t have __________
Tired __________ Low Havingness __________
ARC Brk __________
Upset __________ L. PTS __________
Can’t get it __________ Suppressed __________

D. Drugs __________ M. Something went on too
LSD __________ long __________
Alcohol __________ Went on by a release
Pot __________ point __________
Medicine __________ Overrun __________
Auditor kept on going __________
E. Engram in restimulation __________ Over-repair __________
Same engram run twice __________ Puzzled by auditor
Can’t see engrams too keeps on __________
well __________ Stops __________
O. Repairing a TA that __________ N. Something else __________
isn’t high Physically ill __________
Repairing a TA that Faulty Meter __________
isn’t low __________ Nothing wrong __________

2. Use only the small falls or falls or BDs. The rises will however show where mass lies.

A. If A or any of the A Group, and the pc has had an Int RD, do an Int RD Correction List, and handle the reads. (HCO B 29 Oct 71 Amended 31 Dec 71.)

If pc has never had an Int RD, then give him a standard Int RD providing you have checked out on the Int-Ext pack and are good at R3R.

B. If any of these read, do an L4B on the earliest lists you can find that have not been corrected. Lacking these do an L4B in general. You can go over an L4B several times handling each read to F/N until the whole L4B gives nothing but F/Ns.

C. If any of these, handle with 2wc and earlier similar to F/N. If more than one reads do biggest read first and then clean up each of the others E/S to F/N. If all read on assessment you have to get an F/N for each or 18 F/Ns. On overts and withholds, get what, and E/S to F/N. On out ruds, find which rud and handle. (See GF40RR HCOB 30 June 71, Revised 13 Jan 72.) Feel sad, handle the ARC Break. (Feel sad = ARC Brk of long duration.)

D. Rehab releases on each “drug” taken to F/N. Complete the Drug RD per C/S Series 48R after handling all reads on this assessment. If pc has had a Drug RD, do L3B on it, and handle.

E. If any of these, do L3B and handle according to what is stated to do on L3B.

F. Clean up any protest and inval and rehab to F/N.

G. Find out what it is. If Yoga or Mystic exercises or some such 2wc E/S it to first time done, find out what upset had occurred before that and if TA now down do L1C on that period of pc’s life.

H. If Word Clearing, do a Word Clearing Correction List, handle all reads. If Study errors, 2wc E/S to F/N, and add a Study Correction List to the pc’s program.

1. False TA is wrong cans. Use HCO Bs 24 Oct 71, 12 Nov 71, 15 Feb 72, 18 Feb 72, 29 Feb 72, HCO B 23 Nov 73, all on False TA. Then clean up the bypassed charge with ( 1 ) Assess for best read (a) TA worries (b) F/N worries. (2) Then 2wc times he was worried about (item) E/S to F/N. (3) Rehab a time he felt really keyed out to F/N.

J. These are auditor errors. Low TA is generally caused by overwhelming TRs and incomplete actions. A high TA can be caused by an auditor overrunning F/Ns or failing to call them. Or trying to assess through an F/N and mistaking an F/N right swing for a read. These items are all 2wc E/S to F/N. Auditors who made them need Cramming badly or retread.

K. Can’t have or Hav. Find correct Havingness process and remedy.

L. PTS or Suppressed. Check for SP or get a full PTS RD.

M. Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N on each (or date to blow, locate to blow if qualified).

N. 2wc to find what. Note BD item. If BD item covered by one of these categories handle per instructions. If not just 2wc to F/N and get further C/S instructions for handling if necessary.

O. Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate if no F/N on first. If false TA handle per I above.

General. Handle Int RD (A) if it reads at all before handling rest as nothing will go right if Int is still out. For the remainder prefer to handle any BD group if you get a BD. If in doubt about what to do, return to the C/S.

LRH:BW:BL:TD:ams.rd Revised by
Copyright © 1971,1972,1973,1974 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard Founder
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MARCH 1971RA
Remimeo Revised 6 April 1974
HGC Auditors
Dn & Scn C/S Series 28RA
Checksheets
C/Ses USE OF DIANETICS

Revised per HCO B 15 July 71, Issue I, “Quads Cancelled”
(Revisions in this type style)

Where a case has only been run on single flow Dianetics (Flow 1 ) one goes back to the first Dianetic item ever run of which record can be found and does F1, F2, F3 in that order.

To C/S a case for Triple Dianetics it is best to first lay out a Scientology repair, making sure the case is flying, then list out the items already run on Single and Triple. Then get them run so that all three flows are complete on each item in sequence from first to last.

This includes any LX items, former practice, drugs or any other engram running. These, like Dianetic items, are listed in their correct sequence of former running.

Then the missing flows are run.

A rehab step of the flows already run is not necessary. This rehab of a flow already run to EP is usually used only when there is question about its having gone to F/N Cog VGIs. In C/Sing for Triples one COMPLETES any flow of an item found that did not F/N. This is indicated on the Item list.

DOING THE LIST

The Item list is done by the auditor in his admin time for well done time credits.

All former Dianetic items ever run are listed and what flows have been run on them and to what end phenomena.

Example: Engram List
3 Sept 69 Sadness (exact wording that was used) F1
4 Sept 69 A Bored Feeling F1 Bogged
6 Sept 69 An Apathetic Outlook F1 Bogged
6 Nov 69 LX Agonized F1 F2 F3
7 Nov 69 Former Therapy F1 F2 F3
F2 Bogged
9 Nov 69 Earlier Practices F1 Bogged
10 Nov 69 A Horrible Sadness F1 Bogged
5 July 70 Int RD F1 F2 F3
F3 Bogged
6 July 71 An Awful Pressure F1 Bogged

Such a list is then handled from the earliest forward by:

(a) Completing the bogged flow and
(b) Completing the missing flow.

INT-EXT RD

This is handled in its proper sequence on the list if the TA is not high or very low.

If the TA on the pc is currently high, Int is handled before any other action is done and all three flows are run on it.

A drug chain also makes a high TA if in existence or unflat.


FLUBS

If any auditor has a poor record of getting Dianetic Results, of bogged flows, etc, he needs an HDC Retread. His drills and TRs are out or he is committing Gross Auditing Errors.

Dianetics gives remarkable results only when flawlessly done.

The commands must be precisely given and all commands 1-9 A-D are used. It is NEVER shorted “because the pc did it”.

C/Sing

It should be realized Dianetics is its own field of C/Sing. This remains the same in Triple Dianetics.

RESULTS

Triple Dianetics, including the rerun actions, produces some very startling new

Well done Dianetics always has produced fine results.

Triple Dianetics almost doubles the gain.


REMEDIES

Any and all Dianetic Remedies and general technology remain in full use. They are not changed at all. Only Triple Flows are added in each case.

Good Luck.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:mes.ntm.rd
Copyright © 1971, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED










[This HCO B is added to by HCO B 7 March 1971, Reissued 13 January 1975, C/S Series 28RA-1, Use of Quadruple Dianetics, page 374.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1971RA
Remimeo REVISED 8 APRIL 1974
All Auditors
C/Ses
Class VIII
C/S Series 33RA


TRIPLE RERUNS

(Revised per HCO B 15 July 71 Issue I
“Quads Cancelled”—Revisions in this type style.)



LAW: WHEN ONE OR MORE OF THE THREE FLOWS OF AN ITEM OR GRADE ARE LEFT UNRUN, WHEN USED IN LATER PROCESSES THE EARLIER UNRUN ONES RESTIMULATE AND MAKE MASS.

This tells you that high TAs, heavy pressures and even illness can come from by-passed flows.


BY-PASSED FLOWS

Example: Dianetic singles have been run on 7 items. Now the auditor begins to run new items Triple without running Triple on the already run items. The result will be 7 unrun Flow 2s and 7 unrun Flow 3s. These will restimulate and form mass and by-passed charge.

Example: Now let us say that Dianetics was all run Single and Grades were run Triple. This will restimulate the Dn chains F2 and F3.

ANY LATER GRADE RUN WITH MORE FLOWS THAN USED IN EARLIER ACTIONS CAN THROW THE EARLIER UNFLAT FLOWS INTO RESTIM, PILE UP MASS GIVING HIGH TA AND BPC GIVING ARC BREAKS.


REPAIR

The more the condition is repaired by L1C, L4BR, etc, etc the worse the Mass gets.


SOURCE OF HIGH TA

Thus High TAs have three principal sources:

(1) Overruns

(2) Auditing Past Exterior

(3) Earlier Unrun flows restimulated by those flows used in later actions.

There are other minor ones such as Drug Background, illness, etc as per Hi-Lo TA Assessment.


REHABS

One must NOT recklessly or continuously rehab a past major action. This causes overrun. The thetan is placed at the end of the incidents not yet in restimulation or run and the bank gets more solid.


MASSY THETANS

The whole trick of this universe is contained in thetans copying or picturing incidents and then getting stuck in the later portion of them.
“Incidents” is the keynote. A Thetan is incident hungry.

This is what traps him.

For some reason he has to be at the earliest end of incidents to erase them. The later he is in incidents and the later he is on the track the more solid he is.

This also applies to the “auditing time track”.

By omitting things like flows on the auditing time track, the thetan thus becomes massy.

The whole theory of the Exteriorization Remedy is based on having gone out (later) after he went in (earlier). So Exteriorizing can stick him. (People buy the Ext RD to Exteriorize but the remedy is only done to permit further auditing. They Ext of course when the bank is handled.)

When flows of items are by-passed and then later restimulated by auditing them, mass occurs.


GETTING IN ALL FLOWS

When doing additional flows on earlier items or processes one must also check or rehab those flows marked as run to F/N in worksheets.

This again will leave unflat flows and BPC unless it is done.

And if it is overdone it will raise the TA by overrun.

So if one had a case that had Single Dianetics and was later run on Triple for new items (but the Singles not done into Triple) one would have to RUN FIRST the missing unrun flow or flows and then check the first Single F1 for flatness, then check other previously run flows.

The rule is run the previously unrun one or ones first to get charge off, then verify or run the ones listed as run already.

Then one would do the same for the next item. Run the previously unrun flow or flows and then verify or run those listed as already run to be sure they F/N.

All items, in chronological sequence, and all processes, would have to be run Triple.

IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME NOW TO RUN IN ONLY SINGLES.

So all C/Ses and Auditing actions are “Rehab or Run F1, F2, F3” when getting in all flows on things run to date.

HIGH TA

When you are sure an EXT RD has been done correctly and its 2wc went F/N and the TA later goes high, you check the EXT RD. That is the most usual reason. This simple action is amazingly subject to flubs.

If the TA goes high later you can do a Hi-Lo TA Assessment and handle.

If the TA is still high or low, you had better check the state of flows. Were more flows run on later actions than were run on earlier actions?

If so, your pc has felt massy, sometimes even ill.

The right action is to get in all flows from the beginning. Bring all his auditing up to Triple.

(If his folder is not available, he has kind of had it. I know of no way, at this writing, to recover lost Dn items but will have to work something out.)


NOT IN TROUBLE

If the pc is not in trouble, his best bet is to get on up the grades to Expanded OT III.



IN TROUBLE

If he is massy and is having trouble the best bet is to:

(1) Be totally sure of his Int RD

(2) Check O/Rs particularly of a major grade twice or by-passed F/Ns, locate and indicate them

(3) FES, list the items and grades and do a Full Flow action from the beginning of his auditing, raising them all to Triple.


RUNNING ZERO FLOWS
(As run in the Introspection RD)

The Zero Flow in Dianetics is a bit strange. It can be done by full R3R BUT it often depends on the decision the pc made and may F/N very suddenly. It is easily overrun and can be very fast.

A pc can be gotten into trouble on Zero Flows if the auditor is slow and is not alert to his meter and misses the F/N and gives R3R commands after the flow has blown.


REHAB OR RUN

The auditor getting in Triple Flows can also ARC Brk the pc by failing to verify if the previously run flows are flat. All the auditor wants is to see them F/N on the command. If they don’t he runs them.

Sometimes when he has “run them” again he finds they are being overrun or run twice and has to rehab them by finding this out. The pc sometimes doesn’t know until he actually starts to run them. Then he finds they are already run. The clue to this is a climbing TA. If the TA goes up, get off that flow and rehab it.

Example: Pc at first thinks “Pain in shoulder” F2 was never run. Starts to run it. TA goes up. Auditor must pull him off of it by finding out if it is being run twice and rehab it to F/N.

The moral in all these reruns is don’t firefight, keep an L1C List and an L3RD List handy and use them.

RESULTS

The results of straightening up the Int-Ext RD, rehabbing O/Rs and putting in ALL FLOWS on a pc are fantastic.

Getting an All Flows Rundown done correctly gives one all the latent gain the pc has been begging for.

So send to Cramming all C/Ses and auditors who flub.

Program it right.

C/S it right.

Audit it right.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:mes.ntm jh.rd
Copyright ©1971, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[This HCO B is added to by HCO B 5 April 1971, Reissued 13 January 1975, C/S Series 33RA-1, Triple and Quad Reruns, page 380. ]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 APRIL 1971 RB
REVISED 8 APRIL 1974
Remimeo REISSUED 21 SEPTEMBER 1974
All Auditors
Class VIII C/S Series 36RB
Dn Checksheet
Int-Ext Chksht (Revised per HCO B 15 July 71, Issue I
“Quads Cancelled”)
(Revisions in this type style.)

This HCO B has been reissued as C/S Series 36RB.
HCO B 21 April 1971RA C/S Series 36RA,
‘‘Dianetics—Getting in All Flows’’,
is cancelled.


DIANETICS

(Applies also to Int-Ext Rundown.)
(Ref HCO B 4 Apr 71 RA, C/S Series 32RA,
and HCO B 5 Apr 71RA, C/S Series 33RA.)


TRs

TR Zero exists so an auditor is not ducking the session but can sit there relaxed, doing his job.

TR One must be done so the pc can hear and understand the auditor (without blowing the pc’s head off either).

TR Two must be done so that the pc gets acknowledged. This can be so corrupted that the auditor doesn’t ack at all but gives the pc meter reads! Instead of acks! Or keeps saying, “I didn’t understand you,” etc.

TR Three basically existed so that the auditor would continue to give the pc commands and not squirrel off or pack up with total silence.

TR Four exists so that the pc’s origins are accepted and not Qed and Aed with or invalidated.

And, surprise, surprise, TRs are for use in the session itself, not just a drill. They are how one runs a session.

Metering can miss every F/N or give “F/Ns” with high or low TA. And one never feeds meter data to the pc: “That read,” “That didn’t read,” “That blew down,” just must not exist in session patter. “Thank you. That F/Ned,” is as far as an auditor goes. And that’s the end of the cycle and says so.

Floating needles can be overlooked by an auditor. In Dianetics this fault is fatal.

Auditor’s Code must be in on all points and particularly Invalidation. Pc says, “That’s so and so.” An auditor who says, “I’m sorry. You are wrong,” or any other invalidation is going to wreck a pc’s case. A full knowledge of the Auditor’s Code and actually applying it saves endless troubles. It is an auditing TOOL, not just a nice idea.


REHABBING CHAINS

One rehabs a Dianetic Chain that, according to a previous worksheet, erased by saying, “According to session records (flow direction) (item) erased.” That’s all. One does not say, “Did the chain giving others a headache erase?” One does not run it again to find out. One does not run a single command “to see if it F/Ns again”. One can say, “Do you agree that the chain giving another a headache erased?” But the more you ask the pc to look for an erased chain the more messed up things will get. It isn’t there. But
the auditor by his action can imply it should be there or might be there. A totally wrong approach would be “Look around your bank and see if what isn’t there any more isn’t there.”

Dianetics is NOT Scientology. A Dianetic Chain is not a release. If you try to use Scientology rehab tech on a Dianetic Chain, you have had it. It isn’t a “release” (which is a key-out). A Dianetic Chain is an erasure. You can’t rehab erasures with “How many times?”, etc.

The test of this is the doing. If you try to use Scn rehab on Dianetic Chains, the PC MIGHT TRY TO FIND SOMETHING. This causes him to key in other unrun or similar items.

It is a dangerous action at best to try to handle old erased chains. The best you can do is to tell the pc what the old W/S said. If no W/S exists leave the already erased flows alone!

FLUBBED CHAINS

Many times, a Folder Error Summary will give a flubbed chain and then fail to note it was repaired in the next session!

A C/S and auditor would have been pretty irresponsible to just go on auditing past flubbed chains.

The only safe way to handle some previous flubbed chain is to:

(a) Verify in the folder if it was repaired.
(b) If still unrepaired assess the L3RD on it and handle according to the L3RD.


L3RD

Using the new L3RD (HCO B 11 Apr 71 RA) is a Dianetic action.

A Scientology auditor erroneously can try to use it as a two-way comm type of list. If a chain needed one more ABCD, then two-way comm on it with no ABCD is not going to complete it.

L3RD has its own directions. Questions not marked with directions are used to indicate the fact. This can amount to two-way comm as the pc chews it over. But L3RD where marked is handled by Dianetics actions. Look over the list and its directions for each question and you will see that some are given directions that are NOT 2wc.

Example: “Earlier beginning” reads. You can’t just say, “The incident had an earlier beginning,” and you can’t say, “Tell me about the earlier beginning.” The pc will go up the wall. There’ll be no F/N. You have to use R3R and get him to the earlier beginning and then run it and if it still doesn’t erase, get him to an Earlier Similar and erase that.

L3RD is a Dianetics List. It is not a Scientology List that is cleared each question to F/N by 2-way comm.

OVERRUN

Overruns are demonstrated by a rising TA.

If as you seek to get in Full Flow Dianetics the pc’s TA begins to average higher, overrun is occurring.

Example: While doing FFD pc’s TA has been riding at 2.2 and F/Ns. After a new FFD action it begins to ride at 2.5 and F/Ns. Something is being overrun. Find it and indicate it. And cease to stir the bank up so much! The fault is going over items already run.

In doing a Full Flow Table you often find that the same or similar have been run in the past. Sometimes you find that a previous attempt to run the item a second or third time has resulted in an ARC Break, the reason for which was never detected.

The right action is to note the session date it was first run and just tell the pc, “Feeling Surprised was run three times. On (first date it was erased) it was erased. When later run it was an overrun.” This tends to blow the later charge laid in by trying to run the same item again.

It sounds so strange that erased chains can be overrun. But it is true. What happens is that pcs try to cooperate and put something there.


FIREFIGHTS

The action of a quarrel between an auditor and a pc is called a firefight.

Restimulating earlier unrun engrams or overrunning chains upsets a pc. The best action, as soon as a pc is disturbed, is to do an L3RD fast and handle what reads the way it should be handled according to the L3RD.

The wrong way is to argue or try to go on.

The pc does NOT know what it is. He just feels awful. He tries to guess. He will ARC Brk or get sad if the auditor continues.

The correct action is an L3RD.

L1C is not of great use in a Dianetic ARC Brk. L3RD is.

If the pc remains ARC Broken, try L3RD again, particularly the whole L3RD.

A Scientology session would be handled with some other list (L1C, L4BR, etc). A Dianetic session, including and especially FFD, is handled with L3RD.

You NEVER prepcheck while doing Dianetics. This mushes up the engrams.


INTERIORIZATION

ALL these cautions apply as well to an Interiorization-Exteriorization Rundown when restim occurs one uses an L3RD quickly.

Int-Ext RD is essentially a Dianetic, not a Scientology, action.


SAFE ACTIONS

A fully genned-in auditor, well crammed, well drilled, well skilled, can be trusted with Dianetics, Dianetic Triples and an Int-Ext RD. Auditors not so handled can get pcs into serious trouble with these things.

A safe course is to use Triples on new, never audited before pcs. Those begun on Triples, use then only Triple flows.

Another safe way is to use FFD only on OT IIIs or OT IVs and done only by fully qualified FFD auditors who are also OT III.

The safest course is to require special drilling and cramming on auditors who are already known for their results by actual success story stats and call FFD and Int-Ext RD a skilled specialty.

C/S RESPONSIBILITY

Any trouble a C/S is running into comes from the factors of TRs, metering, Code and incomplete or false auditors’ reports.

If when I am C/Sing I ever find an auditor has omitted key session actions or has falsified a report, I order that auditor not to Cramming but a full retrain HDC right on up.

A C/S does not see these points. He can get the pc asked what the auditor is doing or did. He can get sessions monitored. This helps him fill this gap in his data.
It’s what isn’t in the auditor’s report that is often the trouble. Auditors omit what they said, omit the firefight, omit session alter-is in their worksheets.

All this sticks the C/S’s neck out for the axe of failure.

So particularly in FFD, Int-Ext and other such actions, a C/S has to act to obtain confidence in the auditor’s TRs, metering, Code use and accurate worksheets.


RISK

In FFD, Int-Ext RD and Power, experience has proven that if the auditor is not top grade, if the C/S is not alert, we put a pc at risk.

The USUAL is what keeps the pc safe.

A thorough study of his case, looking for obvious bugs (such as Int-Ext RD done twice, the case a druggie but drug engrams never run, Int done but its 2wc flubbed, to name a few serious ones), sending auditors to Cramming for the slightest flub, insisting on standard TRs USED IN SESSION, good metering, use of the Code, accurate and complete worksheets, use of standard tech, all guarantee the safety and progress of the pc.


INTRODUCING FFD

FFD (like the Int-Ext RD) requires flawless C/Sing and auditing or the case goes wrong.

When these actions were introduced they showed up any flaws in case studying, TRs, metering, Code and worksheets.

There are two ways to handle. (a) Cancel FFD and Int-Ext as actions. Obviously that is going backwards and is impossible. (b) Begin and continue a serious, effective campaign in the org to (1) Train auditors better, (2) Cram expertly on every flub, (3) Raise quality of TRs and metering.

As you can see, my approach is to improve quality of training, cramming and delivery.

Please help me out in getting this in.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: nt .ts.rd
Copyright © 1971, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED














[This HCO B is added to by HCO B 21 April 1971-1R, Addition of 13 January 1975, Revised 22 February 1975, C/S Series 36RB-1R, Quadruple Dianetics-Dangers of, page 383.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 APRIL 1974
Remimeo


Art Series 3



STAGE MANNERS



An actor, performer or musician should have a good command of what is called” Stage Manners”.

While it is not possible here to give a full text on the subject, these basics should suffice.

1. The performer purpose is basically Communication.

(a) To Communicate one must have R (Reality)—which is to say one must be visible.

(b) To Communicate one must have R that there is an audience there to be Communicated to.

(c) A degree of Affinity with or for the audience must be physically expressed. (One cannot treat an audience with contempt, for instance.) (A perpetual smile is not a must, a respectful look, a friendly look does as well.)

If you look over the above ABCs you will see that the general basic of Stage Manners is the ARC Triangle. From this almost anything else can be derived.

However, there are some traditional rules.

I. You accept applause. This is the contribution of the audience. You do not cut it off. You acknowledge it with bows or other physical actions. But you accept it. You don’t dodge it.

II. You never turn your back on the audience. (An exception is an actor in play stage situations.) You turn in such a way as to turn facing the audience. You do not turn the other way around and so give them your back.

III. Never express embarrassment or stage fright even when you feel it. Force yourself into a physical appearance and expression of poise.

IV. If you goof, ride right over it. Do not break off, call attention to it or look helpless or foolish. Just ride right over it and go on.

V. If you do not know what to do with your hands or feet, don’t do anything with them. Avoid twisting your feet or legs or hands or arms around. Don’t fiddle with things. Be positive in motion.

VI. During breaks or silent periods remember you are still on stage and Stage Manners still apply.

VII. Always appear to be in control of the place and the audience.

VIII. Never let your poise be shattered by a sudden surprise. Ride over it and handle.

IX. A performer DOMINATES an audience:

(a) By his comm,

(b) By his art,

(c) By his technical perfection,

(d) By his Stage Manners.

None of this means that one cannot clown, joke, act superior or even seem austere. these are the arts of presence. But even in doing these, Stage Manners are observed .

If as a small child one was always cautioned about his manners and resented it one should get a clear idea of what manners are:

In a culture manners are the lubrication that ease the frictions of social contacts.

On the stage, Stage Manners are the means of smoothing the problems of interchange between audience and performer.

The hallmark of the professional performer, next to his art and expertise, is flawless Stage Manners.

Stand before a full-length mirror. (Or use Video Tape.) Assume the postures of your act. Accept applause gracefully. Bow gracefully. Smile pleasantly. Laugh. Be dignified. Demonstrate poise. Assume the posture needed for a non-applauding audience. Ride out boos. Demand more applause. Do the postures to end your performance after applause. Accept a standing ovation. Deplore not being able to give an encore. Appear at the start for a first part of a performance. Assume the postures and poise needed on stage during a one minute break between numbers. Accept a plaque. Accept flowers. Ride over a bad goof. Be respectful to the audience. Kid the audience out of it. Do each one of the IX rules. AND ALL WITHOUT SAYING A WORD. Do it with physical motions or lack of them.

When you can do all these things and look right to yourself and feel easy about them you will have and be confident of your Stage Manners.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: ntm .rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 APRIL 1974
Remimeo
Ex Dn Spclsts

INTROSPECTION RD—THIRD ADDITION

Adds to HCO B 23 Jan 74R
Revised 10 Feb 74
Checklist



ADDITIONAL INTROSPECTION RD STEPS


The Introspection RD has as its dominant flow, Flow 0. This follows from basic O/W theory where the person goes down the dwindling spiral to a point where he can only restrain himself and do himself in.

The following steps must be added to the checklist to fully handle this in the pc. Otherwise future efforts to help him will be blocked by his own efforts to succumb.

14L. Check “doing yourself in” and “doing others in” for read and R3R Quad the best read.

14M. L&N for the intention behind it.

14N. R3R Quad the intention.

14O. Repeat the steps above on the second one if it is also reading.

Also add the following to the RD after the E. Purps have been run R3R:

1. 2wc “Have you ever wanted to succumb?” to F/N.

2. If so, R3R Quad.

3. If so, L&N for the intention behind “wanting to succumb”.

4. R3R Quad.

5. 2wc “Have you ever attempted to commit suicide?” to F/N.

6. If so, R3R Quad.

7. If so, L&N for the intention behind the effort to commit suicide.

8. R3R Quad.

9. 2wc “Is there some other way you were doing yourself in that’s been missed?” to F/N. Note all reading items.

10. If so, R3R Quad the BD or best reading item.

11. If so, L&N for the intention behind it.

12 R3R Quad.

13 . Repeat 10, 11 and 1 2 on other hot reads.

This would be followed by a D of P Interview and attest unless some adjustment actions were needed; these would be R3R any new E. Purps or new R/S handling, a C/S 53RG or ruds or 2wc or HC List.


CAUTION

Do not run unreading items, miss reads or run wrong items as it will wind the pc up in the soup.

A common error on R3Ring E. Purps culled from the W/Ses has shown up that C/Ses must be alert for. This is taking up infinitive phrases like “to go to the store” that appear to be E. Purps but in actual fact are statements of future actions or conditions, not intentions.

Example: Pc says, “I was doing fine then Joe came along and caused me to cave in.” “To cave in” is not an E. Purp as stated. It wasn’t the pc’s intention. Not valid.

Example: Pc says, “I was trying to hold on to the rope and he forced me to fall off the cliff.” “To fall off the cliff” was not the pc’s intention but a statement of an action. Not valid.

Example: Pc says, “I wanted to make them wrong and got sick.” “To make them wrong” was the intention, is valid and runnable.

Have you got the idea? If there is any question in your mind, clear the word “intention”, then go over a grammar text and sort out what an infinitive and infinitive phrase are and how they’re used.

You’ll save the pc and yourself a lot of difficulty if you do this.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:ntm.jh
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1974

Remimeo
Ex Dn C/Ses
Expanded Dianetics Series 22


EXPANDED DIANETICS REQUISITES


The recent review of Expanded Dianetics has shown that Ex Dn can be made to fail if the pc is improperly set up for it.

The following checklist is for use by C/Ses to ensure full set-ups for Ex Dn have been done.

Attach to the inside left cover of the folder.

__________

1. Pc has done a full set of TRs 0-4 and 6-9. __________

2. Pc has had a full battery of Objective Processes run to full EP. __________

3. Pc has been given a thorough C/S 1 and is grooved in. __________

4. Pc has completed (very) Drug RD which is FLAT. __________
No no-interest but reading items remain unrun.
No medicine, drug or stimulant left unrun.

5. Pc successful at Dianetic Engram running. Can run Dn easily. __________

6. Pc has had Word Clearing Method I run very flat to F/N list. __________

7. Pc has been Word Cleared Method 5 on the L-3ExDRB
and R3R words. __________

8. Pc has had any high or low TA handled with a C/S 53RG. __________

9. Pc is not in the Non-Interference area. __________

10. Pc has had any messed up L&N and Why lists corrected. __________

11. Pc has not been left in the middle of a major action or RD to
start Ex Dn. __________
__________

Only if you make sure each of these points is fully in will the pc fly on Ex Dn.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:amsjh
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 APRIL 1974
Remimeo

Art Series 4


RHYTHM


RHYTHM: Any kind of movement characterized by the regular recurrence of strong and weak elements. Rhythm denotes the regular patterned flow, the ebb and rise of sounds and movement in speech, music, writing, dance and in other physical activities. Meter basically means measure and applies to a system or pattern of measured recurrence of length, beat or numbers in poetry or music.

TYPES OF MUSIC
RHYTHM

There are SIX distinct types of rhythm in music. These are:

REGULAR: Meaning the evenly accented (stressed) beat.

SYNCOPATED: The placing of upbeats along with downbeats at regular or irregular intervals.

STOPPED: In a stopped rhythm there are regular distinct halts to the flow of melody, but all the beats are there, they are simply regularly halted for an interval. (The term comes from choreography as in tap dancing where the dancer taps fill the stops. )

ACCENTED: Where one or more beats in a measure received a stronger stress (beat) or accent. Accent in a rhythm can be done by volume, duration, pitch or tone quality (timbre).

OMITTED BEAT: The regular omission of one or more beats in measures. Time may have to be counted over two or more measures in order to regularly omit. (Soul, Motown. )

ADDED BEAT: Additional strong or, generally, weak beats are added to the rhythm in a consistent or inconsistent manner. (Bongos, Congas, etc.)

USAGE

Any and all rhythms are made up of the six basics above. One, two or more can be employed in complex patterns.

REPETITION

Rhythm is rhythm because of repetition (recurrence).

RAPPORT

RAPPORT: Relationship, especially, one of mutual trust or affinity.

An audience in rapport is different than an audience of spectators.

An audience in rapport PARTICIPATES in small or large ways with the performer or the artist or work of art, often by vocal or body motion.

Such participation is achieved by:

1. Reliance on the even recurrence of the rhythm.

2. Ability to predict it will recur.

3. Formation of agreement by such reliable prediction.

4. Permitting the audience to fill gaps or significances. Regular omission of a beat or step or full explanation causes the audience to fill it for themselves and brings about physical or mental participation.


RHYTHM

All life is a repeating pulse and ebb and surge of motion.

Life becomes difficult when rhythmic prediction cannot occur. Anxiety sets in. It is a relief to participate in predictable rhythm in an art form. It is safe and reassuring. If the rhythm is exciting it is also exciting. Therefore participation in predictable rhythm is pleasure and even joy.

IMPINGEMENT

When one changes rhythm within a single work one “makes wrong” because the person has predicted the rhythm but the prediction is not met. Thus he is wrong. If the rhythm recurs, the person is made right.

A new rhythm attracts attention. If it is agreed with and recurs it gets participation.

ART FORMS

The above materials, while written from the viewpoint of music, apply to any art form.

Even prose has a rhythm.

Not all rhythms are pleasant or acceptable.

Many ways exist to utilize these observations on rhythm—i.e. one can begin an unwanted rhythm, using the audience objection to impinge and then turn it into a wanted rhythm.

As life itself is going through time and as time is recurrence, some rhythms are too dull to attain any attention.

Rhythm, used in art forms, must therefore slow or speed or change the expected rhythms of ordinary life in order to command attention.

Rhythm can sooth, lull, excite, arouse to any point of the emotional tone scale.

A rhythm one half to one tone below the usual rhythm in life will depress or degrade an audience.

A rhythm one half to one tone above the usual rhythm will dominate and interest.

Rhythm and its expression is the basic key to all art forms.


LRH:ntm.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 MAY 1974

(Also HCO PL 31 May 1974)

Remimeo



UNHANDLED DRUGS AND ETHICS


Several recent cases have come to light where the person was permitted to go on upper grades, Expanded Dianetics, Power and even OT Levels whose drugs had not been handled.

In each case there was no or poor case gain, organizational upsets and wasted auditing.

THEREFORE IT BECOMES FIRM POLICY THAT ANY REGISTRAR, C/S, D OF P OR AUDITOR WHO PERMITS A PERSON WITH UNHANDLED OR PARTIALLY HANDLED DRUGS TO BE AUDITED ON ANYTHING BUT A FULL AND COMPLETE DRUG RUNDOWN INCLUDING NO INTEREST ITEMS WILL BE SUBJECT TO COMM EV WITH A MINIMUM PENALTY OF TREASON AND A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF EXPULSION.

Tech must not be made to fail because of overt, covert or ignorant misapplication of tech.

It is fully established that a chief cause of failure in cases is unhandled or only partially handled drugs including medical drugs, treatments and alcohol. This is a barrier to case gain and in this society at this time, the major barrier.

Where drugs have not been handled or only partially have been handled, the NO INTERFERENCE ZONE RULE is waived.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:clb.rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 FEBRUARY 1972RA
Remimeo
All Supervisors (Revised 26 March 1972
Student’s Hat and 8 July 1974
Mini Crse Changes in this type style. )
Super Crse
Word Clearing
Crse Word Clearing Series 32RA
Est Off Crse
Dept 13
Personnel URGENT—IMPORTANT—URGENT

Vital for all Supervisors,
Est-Os, and Cramming Officers.


WORD CLEARING METHOD 4


Tech and Admin Cramming Officers, Word Clearers and Course Supervisors use Method 4 Word Clearing when fishing for a misunderstood word. E.g. Cramming Officers use it to fish for misunderstood words concerning what the person is being crammed on. Word Clearers use it on Interns when the Intern needs a retrain or retread or even if the Intern is sent to Cramming. Course Supervisors use it in the classroom CONTINUOUSLY ON NON-F/N STUDENTS or queries.

The whole idea is the person requiring the Method 4 Word Clearing has a Cramming Order or is not an F/Ning student because of confusion as a result of a misunderstood word, as per Word Clearing Series 1 6R or omitted materials.

Method 4 fishes for the misunderstood word, finds it, clears it to F/N, looks for another in the area until there are no more with an F/N VGIs, then moves to another area, handles that—eventually all the misunderstoods that resulted in the Cramming Order or non-F/N student are handled.

It requires no C/S OK for it to be done. Method 1 is not a prerequisite to Method 4.

E-Meter Drill No. 21 is the E-Meter Drill to be drilled on Method 4. It’s the method of fishing for a cognition.

Requires proper application of TRs and metering. All Supervisors, Est-Os, and Dept 13 personnel to check out on, drill, and apply this tech AS IT IS VITAL STUDY TECH.


METHOD 4 WORD CLEARING

1. Give person the cans, state, “I am not auditing you.”

2. Ask while watching the meter:

“Is there any part of what you’re studying you did not fully get?”

Trace the read. Use “fishing for a cog” drill (per HCO B 25 June 70, Issue III) if needed .

If no read the question may be varied, e.g.

“Is there any part of the materials you’re studying you disagree with?”

or “Is there any part of what you’re studying you feel you could not apply?”

or “In (material being checked) is there anything you didn’t understand?”

Let the student tell you briefly. Do NOT tell him the data.

Verify that his study pack is complete as the data might have been omitted. Also he might never have read the pack at all.

If the data was missing do not go on to Step 3. See that he gets the complete pack and reads it. Then repeat Method 4.

If the person just has not read the materials do not go on to 3 but get him to read the materials. Then repeat Method 4.

3. Get what it is then ask:

“What word was misunderstood just before that?”

Meter reads, Word Clearer finds the word, never accepting a confusion but finds the word giving the read (SF, F,, BD), gets it looked up in a dictionary and used in sentences until it can be seen from the sentences that the student now understands the word and the word F/Ns. All the tools of Study Tech and Word Clearing are at the Word Clearer’s disposal to take the word to F/N. The Word Clearer does not stop at one misunderstood but makes sure all are cleared.

4. Repeat 2 & 3 until the materials are fully cleared up and any and all misunderstoods or confusions handled.

5. If the action bogs when used in the classroom the student must be sent to Qual for handling and Supervisor to Cramming on TRs and metering and drilling on this procedure.

The correct action is a W/C CORRECTION LIST DONE ON THE STUDENT AND HANDLED.

Of course if the above question F/Ns on asking, there would be no misunderstoods on the material being checked, but the person is in Cramming, not an F/Ning student or whatever, so there obviously are misunderstood words to be found and handled.

Look at HCOPL 16 Feb 72, “The Purpose of the Dept of Personnel Enhancement”. It says this Dept “reaches and looks for business all over the org and brings it in”. So someone with stats down—student or post stats, confusion about what to do, overloaded, can’t seem to handle it, how do you do this, etc, etc, are all indicators of misunderstood words as the person is saying confusion, confusion. Well, underneath the confusion is a misunderstood word just as Word Clearing 1 6R says.

Method 4 Word Clearing is what is used in doing and achieving the purpose of the Dept of Personnel Enhancement, HCO PL 16 Feb 72.

One of the ways the Word Clearers in this Dept do the job is using Method 4 Word Clearing.

METHOD 4 IS USED BY COURSE SUPERVISORS TO HANDLE ALL STUDENT QUERIES ABOUT CONTENTS OF COURSE MATERIALS.

The reason students ask questions about “What is meant” is because of omitted pack materials from their checksheet, failure to read what they have OR BECAUSE OF A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD JUST BEFORE THEY GOT CONFUSED.

The Super has to know only where the materials are and BE SMART ENOUGH TO DO METHOD 4 INSTEAD OF GIVING THE STUDENT ALTER-ISED ANSWERS THAT STOP SCIENTOLOGY WORKING.

Word Clearing, especially Method 4, is how to get in HIGH CRIME HCO PL 7 Feb 1965, Reissued 15 June 70, “KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING”.

SUCCESSFUL COURSE SUPERVISION AND SUCCESSFUL CRAMMING REQUIRE THIS ACTION BE FULLY KNOWN AND U—S—E—D.

**K * E * E * P**

**S * C * I * E * N * T * O * L * O * G * Y**

**W * O * R * K * I * N * G**


LRH: clb .nt .rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972, 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JULY 1974R
Issue I
REVISED 24 JULY 1974
Remimeo

Word Clearing Series 53R
(Revisions in this type style)



CLEAR TO F/N

(Word Clearing Series 32R has been corrected
as 32RA to require the F/Ning of all words
and forbids W/Cing on a high TA.)


Do NOT try to Word Clear a person Method 1, 2 or 4 whose TA is high at session start. Use standard auditing procedures by an Auditor of the required class to get the TA down to normal range. (Usually a C/S Series 53RG and handling.)

If the TA is high at start of session one of course cannot F/N a TA on Word Clearing when it is high for some other reason.

ALWAYS F/N a word being cleared on the meter. It may happen there is a chain and the word has to be earlier similared. But even then, when the chain is F/Ned, the words on the chain that didn’t F/N must F/N.

Example: A chemical type word reading. Doesn’t F/N. E/S it on E/S words, comes down to a lecture in school. The Mis-U word there F/Ns. Now check the words touched while going E/S. Usually they just F/N.

Do NOT do a lot of words to “Clean” and say the person has been “Word Cleared”. Cases are messed up because the Word Clearing may be over out rudiments or even out lists or out Int.

A Word Clearing worksheet must show truthfully all words F/Ned.

RED TAB

Where a pc has been Word Cleared on the meter without F/Ning or with or to a high or low TA, THE WHOLE FOLDER MUST BE RED TABBED.

W/Cing worksheets must go into the pc’s folder, just as why finding and touch assists and other auditing actions must be put in the folder.

A pc red tabbed because of Word Clearing must be repaired within 24 hours, as in the case of any other red tab.
________

Stalled cases have been traced to Word Clearing errors. Repair of these will get them going again.



LRH:nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JULY 1974R
Issue II
REVISED 24 JULY 1974
Remimeo

C/S Series 92R
(Revisions in this type style)



WORD CLEARING ERRORS
(Applies to Methods 1, 2, 4 and 5
done on a meter.)


The attention of the C/S is called to the revised Word Clearing Series 32RA which requires words be F/Ned and to HCO B 8 July 74 of the Word Clearing Series which requires word clearing errors be RED TABBED and that all Word Clearing worksheets be placed in folders.

Case troubles have occasionally been traced to metered W/Cing over a High TA or failure to F/N words.

This is a hidden area from the C/S unless W/C worksheets are included in folders and the RED TAB system for non-F/N at conclusion is used. Only in this way is a C/S able to get all the data.

Correction of W/C errors is done by a Word Clearing Correction List.

High TA or Low TA at start of a W/C session is usually handled by C/S 53RG.

All “non-session” worksheets such as why finding, contact or touch assists and Word Clearing should go into the pc’s folder.

None of this can be used as an excuse not to word clear somebody. Make a C/S handle that TA fast and Red Tab the folder until handling occurs. Then do the Word Clearing.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 AUGUST 1972R
REVISED 8 JULY 1974
Remimeo
(Translate to (Revision in this type style)
European
Languages) (Reissued 24 October 1974
as a Tape Course Series)


Word Clearing Series 42R


Tape Course Series 10


METHOD 4 NOTES


Too generalized a question in using Method 4 defeats its use and can restimulate a person badly.

Example: “Is there anything in college you didn’t understand?” That of course is just plain ridiculous as a question. “Have you ever heard anything you didn’t understand?” would be similarly silly.


BREAK DOWN THE MATERIALS

When doing Method 4 you have to break down the materials (put them into small separate units) in order to ask questions.

Example: We have Papers 1 & 2, both on the same subject. The wrong question for Method 4 would be “Is there anything in Papers 1 & 2 you didn’t understand?” and not even give him the papers to see! The right way to do it would be to take Paper 1 and break it down into its obvious sections, give the person Paper 1 and let him look at it. Point to its 1st section and say, “Is there anything you didn’t understand in this section?” while watching the meter. Then point to next section, do the same. Finish Paper 1. Then go to Paper 2 and do it the same.

A person has to know what he’s being asked about and has to be thinking of it when asked the question.

TAPES

Just as it would be ridiculous to ask, “Have you ever misunderstood anything you ever read?”, it would be silly to ask, “Did you ever have a misunderstood on Tape?”

The right way is to take the tape and put it on a machine and play a bit of it. And ask, “Is there anything in the first section of this tape you didn’t understand?” while watching the meter. Then high speed the tape forward to another area and do the same. Thus the tape is covered.

This can also be done from any tape notes, section by section.


BOOKS

Books are done chapter by chapter.

QUICKIE M4

Method 4 is defeated utterly by:

1. Bad metering,

2. Too general a question,

3. Not having the material to hand,

4. Not getting the person’s attention on parts of the material,

5. Not taking each word found to F/N.

Quickie M4 misses. It sets the person up for a loss in his studying.

And we want him to actually succeed in his study, don’t we?


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 JULY 1974
Remimeo
Expanded Dianetics Series 23
(Ref. XDn Series 9)


XDN CASE B


Further data on XDn Series 9.

On further data the failure of this case was due to:

1. PTS to friend of wife who was violently invalidative. He roller coastered = PTS. The PTS scene should have been handled prior to auditing but was not known or suspected at the time.

2. This case had been a drug addict and was married to a drug addict who had been a prostitute and who persuaded him back on drugs. The drug rundown “no interest items” should have been run and he should have been cleaned up on drugs before beginning XDn. It has been proven out time and again that when a very full and complete drug rundown is not done, pcs do not succeed with any other type of auditing including Expanded Dianetics.


FURTHER NOTES

Further research has shown that headaches are almost invariably an Exteriorization-lnteriorization problem. This research case should have had his Ext-Int handled fully.
__________

These items added to the research program, before any others, would have brought success:

i. Handle Ext-Int by repair or rundown.
ii. Handle any out lists L4B.
iii. Handle PTS Situation fully and rapidly.
iv. Complete Drug RD by culling all “no interest items” and running them.

Further repair of this case would include the above but would add:

v. Do an L4B on intentions lists to be sure no lists are out and repair.

vi. Do R3R on all reading evil intentions whether pc interested or not.


SUMMARY

Data gained from running this Case B has been of great assistance in handling other cases since the faults found were not repeated.

Hundreds, probably thousands of cases are now winning on XDn with permanent gain. This is due to using fully the developed tech with full skill.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1973R
(Cancels HCO B 31 December 1971 RC)
Revised & Reissued 30 August 1974

Remimeo


C/S Series 53RH


SHORT HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT C/S



This is the basic prepared list used by Auditors to get a TA up or down into normal range. A GF Method 5 may also be used after TA is in normal range to get pc’s case handled better.

_________________________________PC Name________________________ Date


1. Assess pc Method 5 on this sheet. (Go down the list calling off the items to the pc, watching the meter. Mark any Tick, SF, F,, LFBD [to what TA], speeded rise or Blow Up.) NOTE: A C/S 53RH should be reassessed and all reads handled until it F/Ns on assessment.

A. Interiorization _________ Problems _________
Went in _________ Protest _________
Go in _________ Don’t like it _________
Can’t get in _________ Audited over out ruds _________
Want to get out _________ Feel sad _________
Kicked out of spaces _________ Rushed _________
Can’t go _________ Tired _________
ARC Brk _________
B. List errors _________ Upset _________
Overlisting _________ Can’t get it _________
Wrong items
Upset with giving _________ D Drugs _________
items to auditor _________ LSD _________
Wrong Why _________ Alcohol _________
Wrong Indication _________ Pot _________
Wrong PTS Item _________ Medicine _________

C. Some sort of W/H _________ E. Engram in restimulation _________
Are you withholding Same engram run twice _________
something _________ Can’t see engrams too
Is another withholding well _________
something from you _________ Invisible _________
Are others withholding Black _________
something from others _________ Loss _________
Has another committed Lost _________
overts on you _________
Have you committed F. Same thing run twice _________
any overts _________ Same action done by
Have others committed another auditor _________
overts on others _________
Not saying _________

G. Doing something with L. PTS _________
mind between sessions Suppressed _________
Some other practice _________
M. Something went on too
H. Word Clearing errors _________ long _________
Study errors _________ Went on by a release
point _________
I. False TA _________ Overrun _________
Wrong sized cans _________ Auditor kept on going _________
Tired hands _________ Over-repair _________
Dry hands or feet _________ Puzzled by auditor
Wet hands or feet _________ keeps on _________
Loosens can grip _________ Stops _________

J. Auditor overwhelming _________ N. Something else _________
Feel attacked _________ Physically ill _________
Something wrong with
F/Ns _________ O. Repairing a TA that
Overrun F/Ns _________ isn’t high _________
Missed F/N _________ Repairing a TA that
Items really didn’t read _________ isn’t low _________
Bad auditing _________ Faulty Meter _________
Incomplete actions _________ Nothing wrong _________

K. Can’t have _________
Low havingness _________


2. Use only the small falls or falls or BDs. The rises will however show where mass
lies.

A. If A or any of the A Group, and the pc has had an Int RD, do an Int RD Correction List, and handle the reads. (HCO B 29 Oct 71 R, Revised 14 May 74.)

If the pc has never had an Int RD, then give him a standard Int RD providing you have checked out on the Int-Ext pack and are good at R3R.

B. If any of these read, do an L4BR on the earliest lists you can find that have not been corrected. Lacking these do an L4BR in general. You can go over an L4BR several times handling each read to F/N until the whole L4BR gives nothing but F/Ns. Handle a Wrong Why or Wrong Indication or Wrong PTS Item per C/S Series 78.

C. If any of these, handle with 2wc and earlier similar to F/N. If more than one reads do biggest read first and then clean up each of the others E/S to F/N. If all read on assessment you have to get an F/N for each or 18 F/Ns. On overts and withholds, get what, and E/S to F/N. On out ruds, find which rud and handle. (See GF40RR, HCO B 30 June 71, Revised 13 Jan 72.) Feel sad, handle the ARC Break. (Feel sad = ARC Brk of long duration.)

D. Rehab releases on each “drug” taken to F/N. Complete the Drug RD per C/S Series 48R after handling all reads on this assessment. If pc has had a Drug RD, do L3RD on it, and handle.

E. If any of these, do L3RD and handle according to what is stated to do on L3RD.

F. Clean up any protest and inval and rehab to F/N.


G. Find out what it is. If -Yoga or Mystic exercises or some such 2wc E/S it to first time done, find out what upset had occurred before that and if TA now down do L1 C on that period of pc’s life.

H. If Word Clearing, do a Word Clearing Correction List, handle all reads. If Study errors, 2wc E/S to F/N, and add a Study Correction List to the pc’s program.

I. False TA is wrong cans. Use HCO Bs 24 Oct 71,12 Nov 71R, 15 Feb 72,18 Feb 72, 29 Feb 72R, 23 Nov 73, all on False TA. Then clean up the bypassed charge with (1) Assess for best read (a) TA worries, (b) F/N worries. (2) Then 2wc times he was worried about (item) E/S to F/N. (3) Rehab any overruns due to False TA obscuring F/Ns.

J. These are auditor errors. Low TA is generally caused by overwhelming TRs and incomplete actions. A high TA can be caused by an auditor overrunning F/Ns or failing to call them. Or trying to assess through an F/N and mistaking an F/N right swing for a read. An F/N can be obscured and mistaken for a read if Sensitivity too high. These items are all 2wc E/S to F/N. Auditors who made them need Cramming badly or retread.

K. Can’t have or Hav. Find correct Havingness process and remedy.

L. PTS or Suppressed. Check for SP or get a full PTS RD.

M. Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N on each (or date to blow, locate to blow, if qualified).

N. 2wc to find what. Note BD item. If BD item covered by one of these categories handle per instructions. If not just 2wc to F/N and get further C/S instructions for handling if necessary.

O. Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first. If False TA handle per I above.

General. Handle Int RD (A) if it reads at all before handling rest as nothing will go right if Int is still out. For the remainder prefer to handle any BD group if you get a BD. If in doubt about what to do, return to the C/S.


Revised by
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: nt jh
Copyright © 1973, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 AUGUST 1974
Remimeo
Tech Secs
C/Ses URGENT
Auditors
Registrars
C/S Series 93


NEW GRADE CHART


The “NEW” thing to do is the Grade Chart. Everything you are doing should contribute to getting the pc up the Bridge. THIS is the Bridge.

There is a new Grade Chart being prepared which has some changes in it, based on recent discoveries. It is urgent that you know of these in advance.

DRUG RUNDOWN

The effects of an omitted or incomplete Drug RD are severe enough to deny a person any lasting case gain.

This is covered in HCO B 31 May 74, “Unhandled Drugs and Ethics”. Some orgs have taken this HCO B so literally however, that they have taken pcs off Adv Cses Grades, refused to do Assists on ill pcs and some showed pcs the HCO B and invaled their gains.

This was not the intention of the HCO B. The C/S Series remain valid.

The Drug RD belongs on the Grade Chart after Life Repair. A Drug RD cannot be done over out ruds and a Life Repair may be necessary to get in a pc’s ruds.

Life Repair is not a prerequisite for the Drug RD, however, and if done is not to be dragged out intensive after intensive. In some cases a pc could not complete Life Repair without a Drug RD.

Following the Drug RD is ARC S/W, then the rest of Dianetics to completion.

EXPANDED DIANETICS

Ex Dn by the way belongs after Grade IV Expanded.

Some pcs R/S and have Evil Purposes to do others in. But no Grade 0 or Grade I or Grade II. What others? Martians?

“Got to secretly do everybody in” probably applies to Apeville some long date ago and he’s never come up to PT.

The answer is to bring the pc up the Grade Chart to Expanded Grade IV then do his Ex Dn.

The prerequisites for Ex Dn are covered on HCO B 23 April 74, Ex Dn Series 22, “Expanded Dianetics Requisites”. Add to that Expanded Grades up to IV and you have it.

GRADE II

Some orgs specialize in Grade II, especially on org staff. The pc is always getting Integrity Processing or his O/Ws pulled on so and so.

If you look on the Grade Chart you will find Withholds and Overts are Grade TWO.

Below Grade TWO lies Grade I (Problems) and Grade Zero (Communications). And below that is Dianetics and at the bottom end of Dianetics is the Drug Handling.

Now how do you expect a fellow who has unhandled drugs (or omitted drug items because of “no interest”) to even know (no Grade 0) that other people are around or that (Grade I) he is caved in with problems he’s never cognited on?

And he’s supposed to have enough responsibility to answer up on Grade II? With real overts and withholds?

This does not mean you must never Sec Check. It does mean that Sec Checks are no substitute for auditing or guarantee of innocence.

Grades are Grades and the Grade Chart sequence is correct.

SOLO SET-UPS

Set-ups for Solo are fully covered on HCO B 8 Jan 72R, Revised 8 July 74, Solo C/S Series 11 R.

This will be included as part of Solo on the Grade Chart as it is a vital step.

Pcs won’t make it on Solo if they aren’t set up.

FULL LIST

Here’s the full list of Grades showing where the various RDs now offered fit.

GROUP PROCESSING—Not mandatory or a prerequisite.

LIFE REPAIR—As needed but not prerequisite for Drug RD. To get ruds in on Life.

DRUG RD, means:

TRs 0-4, 6-9—Mandatory for a Druggie currently on Drugs, FLAT.

Full C/S-1—Where not done. To fully educate pc.

Objectives—Full battery to full EPs per basic books and early HCO Bs on them.

Class VIII Drug Handling—List and rehab all drugs, 3 way Recalls, Secondaries and Engrams of Taking and Giving Drugs.

AESPs on each reading Drug—Listed separately and handled with R3R, each drug to full F/N assessment of Drug List.

“No Interest” Drug Items—All reading ones run where they exist.

Prior Assessment—AESPs listed separately and run R3R, prior to first drug or alcohol taken.

ARC S/W EXPANDED.

DIANETICS, means:

C/S 54—Complete handling of Pc Assessment Form begun with Drug RD.

Health Form—Fully handled to full F/N Assessment.

EXPANDED GRADE 0—As issued.

EXPANDED GRADE I—As issued.

EXPANDED GRADE II—As issued, including Integrity Processing.

EXPANDED GRADE III—As issued.

EXPANDED GRADE IV—As issued.

EX DN—Not mandatory except where pc is a low OCA, an R/Ser (2%, chronically ill or psycho. Means:

Set-ups—Per HCO B 23 April 74, Ex Dn Series 22.

Introspection RD—Where pc ill, introverted or in a psychotic break.


R3R all E. Purps.

OCA Left-hand Side Handling—As issued.

OCA Right-hand Side Handling—As issued, with PTS RD as necessary.

POWER PROCESSING GRADES V & VA—Only prerequisites are Drug RD and Grade IV.

SOLO GRADE VI, means:

Solo Set-ups—Done at SH or AO per Solo C/S Series 11 R.

Solo Auditor’s Course.

Solo Audit Grade VI materials.

CLEARING COURSE

OT I

OT II

OT III

OT VII PROCESSES

OT III EXPANDED

OT IV

OT V

OT VI

FULL OT VII VERIFICATION

OT VIII—When issued.

PROGRAMMING

The C/S Series, especially the early HCO Bs, numbers 1-13R, fully cover the use of the Grade Chart in programming.

THE GRADE CHART IS THE BASIC PROGRAMME OF A PC.

This datum has been neglected in some orgs, who have specialized in the new RDs developed since ‘71.

With refinement of repair and corrective actions and the release of new RDs, some may have forgotten that repair is only done to get off the overwhelm so that you can put the pc back on the Grade Chart.

SUMMARY

I thought I’d better fill you in on these changes and how the new Grade Chart lines up.

Make full use of this Chart with C/S Series programming tech in and your pcs will fly.

Here’s to lots of case gain and rave success stories.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rs.rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 SEPTEMBER 1974
(Adapted from LRH ED 178 INT of 30 May 1972)
Remimeo
All Staff
All Auditors
All Students
All Scientologists
Word Clearing Series 54




SUPERLITERACY AND THE CLEARED WORD




SUPER—Superiority in size, quality, number or degree.

LITERACY—The ability to read and write.

Almost everyone these days is able to read and write. This was not true a century ago but, with modern stress on education, it is true today.

But is this enough today?

It is an instruction book world. The civilization in which we live is highly technical.

Education today goes into the twenties.

That’s a third of one’s life.

And what happens when one leaves school?

Can he do what he studied?

Does he have all his education or did it get left behind?

Literacy is not enough.

Today’s schools and today’s world require a new ability-the ability to look at a page without any strain and absorb what it says and then apply it right now without any stress at all.

And is that possible?

Am I talking about speed reading?

No. That is just being able to read rapidly. It does not improve the comfort of reading and it does not improve the ability to apply.

What is really needed is the ability to COMFORTABLY and QUICKLY take data from a page and be able at once to APPLY it.

Anyone who could do that would be SUPER-LITERATE.

What happens?

The average person-literate—is able to read words and mentally record words.




And he thinks in concepts to which he can fit words easily and so can write clearly.

In other words, when one is Super-Literate, one reads not words but understandings. And so one can act.


CONCEPTS

The idea of grasping word meanings conceptually is something new to the field of Linguistics. The endless Semantic circles pursued by Korzybski and company (see Data Series 1, “The Anatomy of Thought”) never really led to the realization that a word and its meanings are embodied in the basic concept or idea symbolized by that word.

That conceptualization of meanings is foreign to dictionary writers and “experts” is evidenced by the fact that definitions are so subject to alter-is and change with the passage of time.

For example, modern definitions of the word “understand” are found to be largely inadequate. A really full and meaningful definition of it could only be found in a First Edition of Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms, 1942:

“Understand. To have a clear and true idea or conception, or full and exact knowledge, of something. In general it may be said that understand refers to the result of a mental process or processes (a clear and exact idea or notion, or full knowledge). Understand implies the power to receive and register a clear and true impression.”

CLEARED WORDS

Operating within a society steeped in misunderstood words and mis-definitions, Study Tech is subject to arbitraries. Thus, a CLEARED WORD is defined as follows:

A WORD WHICH HAS BEEN CLEARED TO THE POINT OF FULL CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING.

In Metered Word Clearing this translates as:

F/N, VGIs.

There are many ways and combinations to achieve this EP. Using the word in sentences until the meaning is grasped conceptually is the most common. Diagrams, demos, clay, in fact the entire body of Study Tech and its methods are applicable.

These are vital tools. For use. Protect them and KEEP SCIENTOLOGY WORKING.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rs.rd
Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1974
Remimeo
All Execs
All Tech and URGENT—IMPORTANT
Qual Divs

C/S Series 94


REDUCTION OF REFUNDS
C/Ses AND OVERLOAD


When a C/S is overloaded, he is a potential cause of OUT TECH.

He may try to make up time by not reading worksheets of Auditors, by failing to do Folder Error Summaries, by not taking time to write Cramming Orders and neglecting other C/S duties.

Recent evaluation has shown that OVERLOADED C/Ses CAN BE THE REASON FOR A HUGE REFUND RATIO IN THE ORG’S GI-CGI.

Any non-tech person such as the Ethics Officer can tell at once when a C/S is either not working or overloaded. THE HANDWRITING IN THE WORKSHEETS CAN’T BE READ, WORDS ARE NOT CLARIFIED IN RED, NO FESes ARE SEEN IN FOLDERS AND NO CRAMMING ORDERS EXIST TO MAKE AUDITORS DO HANDWRITING DRILLS TO WRITE FAST AND WELL.

Proper C/S posting was piloted by me on Flag years ago. The existing technical executives failed to export it to orgs.

The irreducible minimum C/S postings are:

SENIOR C/S who handles bugged cases and very upper level actions and keeps the other C/Ses functioning well. He is the highest classed C/S in the org. He is responsible for proper handling and results on all cases. (This is a hat I usually wore in an area.)

EXPANDED DIANETIC C/S who does only Expanded Dianetics.

GRADE C/S who C/Ses Grade pcs.

DIANETIC C/S or C/Ses who handle all routine C/Sing of Dianetics including Drug Rundowns.

There are several other C/S posts. In AOs additionally there are Solo C/Ses. In Saint Hills there are Power (Class VII) C/Ses.

As an org expands it can have additional types of C/Ses. Some of these are:

REVIEW C/S who reviews tech case failures, taking this load off the Senior C/S.

STAFF CASES C/S who C/Ses for audited staff.

STUDENT AUDITING C/S who C/Ses student sessions.

AO REVIEW C/S who C/Ses for fast review on Adv Cse Students.

CO-AUDIT C/S where a Co-Audit exists separate from HGC lines.

WHAT IS OVERLOAD?

When a C/S can’t read every worksheet and study and program every case he has, due to time, he is overloaded.

WASTED C/Ses

To get a Class VI or even a Class IV to C/S lower action folders is a waste of C/Ses since it is easy to train Dianetic C/Ses.

SUMMARY

TRAIN AND POST enough C/Ses and watch the GI go up and refunds go down.

It is not enough just to get Auditors and more and more Auditors.

DON’T OVERLOAD C/Ses. GET MORE OF THEM!


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: nt .rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 SEPTEMBER 1974
Remimeo

IMPORTANT

HANDLING FLUBBED PCS


In 1970 when auditing by intensives was reimplemented it became clear that Tech repaired any flubs on pcs and did not send them to Qual.

Tech did its own repair.

Now, with the emphasis on Qual correcting Auditors and C/Ses it is very important that this rule is followed.

TECH CORRECTS ITS OWN FLUBBED PCS. IT DOES NOT SEND THEM TO QUAL.

Qual must not get into the HGC business. Tech is there to deliver the technology. Qual is there to safeguard the technology by correcting the personnel who flub delivering it and get them to deliver it correctly. Qual does not correct the pcs.

TECH ACTION

The routine Tech action when a pc is flubbed or Red Tagged is for the Auditor to take the pc back in at once and repair any error with the correction list for that action.

Example: Auditor doing an L&N. Pc Red Tags after session. Auditor takes the pc right back in and does an L4BR and corrects the list.

Example: Auditor doing Ruds. Pc Red Tags with a high TA. Auditor takes the pc back in straight away, assesses a C/S 53 and handles.

If the Auditor can’t handle he sends the folder to the Tech C/S who studies the folder, finds the bug and gets it handled fast.

The maximum wait is 24 hours. A red-hot Tech Division handles the same day.

QUAL ACTION

Qual crams the Auditors and C/Ses and Supervisors. The Qual Sec makes sure that the Cramming orders are done and that the flubs are corrected.

But, QUAL DOES NOT CORRECT THE PC. TECH DOES.

SUMMARY

When Quals get into the HGC or Academy business and start delivering the courses or intensives, the Tech goes out the window BECAUSE THEN THERE IS NO QUAL. Qual corrects the Auditors and C/Ses and Supervisors.

Tech corrects its own flubbed pcs.


LRH: nt jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

Qual Div Hats HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 APRIL 1970RA
Tech Div Hats (HCO Pol Ltr of 16 Dec 1968 and
SHSBC Students 7 Sept 1969 Amended and Reissued)
ARC Break Auditor Amended 8 August 1970

Revised 17 September 1974
Revised 29 September 1974


GREEN FORM


BEFORE ANY AUDITOR IS PERMITTED TO DO A GF OR ANY PREPARED LIST HE MUST BE ABLE TO MAKE LISTS READ WITH CRAMMING ON TR 1 AND CRAMMING ON HCO Bs 28 FEB 71 (C/S SERIES 24), 9 JUNE 71, ISSUE I (C/S SERIES 41), 20 DEC 71 (C/S SERIES 72), 15 JUNE 72 (C/S SERIES 80), 15 OCT 73 (C/S SERIES 87), 20 NOV 73 (C/S SERIES 89), 6 DEC 73 (C/S SERIES 90), AND BTB 16 JUNE 71R, ISSUE I (FORMERLY HCO B 16 JUNE 71R, ISSUE III).

In HGC the Green Form is done on the order of the Case Supervisor to detect reasons for case trouble. If the TA is high or low use C/S 53RH instead. It is assessed Method 5 and handled. The new Auditor’s Code is observed on every line. If the line reads and the pc or pre-OT protests it, has no answers, seems ARC Broken by the read or resigned or starts to explain how the thing has been run before, check for false read. Use False and Suppress as per BTB 18 Nov 68R.

On Environment ARC Break the Remedy B—Environment, BTB 14 Aug 68R, is a limited process. S&D is also a limited process, only one F/N available on W, one F/N on S, one F/N on U. They are only done on C/S instructions.

Do not audit a pc or pre-OT who has not had sufficient food or rest or who has taken aspirin or drugs; check this before session. If he or she has had insufficient food or rest, send the pc home to have this handled. Indicate the by-passed charge of the incomplete cycle of action of the session on both Questions 2 and 3.

The Green Form should be run to F/N VGIs with all reads taken to F/N. It can be done Method 3 and taken to a good win, F/N VGIs. If done M3 it must not be run past the first F/N.

PC OR PRE-OT NAME DATE TIME__________

NAME OF AUDITOR CLASS GRADE________

ALL FOLDERS TO HAND LAST AUDITOR’S NAME___________________

CONTAINS BEGINNING ASSESSMENT FORM____________________________

1. FOLDER C/Sed BY NAME TA______

PC OR PRE-OT GRADE PC OR PRE-OT CLASS__________

2 . SUFFICIENT SLEEP

PHYSICALLY TIRED

SUFFICIENT FOOD

ARE YOU HUNGRY

ALCOHOL

ASPIRIN/TRANQUILIZERS

DRUGS (FIND OUT WHAT IS BEING TAKEN OR WHAT DRUG ITEMS WERE NOT RUN AND WHY)

3. WANTS AUDITING (IF DOESN’T, DISCUSS WHY NOT, GET PC TO EXPLAIN)

4. (a) ARC BREAK (Handle by ARCU CDEINR earlier similar ARC Break.) On new pcs ask if there has been an upset (handle as above).

SESSION ASSESSMENT



(b) ENVIRONMENT ARC BREAK
(ARCU CDEINR or Remedy B if ordered by the C/S.)

(c) AUDITING ENVIRONMENT
(Prepcheck.)

5. (a) IGNORED ORIGINATIONS
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(b) PRESENT TIME PROBLEM
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.) New pcs: “Do you have a persisting problem?” (Handle as above.)

(c) EVALUATION

(d) INVALIDATION

(e) MISSED WITHHOLDS
(Who nearly found out, what did they do to miss it, earlier similar M/W/H to basic.) New pcs ask: “Has someone nearly found out something about you?” (Handle as above.)

(e-1) WITHHOLD THAT KEPT COMING UP
(Who wouldn’t accept it, who said it still read. Indicate false read. 2wc the concern.)

(f) OVERTS
(Itsa earlier similar overt to basic.) New pcs: “Have you done something you shouldn’t have done?” (Handle as above.)

(g) MISUNDERSTOOD WORD OR SYMBOL
(Clear it to F/N.)

(h) COMMITTING CONTINUOUS PT OVERTS
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa or “Prevent Process”.) New pcs: “Are you continuously doing something you shouldn’t do?” (Handle as above.)

6. NO AUDITING
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

7. (a) SOMETHING THAT ISN’T THERE
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(b) TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING WHERE THERE IS NOTHING

(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(c) FALSE ASSERTION
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

8. (a) ASSESSED BEYOND THE RIGHT ITEM
(Correct the list and give the pc his item.)

(b) INCOMPLETE LIST
(Complete the list and indicate the item.)


(c) OVERLISTED
(Indicate, null with Suppress and get the item.)

(d) SOMATIC ITEM ON A LIST NOT READING BUT SOMATIC EXISTS

(Handle as per HCO B 29 Jan 70, “Null Lists in Dianetics”.)

9. (a) PICTURE NOT ERASED
(Complete chain to erasure and full end phenomena.)

(b) STUCK PICTURE
(L3RD or run “Recall a time before the incident. What was it?” “Recall a time after the incident. What was it?”)

(c) PICTURES CHANGING
(L3 RD.)

(d) NO SOMATICS
(2wc to F/N, note for C/S.)

(e) RECURRING SOMATIC OR FEELING
(Write down any items given and their reads. Run any item that BDs by R-3R.)

(f) FORCED TO GO EARLIER PAST THE BASIC ON A CHAIN

(Locate basic on chain, A, B, C, D or earlier beginning then A, B, C, D as required to F/N, cognition, VGIs and erasure.)

(g) AN EARLIER BEGINNING ON AN INCIDENT BEEN MISSED

(Earlier beginning, A, B, C, D to F/N and end phenomena.)

(h) JUMPED CHAINS
(Write details. If original chain found, run R-3R to end phenomena.)

(i) BLACK FIELD
(L3RD.)

(j) INVISIBLE FIELD
(L3RD.)

(k) DISTURBED WHILE RUNNING AN INCIDENT
(Clean up any ARC Brk with ARCU CDEINR earlier similar ARC Brk to F/N and GIs. Check if chain erased and if not, run R-3R to end phenomena.)

(l) WRONG DATE
(Indicate, get the right date.)

(l-1) WRONG LOCATION
(Indicate, get the right location.)

(m) PSYCHIATRIC INCIDENT
(Run R-3R.)

10. (a) LOWER LEVELS UNFLAT
(Find out which and note for C/S.)

(b) LOWER LEVELS OVERRUN
(Rehab any overrun.)

(c) LOWER LEVELS NEVER RUN
(Note for C/S.)

(d) ACTUALLY RUN THE PROCESSES FOR EACH GRADE
(Note for C/S.)

(e) HAS POWER PROCESS BEEN LEFT UNFLAT
(Not to use on Clear and above; Grade V, VA checked by Class VII or VIII Auditors only.)

(f) HAS POWER PROCESS BEEN OVERRUN
(Same as (e). Rehabbed by Class VII or VIII only.)

(g) IS THERE SOMETHING THAT HASN’T BEEN HANDLED
(Note for C/S.)

11. (a) FALSE ATTESTATION
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(b) UNTRUE ASSERTIONS ABOUT CASE
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(c) TOLD A LIE
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(d) WASN’T SURE
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(e) MISUNDERSTOOD TECH
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(f) MISUNDERSTOOD CASE CONDITION
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(g) EXPERIMENTING
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(h) ALTERING TECH
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(i) DOING SOMETHING ELSE WITH TECH
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

(j) HAVE YOU TYPED, HANDWRITTEN OR TAPED COPIES OF ANY CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS
(Handle with time, place, form and event, Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

12. (a) PROCESS LEFT UNFLAT
(Find out which process and note for C/S.)
DATE OF SESSION

(b) PROCESS OVERRUN
(Rehab.)
DATE OF SESSION

13. FORMER RELEASE
(Find what release has not been acknowledged and Rehab.)

14. NON-STANDARD PROCESS
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

15. BAD AUDITING COMM CYCLE
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa, L1 C if necessary.)

16. CODE BREAKS
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

17. HIDDEN STANDARD (WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO KNOW SCIENTOLOGY WORKS?)
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

18. MIXED THERAPIES (ANY OTHER TREATMENT IN PROGRESS)

(Note what.)

19. CONNECTED TO A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa or S&D only on C/S order, or handle as in 4a.)

20. (a) CONNECTED TO A SUPPRESSIVE GROUP
(Handle as in 19.)

(b) ENVIRONMENTAL MENACE
(Folder to C/S.)

21. HERE TO GET DATA FOR SOMEONE ELSE
(What, when, all, who.)

22. HERE BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE DEMANDED IT
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

23. SELF-AUDITING DURING INTENSIVE
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

24. BEING AUDITED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN AN HGC AUDITOR

(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

25. CRIMINAL RECORD OR CRIMES FOR WHICH YOU COULD BE ARRESTED
(Note all crimes with what, when, all, who and handle by Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

26. INSANE ASYLUM HISTORY
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

27. SHOCK TREATMENT HISTORY
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

28. HERE TO BE CURED OF SOMETHING NOT MENTIONED
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

29. UNPAID DEBTS TO ORGS
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

30. KNOWLEDGE OF A CRIME AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

31. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF SCIENTOLOGY WORKED ON EVERYONE

(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

32. ANYTHING UPSETTING ABOUT THIS REVIEW
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

33. HAS ANYTHING BEEN SUPPRESSED
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

34. HAS ANYTHING BEEN INVALIDATED
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

35. HAS ANYTHING BEEN RUSHED
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

36. HAS ANYTHING BEEN MISSED
(Itsa earlier similar Itsa.)

37. HAS SOMETHING BEEN OVERRUN
(Get what it is and Rehab.)

38. IS A SCIENTOLOGY CONFESSIONAL (SEC CHECK) NOT COMPLETE

(Handle with List LCR Confessional Repair List.)


39. PC STATEMENT OF THE TROUBLE AS IT IS NOW

40. ASSESS 7 SPECIAL CASES:
(a) DOESN’T WANT AUDITING
(b) PRETENDING TRAINING OR GRADES NOT ATTAINED
(c) HAS NOT HAD AUDITING
(d) SEEKING THE SAME THRILL ATTAINED FROM DRUGS
(e) HAS TAKEN DRUGS
(f) FORMER THERAPY BEFORE SCIENTOLOGY
(g) HAS BEEN PART OF EARLIER PRACTICES
(h) OUT OF VALENCE
(i) CONTINUOUSLY COMMITTING OVERTS ON SCIENTOLOGY
(j) AUDITED WITH PRIOR GRADES OUT
(k) AUDITED WITH RUDIMENTS OUT, ARC BRK
PTPs W/H
(l) HAS AN ENGRAM EXACTLY MATCHING PT DANGERS
(m) SERIOUSLY PHYSICALLY ILL
(Return the folder to C/S, do not indicate the item to the pc or pre-OT.)
(n) GONE EXTERIOR IN AUDITING
(o) OVERWHELMED BY AUDITING
(a) is handled as in 4 of the GF.
(c) is handled by Listing and Nulling “Who or what would prevent auditing?”
(b) & (d) to (h) handled Recall process, 3 flows each to F/N then engram or chain 3 flows each to F/N.
(i) is handled by Listing and Nulling “What are you trying to prevent?” by the LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING.
(n) is handled by HCO B 11 April 1970, “Auditing Past Exterior” procedure. GF-40 is handled as per HCO B 8 April 1970, “GF-40 Handling—Clarification”.
(o) handled by a Progress and Advance Program (as per C/S Series after 2wc to F/N.)

FINISH TA POSITION FINISH TIME

TOTAL TA TOTAL TIME

RECOMMENDATIONS





DATE AUDITOR SIGN

CASE SUPERVISOR





L. RON HUBBARD
Founder




LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 OCTOBER 1974

Remimeo
Ex Dn Specialists
IMPORTANT


THE VITAL INFORMATION RUNDOWN
THE TECHNICAL BREAKTHROUGH OF 1974


Recent intensive investigation into blocks on tech, dissemination and communication lines uncovered an aberration which is quite widespread and especially common in society.

Simply stated I found that WHERE VITAL INFORMATION WAS NOT BEING RELAYED OR WAS HIDDEN OR FALSIFIED, THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE WERE DRAMATIZING WITHHOLDS.

You can see this in newspapers, government policies, the medical profession, psychiatry, economics and especially education.

I have for years tried to get to the bottom of why people will not teach people. It is the single greatest fault in existing culture in my opinion.

The answer that fits all cases is a failure to relay information, brief, instruct, train or supervise stemming from a general past and current OVERT OF WITHHOLDING VITAL INFORMATION. This gives a dramatization in daily conduct of failing to relay information, brief, instruct, train or supervise.

And underlying that is the intentional impulse to do so overtly or covertly in a mistaken attempt to forward their own first dynamic.

RESEARCH

The primary outpoint that led to this conclusion is the premium given to silence in philosophy and the approval accorded the silent by the population whereas such people are in fact quite deadly and useless.

It is a generalized dramatization in this society. This would be what made the society favor the “strong silent type” as a sort of ideal.

All this in a highly technical society is hazardous. A good example is the current fuel crisis over a supposed scarcity of petroleum fuels for highly inefficient internal combustion engines while answers in the form of new fuels and engines are hidden away in vaults by the vested interests.

ORGS

In our organizations this is deadly. It blocks our tech lines in the Academy and Qual as well as the HGC. It cuts our dissem lines to public via books, promo, regging, lectures, use of C/F and Addresso and FSMs. It cuts our comm lines and denies data to higher management.

It winds up in no application of the tech and no results for the public.

That makes this rundown mandatory for top execs including Flag Reps and LRH Comms, all Tech and Qual staff and Dissem, Distrib and HCO Dept 2.

PECULIARITY

This mechanism is a peculiar one with its own special twist.

Earlier rundowns did not hit this particular type of overt. It isn’t very visible and doesn’t occur in rundowns like L10.

It is not simple withholding information. It is (or once was) the intentional overt of withholding VITAL information. It would be a very long chain and would influence general conduct. A bordering chain is withholding information under torture.

Probably an A=A=A sets in which then totally prohibits some (too many) people from imparting important data, thus they can’t teach, amongst other things. It has to be fully run out, engrams and all.

THE RUNDOWN

Where staff are concerned, the necessity of delivering this RD reduces the prerequisites for it to the Drug RD only. It could be done if necessary where the Drug RD was not yet complete but would have to be verified after completion of the Drug RD.

Otherwise and for public, this RD belongs on Ex Dn as OCA right-hand side handling. It would probably fit best before the Multiple E. Purp RD and the Responsibility RD.

VITAL INFO RD

1. Clear and assess:
VITAL DATA _________
THE TRUTH _________
VITAL INFORMATION _________
KNOWLEDGE _________
Choose the best read as the item.

2. a) L&N “What would happen if you communicated_______?”
b) R3R Quad

3. a) L&N “What problem have you had with_______?”
b) R3R Quad

4. a) Clear and assess:
Withholding (item) under duress. _________
Withholding (item) under torture. _________
Withholding (item) to protect someone. _________
b) R3R Quad

5. a) Clear all words plus fully clear each outpoint with examples and demos so it’s understood.
b) Assess:

Omitted (item). _________
Altered the sequence of (item). _________
Dropped time out of (item). _________
Added falsehoods to (item). _________
Altered the importance of (item). _________
Used (item) to wrong tgt. _________
Assigned the wrong source for (item). _________

Made (item) a contrary fact. _________
Added time to the relay of (item). _________
Added inapplicable data to (item). _________
Incorrectly included other data with (item). _________
Complicated (item). _________
Suppressed (item). _________
In order of reads:
c) R3R Quad
Locate a time when another ______to/for/from (pick which) you.
Locate a time when you______to/for/from another.
Locate a time when another______to/for/from another.
d) L&N “What would be the intention of someone who______?”
e) R3R Quad the intention.

6. a) Assess: Concerning (item) has there been a break in

Affinity _________
Reality _________
Communication _________
Understanding _________
b) R3R Quad the largest read.
c) Reassess ARCU and handle to F/Ning assessment.

7. a) Clear all words, especially assumption and justify and withholding (in the broad sense).
b) L&N “What assumption would justify withholding (item) ?”
c) R3R Quad the computation.

8. R3R Quad all E. Purps that came up during the RD.

9. R3R Quad all computations that came up during the RD.


SUMMARY

The importance of this RD for Tech and Qual staff and sensitive posts cannot be over-emphasized.

Although it will be quite popular with the public it is basically designed for staff on these lines.

The auditors delivering it should themselves have had it. They must have flawless TRs, be able to make a meter read and must drill the RD in Qual before attempting to deliver it.

This RD is very powerful. Don’t miss on it with careless delivery. Get it done flawlessly as directed and you will have a resurge on delivery and dissemination lines and open the door to A GOLDEN ERA OF AUDITING QUALITY AND RESULTS FOR PUBLIC AND STAFF.



LRH:RS:clb.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED assisted by CS—4

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 DECEMBER 1971 R
REVISED 15 OCTOBER 1974
Class IV
Ex Dn Spclst
Requires:
W/C 2
* Rate
Clay PTS RUNDOWN
TRs 4000-9
4000-10
CASES



One remaining problem in cases was “PTS phenomena”.

P.T.S. means Potential Trouble Source. When someone is suppressed he becomes a Potential Trouble Source.

There are numerous HCO Bs and PLs on this subject. All of them are true observations and predictions.

The cause of ROLLERCOASTER is PTS. Rollercoaster means a slump after a gain. Pcs who do not hold their gains are PTS.

S and Ds (for Search and Discovery) was the earlier approach. These are still valid and “3 S&Ds” as a rundown is used in the PTS Rundown without change.

Now with the PTS Rundown, the handling of this common and all too frequent case condition can be handled.

WHO DOES IT

Hopefully it can be done by Class IVs who are also HDCs, HGC Okays to Audits.

For an Auditor who is not HDC Class IV Okay to Audit HGC by competent Interneship to attempt a PTS Rundown would be very risky for the pc as it needs exact listing, exact TRs, exact metering, exact Code keeping and very honest auditing and competent C/Sing.

DEVELOPMENT

Earlier discovery and development of the PTS theory is extensively covered.

The recent wrap-up came about through my OT research in November 1971.

The principal breakthrough was realizing one should NOT invalidate having known certain people before.

This is similar to the past life discovery in 1950. Some people thinking this was “unpopular” frowned on it. Some others were only famous characters so flagrantly that past lives were easily invalidated. But people who don’t go past track in Dianetics don’t recover. Even running them as “imaginary” as in Science of Survival advices suddenly breaks through for a stalled Dianetic Case.

In this same way with young men and girls using “I knew you when you were
“ for 2D advantage tended to invalidate having known certain individuals before this life.

But now it turns out that the ONLY PTS situation that is serious and lasting and can cause a rollercoaster comes from having known the person before this life.

Possibly in the last life or earlier lives one knew persons before that life too. This however shows up in the 3 S&Ds.

BREAKDOWN

There are only four points of breakdown of the PTS Rundown.

1. Improperly audited. Auditor not able to always do a correct list, TRs out, metering out, poor R3R, just plain untrained or not totally familiar with this Rundown.

2. Pc not completely set up. Like: Has TA trouble but no C/S 53 done, is a no change case but no GF 40R done, old auditing not repaired by a GF and proper programming or no C/S 54 or too tired or too ill for the R3 R.

3. The Rundown not fully and completely done, but chopped or left incomplete (pc will still rollercoaster).

4. People who “can’t run engrams”—which means a druggie who hasn’t had a full Drug Rundown.

There is nothing especially tricky about the auditing of the PTS Rundown except that all auditing should be of flubless quality and when the PTS RD is flubbed by bad lists or poor R3R or out TRs or poor metering it really IS a mess. The RD is so powerful that errors in C/Sing and auditing it are especially rough.

Currently sick pcs should not be run on the PTS Rundown as a standard practice. It IS what they need BUT you can easily overwhelm a sick pc with engram running.

The time to run a PTS RD is when the pc is set up and when it is noted the pc rollercoasters, not when he collapses with a temperature.

Rollercoaster can also be caused by a bad Interiorization RD or Int repair, out lists, bypassed charge of other descriptions. These should be gotten rid of before a PTS RD is attempted.

BEHAVIOR OF RD

Valence shifts occur rapidly and frequently in PTS RDs and should be noted on the worksheet.

The R3R can sometimes be a bit of a long haul on a basic incident. Be sure with an L3B. But get an erasure of basic no matter how hard you have to work at it. In the PTS RD incidents can “develop”. Missing pieces can appear. A whole new slant can occur on the subject when one goes to F2 after finishing Fl.

Chronic somatics are likely to appear and be handled on this Rundown. And case conditions not previously remedied by other means can be remedied by this Rundown.

END PHENOMENA

There is a point where the pc is absolutely sure he knew the person before this life. This is NOT the EP.

A pc can exteriorize on this RD. That is NOT the EP (but requires an Int RD if none has been done before and the TA goes high, or its correction).

THE EP IS A PC WHO IS GETTING AND KEEPING CASE GAINS AND NEVER AGAIN ROLLERCOASTERS.

PARTS

There are four parts to the RD.

(a) Present and past S&Ds. Collect them up, handle each valid item with R3R Triple, ARC Brk, PTP, W/H and Overts each Triple. If no S&Ds exist do “3 S&Ds” and R3R and Ruds as above. If no folder, get the pc to tell you any past S&D items. Follow Ruds with Can’t Have/Enforced Hav per HCO B 3 June 72R.

(b) L&N Who have you known this lifetime who has troubled or worried you? Includes father, mother, wife or wives (husband), brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, lovers. Take the BD F/N item. Ask if the pc has known person before this life. If read, R3R Triple, Ruds & Overts Triple.

(c) L&N Who have you been after this life? Take the BD F/N item. Ask if known before. If it so reads, R3R Triple, Ruds & Overts Triple, Can’t Have/Enforced Hav.

(d) L&N What planets have you known before this lifetime? To BD F/N item. R3R Triple, Ruds & Overts Triple, Can’t Have/Enforced Hav.

That is the extent of the Rundown.


FLOWS

You cannot use Flow 1 as any old direction to or from pc. To do this fouls it up. Flow 1 is to the pc.

Flow 2 is pc to the person (or place).

Flow 3 is the person (or place) to others.

If you did Fl R3R as “Locate a time you knew____” you might get to the pc, pc to the person or the person to others. You would not get a clean motivator Fl. This would leave the PTS chain partially run.

This is also true of the ruds.

RE-DOs

If the pc does not recover, then reasons for failure 1 to 4 above should be checked into.

Then the lists and R3R should be handled with L4B and L3B.

Then an overlooked item or person or place should be scouted for and handled. There is no question of the validity of the Rundown. It might have missed. “True love” might have been passed over as unlikely but such obsessive attraction is always based on having known (and probably done in) the other person.

Then the true EP will be attained where it only appeared to be before.


THE COMMANDS

See 3 S&Ds HCO Bs 13 January 1968 “S&Ds”, 19 Jan 68, 16 Aug 69, 14 Jan 68, 28 Nov 67, 10 Nov 67, 9 Nov 67.

The commands and actions of doing 3 S&Ds are DRILL TR 4000-9 & TR 4000-10 3 S&Ds. HCO B 9 Oct 71, Issue VI.

The following R3R commands are used in every case. Put the person or place in the blank:

F1. Locate a time when______ did something to you. R3R.

F2. Locate a time when you did something to______. R3R.

F3. Locate a time when______did something to others. R3R.


RUDS

1. Did_____ARC Brk you? ARCU CDEINR. E/S to F/N.

2. Did you ARC Brk_____? ARCU CDEINR. E/S to F/N.

3. Did_____ARC Brk others? ARCU CDEINR. E/S to F/N.

ALWAYS DO A FRESH ARCU CDEINR ON EACH E/S.

4. Did_____give you a problem? E/S to F/N.

5. Did you give_____a problem? E/S to F/N.

6. Did_____give others problems? E/S to F/N.



7. Did you withhold anything from_____? E/S to F/N.

8. Did_____withhold anything from you? E/S to F/N.

9. Did_____withhold anything from others? E/S to F/N.

10. Did_____commit an overt (harmful act) on you? E/S to F/N.

11. Did you commit an overt (harmful act) on_____? E/S to F/N.

12. Did_____commit an overt on others? E/S to F/N.


AUDITOR’S LIST OF ITEMS
TO BE RUN

(a) Old S&Ds ___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________

New S&Ds ___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________

Past PTS Interviews ___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________

(b) L&N item ___________________________
(c) L&N item ___________________________
(d) Planets L&N ___________________________

Added Items for PTS Re-do ___________________________
___________________________



LRH:nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971, 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[See also HCO B 20 January 1972, PTS RD Addition, page 19. The above HCO B was revised by HCO B 9 December 1971 RA, Revised 21 October 1974, PTS Rundown, page 338. HCO B 9 October 1 97 1, Issue Vl, mentioned above as containing the 3 S&Ds Drill was revised by BTB 9 October 1 97 1 RA, Issue VI, revised 23 February 1975, Level 4 Process Drills, which deleted the 3 S&Ds Drill.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 OCTOBER 1974
Remimeo
Cramming
Officers
IMPORTANT

Cramming Series 14

CRAMMING OVER OUT RUDS


A Cramming Officer can fail in his efforts to correct a flubbing staff member if he tries to cram over out ruds.

Cramming done over an ARC Break, like Auditing, will result in the person getting worse, more out of comm or misemotional. Cramming a person over a problem or W/H will produce no change so no correction will occur.

Out ruds are easy to spot. The person with an ARC Break, won’t talk or is misemotional or antagonistic. A problem produces fixated attention that prevents Cramming from finding the actual area of difficulty. Natter and 1.1 remarks means a withhold.

Recently a musician being crammed kept bringing up a dispatch that he was in mystery about concerning the group. Every time it was mentioned it read or BDed yet the Cramming Officer continued “Cramming” him and never handled it. So no product.

I sat the musician down, told him he was crammed over a problem, the mystery about the dispatch, cleaned it up by getting the dispatch and letting him go over it, made sure the problem was handled then found the area of misunderstood and traced it back to an early age and the Why fell right out.

And I got the Cramming Officer crammed by the Senior C/S and found her Why too.

So the moral of the story is DON’T CRAM OVER OUT RUDS.

It is too costly in lost production and flaps.


CRAMMING OFFICER FLUBS

When the Cramming Officer flubs you must get him crammed fast because he will repeat the error on others and there goes your results.

In such cases, get him crammed immediately by the Qual Sec or Senior C/S. If it is the Qual Sec who has flubbed, then he is crammed either by the Senior C/S or the Keeper of Tech.

INCOMPLETE HANDLING

It is often not enough just to correct a Why and do no further handling in Cramming. Most Cramming Cycles reveal a broader area of situation which must also be handled.

An example is the Auditor who flubs on an L4BR and during the Cramming reveals he never really listened to the key SHSBC L&N tapes.

The Cramming Officer who does not also program the Auditor for a review of those tapes would not have fully corrected that Auditor. You could accurately predict future L&N flubs and pc upsets.

A subsequent program such as the one above would count as an additional Cramming Cycle for the Cramming Officer, or a Retread if lengthy and would count as additional points.

Therefore the maxim of Cramming is:

HANDLE THE HELL OUT OF IT.

Honest correction must be fully and completely done for the sake of the public and the org as well as the staff member.


SUMMARY

Cramming success depends on not Cramming over out ruds and on fully handling all areas of confusion or weakness.

Follow these operating rules and you will enjoy rave results and real correction.

And your org stats will soar.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: nt .rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 OCTOBER 1974

Remimeo
URGENT


THE DRAMATIZATION OF WITHHOLDS
ON VITAL INFORMATION LINES


I have recently unearthed a widespread aberration that underlies the withhold or obstruction of vital information and wanted to warn you to be on the lookout for it.

It is, simply stated, DRAMATIZATION OF WITHHOLDS.

This is not just the person with withholds, this is the person who DRAMATIZES withholds by preventing the relay, exposure or free distribution of vital information.

To DRAMATIZE means to act under the influence of past incidents as dictated by those incidents in the bank. The guy is replaying something now that happened in the past, out of its time and context and out of his control. A person dramatizing withholds would be acting out withholding information now, when the actual withholds or incidents of withholding are in the past.


VITAL INFORMATION

Vital information is vital because survival depends on it. Examples include: HCO Bs, HCO PLs, books, tapes, course checksheets and packs, hats, OEC Volumes, LRH EDs and FOs and other issues, Flag programs and EDs, stats, weekly reports, compliance reports, situation reports, CSWs, evals, even dispatches that contain important information that must be known.

Also, an org requires other vital data like accurate C/F and Addresso’s, up-to-date files, broad, hard-sell promotion and magazines, accurate accounts files and records, monthly statements, tech data that gives pc and student results, Word Clearing and Cramming results, a Qual Library, broad public dissemination and promotion to name a few.

Data that is VITAL must be relayed, must be made known without alteris or barriers. You can’t survive without it.


THE DRAMATIZATION

There are probably as many different ways to dramatize withholds as there are people who do it. You should know of the main ones I’ve come across lately.

First is a failure to relay. This can be simply not routing on a mail pack or dispatch, not sending out the org’s letters or mailings, backlogging Mimeo so new issues don’t get seen, having poor tape recorders in the Academy or simply refusing to train or process public and staff.

A deadly one is losing tech personnel or not recruiting them. That way nobody is there to relay the Tech to the students and pcs. A few orgs are very busy doing that one.

Never making the Auditors and C/Ses and Supervisors do their daily TRs, High Crimes and training is another one. It denies the tech people data they need and also denies Standard Tech to the public especially in terms of results on pcs.

Not Hatting or Cramming staff is another one. So is falsifying stats, not promoting, failure to sell training, not calling paid up public in for service, not reporting what is happening in the org.

When you see this happening WATCH OUT. Someone is dramatizing withholds and withholding vital information.

The worst example of course would be not to have an org there at all.


AN ORG’S MAIN PRODUCT

The main product of an org is Knowledge, and the results obtained with it.

Any post in an org contributes to this product. It is the most valuable product we have to exchange with the public.

Knowledge and its results are what public and staff want. It is valuable because without it there can be no survival.

REMEDY

The Vital Information Rundown HCO B 6 Oct 74 is the remedy for the dramatization of withholds.

Train your Auditors on it thoroughly and get it delivered where you are having this problem.

If you don’t have any Auditors to deliver it or no one to train them you have already been hit by this dramatization.

Your only hope is to get an Auditor and train him and get it delivered.

YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION IS TO OPEN UP YOUR VITAL INFORMATION LINES NOW.

SUMMARY

Look over your org and see if this mechanism has affected your operation.

Don’t tolerate it. Expose it and relay the vital information.

DON’T PERMIT THE DRAMATIZATION OF WITHHOLDS TO BLOCK THE FLOW OF VITAL INFORMATION.

Your survival depends on it.



LRH:nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 DECEMBER 1971 RA
Remimeo REVISED 21 OCTOBER 1974
Class IV
Ex Dn Spclst
Requires:
WC 2 PTS RUNDOWN
* Rate
Clay
References:
BPL 31 May 71 RA “PTS and SP Detection, Routing and Handling
Checksheet”
HCO B 20 Jan 72 “PTS RD Addition”
HCO B 16 Apr 72 “PTS RD Correction List”
HCO B 17 Apr 72 C/S Series 76, “C/Sing a PTS RD”
HCO B 3 June 72R “PTS RD, Final Step”
HCO B 24 Apr 72 C/S Series 79, “PTS Interviews”
HCO B 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”
HCO B 9 Nov 67 “Review Auditors”
HCO B 14 Jan 68 “S&D Type ‘S’ “
HCO B 19 Jan 68 “S&Ds By Button”
HCO B 16 Aug 69 “Handling Illness in Scientology”


CASES

One remaining problem in cases was “PTS phenomena”.

P.T.S. means Potential Trouble Source. When someone is suppressed he becomes a Potential Trouble Source.

There are numerous HCO Bs and PLs on this subject. All of them are true observations and predictions.

The cause of ROLLERCOASTER is PTS. Rollercoaster means a slump after a gain. Pcs who do not hold their gains are PTS.

S and Ds (for Search and Discovery) was the earlier approach. These are still valid and “3 S&Ds” as a rundown is used in the PTS Rundown without change.

Now with the PTS Rundown, the handling of this common and all too frequent case condition can be handled.

WHO DOES IT

Hopefully it can be done by Class IVs who are also HDCs, HGC Okays to Audits.

For an Auditor who is not HDC Class IV Okay to Audit HGC by competent interneship to attempt a PTS Rundown would be very risky for the pc as it needs exact listing, exact TRs, exact metering, exact Code keeping and very honest auditing and competent C/Sing.

DEVELOPMENT

Earlier discovery and development of the PTS theory is extensively covered.

The recent wrap-up came about through my OT research in November 1971.

The principal breakthrough was realizing one should NOT invalidate having known certain people before.

This is similar to the past life discovery in 1950. Some people thinking this was “unpopular” frowned on it. Some others were only famous characters so flagrantly that past lives were easily invalidated. But people who don’t go past track in Dianetics don’t recover. Even running them as “imaginary” as in Science of Survival advices suddenly breaks through for a stalled Dianetic Case.

In this same way with young men and girls using “I knew you when you were
“ for 2D advantage tended to invalidate having known certain individuals before this life.

But now it turns out that the ONLY PTS situation that is serious and lasting and can cause a rollercoaster comes from having known the person before this life.

Possibly in the last life or earlier lives one knew persons before that life too. This however shows up in the 3 S&Ds.

BREAKDOWN

There are only four points of breakdown of the PTS Rundown.

1. Improperly audited. Auditor not able to always do a correct list, TRs out, metering out, poor R3R, just plain untrained or not totally familiar with this Rundown.

2. Pc not completely set up. Like: Has TA trouble but no C/S 53 done, is a no change case but no GF 40R done, old auditing not repaired by a GF and proper programming or no C/S 54 or too tired or too ill for the R3R.

3. The Rundown not fully and completely done, but chopped or left incomplete (pc will still rollercoaster).

4. People who “can’t run engrams”—which means a druggie who hasn’t had a full Drug Rundown.

There is nothing especially tricky about the auditing of the PTS Rundown except that all auditing should be of flubless quality and when the PTS RD is flubbed by bad lists or poor R3R or out TRs or poor metering it really IS a mess. The RD is so powerful that errors in C/Sing and auditing it are especially rough.

Currently sick pcs should not be run on the PTS Rundown as a standard practice. It IS what they need BUT you can easily overwhelm a sick pc with engram running.

The time to run a PTS RD is when the pc is set up and when it is noted the pc rollercoasters, not when he collapses with a temperature.

Rollercoaster can also be caused by a bad Interiorization RD or Int repair, out lists, bypassed charge of other descriptions. These should be gotten rid of before a PTS RD is attempted.

With HCO B C/S Series 93, “New Grade Chart”, the PTS RD is done as part of Ex Dn after a full Drug RD and Exp Grade IV.


BEHAVIOR OF RD

Valence shifts occur rapidly and frequently in PTS RDs and should be noted on the worksheet.

The R3R can sometimes be a bit of a long haul on a basic incident. Be sure with an L3RD. But get an erasure of basic no matter how hard you have to work at it. In the PTS RD incidents can “develop”. Missing pieces can appear. A whole new slant can occur on the subject when one goes to F2 after finishing F1.

Chronic somatics are likely to appear and be handled on this Rundown. And case conditions not previously remedied by other means can be remedied by this Rundown.

END PHENOMENA

There is a point where the pc is absolutely sure he knew the person before this life. This is NOT the EP.

A pc can exteriorize on this RD. That is NOT the EP (but requires an Int RD if none has been done before and the TA goes high, or its correction).

THE EP IS A PC WHO IS GETTING AND KEEPING CASE GAINS AND NEVER AGAIN ROLLERCOASTERS.

FLOWS

You cannot use Flow 1 as any old direction to or from pc. To do this fouls it up. Flow 1 is to the pc.

Flow 2 is pc to the person (or place).

Flow 3 is the person (or place) to others.

If you did Fl R3R as “Locate a time you knew____” you might get to the pc, pc to the person or the person to others. You would not get a clean motivator Fl. This would leave the PTS chain partially run.

This is also true of the ruds.

RE-DOs

If the pc does not recover, then reasons for failure 1 to 4 above should be checked into.

Then the lists and R3R should be handled with L4BR and L3RD.

Then an overlooked item or person or place should be scouted for and handled. There is no question of the validity of the Rundown. It might have missed. “True love” might have been passed over as unlikely but such obsessive attraction is always based on having known (and probably done in) the other person.

Then the true EP will be attained where it only appeared to be before.


SUMMARY OF REFERENCES

Here are the issues that directly cover the Rundown.

HCO B 9 Dec 71RA “PTS Rundown”
HCO B 20 Jan 72 “PTS RD Addition”
HCO B 16 Apr 72 “PTS RD Correction List”
HCO B 17 Apr 72 C/S Series 76, “C/Sing a PTS RD”
HCO B 3 June 72R “PTS RD, Final Step”
HCO B 19 Jan 68 “S&Ds By Button”
HCO B 16 Aug 69 “Handling Illness in Scientology”
HCO B 20 Apr 72 Issue II, C/S Series 78
HCO B 15 Dec 68R “L4BR”
HCO B 24 Apr 72 C/S Series 79, “PTS Interviews”
HCO B 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”


THE RUNDOWN


A. PAST S&Ds:

1. Collect up past S&D items (which should have already been verified on set-ups) or get the pc to tell you them if no folder.

2. On the earliest one ask if known before. If it so reads handle per steps 3-6. If not, pick next item and repeat this check for validity.

3. R3R Triple the item using these commands:

F1 Locate a time when ______did something to you. R3 R.

F2 Locate a time when you did something to______ R3R.

F3 Locate a time when______did something to others. R3 R.

4. Triple Ruds and Overts on the item using these commands:

(a) Did______ARC Brk you? ARCU CDEINR. E/S to F/N.

(b) Did you ARC Brk______? ARCU CDEINR. E/S to F/N.

(c) Did______ARC Brk others? ARCU CDEINR.

ALWAYS DO A FRESH ARCU CDEINR ON EACH E/S.

(d) Did______give you a problem? E/S to F/N.

(e) Did you give______a problem? E/S to F/N.

(f) Did______give others problems? E/S to F/N.

(g) Did you withhold anything from ______? E/S to F/N.

(h) Did______withhold anything from you? E/S to F/N.

(i) Did______withhold anything from others? E/S to F/N.

(j) Did______commit an overt (harmful act) on you? E/S to F/N.

(k) Did you commit an overt (harmful act) on______? E/S to F/N.

(l) Did______commit an overt on others? E/S to F/N.

5. Run “Can’t Hav/Enforced Hav” with these steps:

(a) Clear “can’t have”, “couldn’t have” as DENIAL OF SOMETHING TO SOMEONE ELSE. Clear “enforced have” as MAKING SOMEONE ACCEPT WHAT THEY DIDN’T WANT. Have pc get the idea of these with an example or two.

(b) Run on the SP items “can’t have/enforced have” as motivator repetitive, then overt repetitive, the flow three terminal to others, others to terminal (four flows of two commands each).

(c) After EACH item is handled with the four flows, Objective Havingness should be run.

THE COMMANDS:

F1 1. What can’t have did (terminal) run on you?

2. What did (terminal) force on you you didn’t want?

F2 1. What can’t have did you run on (terminal)?

2. What did you try to force on (terminal) that he (she, it) didn’t want?

F3 1. What can’t have did (terminal) run on others?

2. What did (terminal) force on others they didn’t want?

F3A 1. What can’t have did others run on (terminal)?

2. What did others try to force on (terminal) that he (she, it) didn’t want?

——OBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS——

6. Handle all past S&D items per above steps.

B. PAST PTS INTERVIEWS:

7. Collect up all past PTS Interview items (which should have already been verified with C/S Series 78 on set-ups).

8. Check known before on earliest one. If it so reads handle as below.

9. R3R Triple the item.

10. Triple Ruds and Overts on the item.

11. Can’t Hav/Enforced Hav on the item followed by Objective Hav.

12. Repeat steps 8-11 on all valid past PTS Interview items.

C. NEW S&Ds (3 S&Ds):

13. Do 3 S&Ds per HCO B 16 Aug 69, “Handling Illness in Scientology”, assessment and 3 L&Ns.

14. Check the first item for known before, handle if it so reads.

15. R3R Triple the item.

16. Triple Ruds and Overts on the item.

17. Can’t Hav/Enforced Hav on the item, followed by Objective Hav.

18. Repeat steps 14-17 on the other 2 items if valid.

D. TROUBLED/WORRIED:

19. L&N Who have you known this lifetime who has troubled or worried you? to BD F/N item. (Usually includes father, mother, wife or wives, husband, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, lovers.)

20. Check item for known before, if it so reads:

21. R3R Triple.

22. Triple Ruds and Overts.

23. Can’t Hav/Enforced Hav followed by Objective Hav.

E. BEEN AFTER:

24. L&N Who have you been after this life? to BD F/N item.

25. Check known before and if it reads:

26. R3R Triple.

27. Triple Ruds and Overts.

28. Can’t Hav/Enforced Hav plus Objective Hav.

F. PLANETS:

29. L&N What planets have you known before this lifetime? to BD F/N item.

30. R3R Triple.

31. Triple Ruds and Overts.

32. Can’t Hav/Enforced Hav plus Objective Hav.

33. D of P Interview the person AFTER the RD is “complete” to be sure the person is now all right (not PTS).


REPAIR

Auditor errors during the RD are handled with L4BR, L3RD, GF Method 5 and handle, C/S 53 if necessary.

A really big snarl-up on the RD that won’t clear up is handled with HCO B 16 Apr 72, “PTS RD Correction List”.

If pc gets ill or rollercoasters after the RD is complete the PTS RD Correction List HCO B 16 Apr 72 is done and whatever was missed is cleared up.


SUMMARY

The PTS RD as revised is very direct and powerful. The L&N blows each aspect apart. Don’t miss on it with auditor flubs. Get it drilled thoroughly before it is delivered.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1971 © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


[The 15 October 1974 revision which preceded the above was basically the same text as the original HCO B 9 December 1971, except that it added the Can’t Have/Enforced Have step after ruds and it changed the 2WC questions to L&N questions on the Troubled/Worried, Been After and Planets steps.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo
Ex Dn Spclsts
Class IVs
Qual ROCK SLAMS AND ROCK SLAMMERS
HCO Dept 3


A lot of controversy has shown up this year on the subject of R/Ses and R/Sers. I thought I’d better write an issue on the subject to clarify it. The research on this was actually done years ago.

R/Ses

An R/S or Rock Slam is defined as a crazy irregular slashing motion of the needle. It can be as narrow as one inch or more than a full dial in width, but it’s crazy! It slams back and forth. It is actually quite startling to see one. IT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER METER PHENOMENA.

Recently Auditors arriving on Flag were found not to know what an R/S was but were calling Dirty Needles, Dirty Reads, Rocket Reads, even Ticks as R/Ses. That comes from never having been trained on what an R/S is and never having seen one. R/SES ARE UNIQUE IN APPEARANCE.

Actually this is quite a serious matter because pcs get labelled as R/Sers and get run on Evil Purposes connected with this “R/S” that isn’t one. You can really foul up a pc that way, believe me.

A real R/S also has a crazy meter. It doesn’t read then it does. This happens because the meter reads just below a pc’s reality. If the pc has no reality on the subject, then the meter won’t read.

So you get a faulty meter. It doesn’t read on what it should, then it reads, then it doesn’t.

ROCK SLAMMERS

In a group of 400, the actual percentage of R/Sers is low. It’s about 8 in 400, or 2-21/2%. Those figures should seem familiar. They are the same percentage for SPs. And that gives you a clue to the identification of an R/Ser.

Where requirements for Scn or SO Orgs have been established for R/Ses they apply to the 2-21/2% of real R/Sers as these are also considered security risks for staff purposes.

These people can of course be salvaged as pcs using Expanded Dianetics. Letting them on staff could be disastrous, however.

CHECKLIST

To assist you in the identification of R/Sers I have done a complete checklist of characteristics and their references.

This checklist is to be used whenever a C/S is called upon to inspect a folder to determine whether a person is an R/Ser.

1. The R/Ses reported are actual R/Ses and not some other read or broken meter leads, a dusty or worn TA or Trim “pot”, or cans in contact with metal such as rings, bracelets, etc.

Ref: E-Meter Essentials; The Book of E-Meter Drills; The Book Introducing the E-Meter; HCO B 8 Nov 62, “Somatics—How to Tell Terminals and Opposition Terminals”, pp. 2 & 4; HCO B 6 Dec 62, “R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX”; BTB 14 Jan 63, “Rings Causing ‘Rock Slams’ “; HCO B False TA Series 24 Oct 71, 12 Nov 71R, 15 Feb 72, 18 Feb 72, 29 Feb 72R, 23 Nov 73.

2. R/Ses have to do with Scientology or one or more areas of the old Scientology List One found in The Book of E-Meter Drills.

Ref: The Book of E-Meter Drills; HCO B 5 Dec 62, “2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 and Routine 2-10 Modern Assessment”; HCO B 23 Nov 62, “Urgent—Routine Two-Twelve”; HCO B 12 Sept 62, “Security Checks Again”.

3. Pc is Slow or No Case Gain. Also is in a chronically nattery or critical state.

Ref: HCO B 23 Nov 62, “Routine Two-Twelve”; HCO B 5 Dec 62, “2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 and Routine 2-10 Modern Assessment”; HCO B 6 Dec 62, “R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX”; HCO B 28 Nov 70, C/S Series 22, “Psychosis”; BPL 31 May 71RA, PTS/SP Checksheet and mat’ls.

4. Pc chronically ill or who acts most “PTS”. This can be suppressed and hidden from view, however.

Ref: HCOPL 15 Nov 70R, “HCO and Confessionals”; HCOB 28 Nov 70, C/S Series 22, “Psychosis”; PTS/SP Pack.

5. Pc’s product is consistently an overt act and his activities destructive to others.

Ref: HCOPL 14 Nov 70, Org Series 14, “The Product as an Overt Act”; PTS/SP Pack; HCO Manual of Justice.

6. Pc’s behavior or condition or OCA classifies as psychotic.

Ref: HCO B Ex Dn Series and tapes; HCO B 28 Nov 70.

Where the answers to this checklist are yes you have an R/Ser. HCO handles and Qual programs them for rehabilitation.

PCs WHO R/S

Pcs who R/S are given Ex Dn. This does not change even though the pc is not an R/Ser. See HCO B C/S Series 93.

Where a pc R/Ses he will have Evil Purposes and be on a succumb as a result. R/Ses indicate an area of psychosis which will ruin the pc’s life if allowed to go unhandled.

SUMMARY

This HCO B in no way changes Ex Dn as a requirement for R/Ses or makes it ok not to handle them.

Staff concerned must be able to identify an R/Ser which is different from someone with an R/S.

I thought you should have this data and hope it clears up any remaining confusion in the area.

LRH:nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JANUARY 1974RA
REVISED 10 FEBRUARY 1974
REVISED 1 NOVEMBER 1974
Ex Dn (Changes are in this type sty/e,
Spclsts items 17A, B, C & D)
M7/4 *rate
Clay Demo
THE TECHNICAL BREAKTHROUGH OF 1973!
THE INTROSPECTION RD
(Changes HCO B 23 Jan 1974,
“The Introspection RD”.)


I have made a technical breakthrough which possibly ranks with the major discoveries of the Twentieth Century. It is certainly the greatest advancement of 1973 and is now being released after a final wrap-up of research. It is called the Introspection Rundown.

The purpose of the Introspection RD is to locate and correct those things which cause a person to fixate his attention inwardly, on himself or his bank. This RD extroverts the person so that he can see his environment and therefore handle and control it.


RESEARCH

In 1970 the actual cause of PSYCHOSIS was isolated (as given in HCO B C/S Series 22, “Psychosis”, 28 November 1970). In the ensuing years this has been proven beyond doubt to be totally correct.

But what is a psychotic break?

Man has never been able to solve the psychotic break. In fact, human beings are actually afraid of a person in a psychotic break and in desperation turn to psychiatry to handle.

Psychiatry, desperate in its turn, without effective tech, resorts to barbarities such as heavy drugs, ice picks, electric and insulin shock which half kill the person and only suppress him. The fact remains there has never been a cure for the psychotic break until now.

The key is WHAT CAUSED THE PERSON TO INTROSPECT BEFORE THE PSYCHOTIC BREAK.

The breakthrough was made on a person who, after a series of wrong indications, went into a full-blown psychotic break—violence, destruction and all.

The psychiatrist at this point would have sharpened up his ice pick, filled his syringes with the most powerful (and deadly) drugs he could find and turned up the volts. His “handling” would have been a final destruction of the individual.

What was done was an auditor went into the room, sat the person down and corrected the last severe point of wrong indication. Subsequent times of wrong indication in his life were cleared up, the person came out of the psychotic break and into p.t.

THIS MEANS THE LAST REASON TO HAVE PSYCHIATRY AROUND IS GONE.

The psychotic break, the last of the “unsolvable” conditions that can trap a person, has been solved.

And it’s quite simple, really.

THEORY

Def. INTROSPECTION: “(L. from introspicere, to look within) a looking into one’s own mind, feelings, reactions, etc.; observation and analysis of oneself.” Webster’s New World Dictionary.

Def. INTROVERSION: “(from intro- + L. vertere, to turn) 2.... a tendency to direct one’s interest upon oneself rather than upon external objects or events.” Webster’s New World Dictionary.

The essence of the Introspection RD is looking for and correcting all those things which CAUSED the person to look inward worriedly and wrestle with the mystery of some incorrectly designated error. The result is continual inward looking or self auditing without relief or end.

In a normal person this becomes a diminished activity, unhappiness or illness. In an R/Ser this becomes insanity and a psychotic break occurs at the last severe point of wrong indication.

The pc who originates to the Examiner about his case or writes notes to the C/S or auditor is introverted and should have this RD.

AUDITOR TRAINING

Auditors selected to do this RD must have recently done a HARD TRs Course and the Anti-Q&A materials.

They must be able to recognize a ROCK SLAM, which is a particular E-Meter phenomenon. They must be Class IV Expanded Dianetics auditors of proven skill on routine cases. They must not themselves be R/Sers. (The last requisite is waived in a self-salvage co-audit group where all R/S.)

They need flawless TRs, no Q&A. This Rundown is very simple but cannot be flubbed, as that will compound the errors and cause further introspection in the pc. It is better not to deliver this RD than to flub any part of it. C/Ses take note. It is an Ethics Offense to attempt this Rundown without the auditor having done the prerequisite training and a further offense for an auditor to flub on it.


STEPS OF THE RD
(Steps 0 and 00 are for a person
in a psychotic break, not a
normal person.)

Put this checklist on inside front cover of folder as a pgm.

0. On a person in a psychotic break isolate the person wholly with
all attendants completely muzzled (no speech). _________

00. Give Vitamins (B complex, including niacinamide) and minerals
(calcium and magnesium) to build the person up. _________

* * *

1. Locate by study or research of the person’s case or via associates
or 2-way comm the last severe point of introversion just prior to
the current psychotic break or illness. There may be several severe
points of introversion, prior or subsequent to the one that triggered
the break or illness. These points are identified by their upsetting or
worrisome effect on the pc. Each is noted down for handling. _________

2. On each point, indicate the substance of it as a point of introversion to
release the By-Passed Charge. Each should BD and F/N. First point
indicated to F/N. _________

2B. Second point indicated to F/N. _________

2C. Third point indicated to F/N. _________

In the case of an out-list, the fact of a wrong item would be
indicated and the list corrected by the Laws of L&N.

3. Get the wording of each point stated by the pc as an item (i.e.,
“What would you call such an incident?”) and its read and
handle by 2wc each flow E/Sim to F/N. First point 2wc’d F-l 230
to F/N. _________

3A. Second point 2wc’d F-1230 to F/N. _________

3B. Third point 2wc’d F-1230 to F/N. _________

4. Verify/Correct all L&N lists. _________

5. Verify/Correct all Why “lists”, PTS Interviews, 3 May PLs per
C/S Series 78.

6. R3R Quad item found in No. 3. (“Locate an incident where......”) _________

6A. L&N for the Intention behind the subject in No. 3. Verify Q for
read before listing. _________

6B. R3R Quad the Intention. _________

6C. R3R Quad, L&N Intention & R3R Quad any other items found
(No. 3A, 3B, etc.). _________

7. Clear the words “Introversion”, “Introspection”, “Extroversion”. _________

8. ARC BREAKS HANDLING. _________

8A. 2wc Has another ARC Broken you? ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N. _________

8B. 2wc Have you ARC Broken another? ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N. _________

8C. 2wc Have others ARC Broken anyone else? ARCU CDEINR E/S
to F/N. _________

8D. 2wc Have you ARC Broken yourself? ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N. _________

8E. 2wc Has anyone ever made you feel you had an ARC Break when
you didn’t? E/S to F/N. _________

8F. 2wc Have you ever made anyone else feel he had an ARC Break
when he didn’t? E/S to F/N. _________

8G. 2wc Have others ever made anyone else feel he had an ARC Break
when he didn’t? E/S to F/N. _________

8H. 2wc Have you ever made yourself feel you had an ARC Break
when you didn’t? E/S to F/N. _________

8I. R3R Quad the item. _________

8J. L&N for the Intention behind “the forcing of upsets on people
who don’t have them”. _________

8K. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 8J. _________

9. WITHHOLDS HANDLING. _________

9A. 2wc Are you withholding something from anyone? E/Sim to F/N. _________

9B. 2wc Is anyone else withholding something from you? E/Sim to
F/N. _________

9C. 2wc Are others withholding something from anyone else? E/Sim
to F/N. _________

9D. 2wc Are you withholding something from yourself? E/Sim to F/N. _________

9E. 2wc Has anyone demanded W/Hs you didn’t have? E/Sim to F/N. _________

9F. 2wc Have you demanded withholds of anyone else they didn’t have?
E/Sim to F/N. _________

9G. 2wc Have others demanded withholds of anyone else they didn’t
have? E/Sim to F/N. _________
9H. 2wc Have you demanded W/Hs from yourself that you didn’t have?
E/Sim to F/N. _________

9I. R3R Quad “demanded non-existent W/Hs from ......”. _________

9J. L&N, Clear Q thoroughly and verify for read first, what
purpose would be behind “the demanding of non-existent
W/Hs from others”? _________

9K. R3R Quad the item in No. 9J. _________

10. PROBLEMS HANDLING. _________

10A. 2wc Has another given you a problem? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10B. 2wc Have you given another a problem? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10C. 2wc Have others given a problem to anyone else? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10D. 2wc Have you given yourself a problem? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10E. 2wc Has anyone ever made you feel you had a problem when
you didn’t? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10F. 2wc Have you ever made anyone else feel he had a problem when
he didn’t? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10G. 2wc Have others ever made anyone else feel he had a problem
when he didn’t? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10H. 2wc Have you ever made yourself feel you had a problem when
you didn’t? E/Sim to F/N. _________

10I. R3R Quad the item. _________

10J. L&N for the Intention behind “the giving of problems to people
that don’t belong to them”. _________

10K. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 10J.

11. OVERTS HANDLING. _________

11A. 2wc Has anyone else committed overts on you? E/Sim to F/N. _________

11B. 2wc Have you committed overts on anyone else? Get what, E/Sim
to F/N. _________

11C. 2wc Have others committed overts on anyone else? E/Sim to F/N. _________

11D. 2wc Have you committed any overts on yourself? E/Sim to F/N. _________

11E. 2wc Has anyone ever accused you of something you didn’t do?
E/Sim to F/N. _________

11F. 2wc Have you ever accused anyone else of something he didn’t do?
E/Sim to F/N. _________

11G. 2wc Have others ever accused anyone else of something he didn’t
do? E/Sim to F/N. _________

11H. 2wc Have you ever accused yourself of something you didn’t do?
E/Sim to F/N. _________

11I. R3R Quad the item. _________

11J. L&N for the Intention behind “the accusing of someone of non-
existent overts”. _________

11K. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 11J. _________

12. NOT SAYING. _________

12A. 2wc Are you not saying something about someone else or
something? Get what, E/Sim to F/N. _________

12B. 2wc Is anyone not saying something about you? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12C. 2wc Are others not saying something about anyone else? E/Sim
to F/N. _________

12D. 2wc Are you not saying something about yourself? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12E. 2wc Has anyone not accepted your W/Hs? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12F. 2wc Have you not accepted someone else’s W/Hs? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12G. 2wc Have others not accepted anyone else’s W/Hs? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12H. 2wc Have you not accepted your own W/Hs? E/Sim to F/N. _________

12I. R3R Quad “W/Hs weren’t accepted”. _________

12J. L&N Intention behind “the rejecting of others’ W/Hs”. _________

12K. R3 R Quad the Intention, in No. 12J. _________

13. FALSE INCIDENTS HANDLING. _________

13A. 2wc Has anyone ever asked you for things that didn’t exist? E/S
to F/N. _________

13B. 2wc Have you ever asked anyone else for things that didn’t exist?
E/S to F/N. _________

13C. 2wc Have others ever asked anyone else for things that didn’t
exist? E/S to F/N. _________

13D. 2wc Have you ever asked yourself for things that didn’t exist? E/S
to F/N. _________

13E. R3R Quad the item. _________

13F. L&N for the Intention behind “the demanding of false incidents
from others”. _________

13G. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 13F. _________

14. PTS HANDLING. _________

14A. 2wc Has anyone given you a false assignment that you were being
done in? E/S to F/N. _________

14B. 2wc Have you given anyone a false assignment that he was being
done in? E/S to F/N. _________

14C. 2wc Have others given anyone else a false assignment that they were
being done in? E/Sim to F/N. _________

14D. 2wc Have you given yourself a false assignment that you were being
done in? E/S to F/N. _________

14E. R3R Quad the item. _________

14F. L&N for the Intention behind “giving others a false assignment that
they were being done in”. _________

14G. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 14F. _________

14H. 2wc Has anyone been doing you in? E/S to F/N. _________

14I. 2wc Have you been doing anyone else in? E/S to F/N. _________

14J. 2wc Have others been doing anyone else in? E/S to F/N. _________

14K. 2wc Have you been doing yourself in? E/S to F/N. _________

15. FALSE INTERROGATION HANDLING. _________

15A. 2wc Has anyone ever interrogated you for no reason? E/S to F/N. _________

15B. 2wc Have you ever interrogated anyone else for no reason? E/S
to F/N. _________

15C. 2wc Have others ever interrogated anyone else for no reason? E/S
to F/N. _________

15D. 2wc Have you ever had yourself interrogated for no reason? E/S
to F/N. _________

15E. R3R Quad the item. _________

15F. L&N for the Intention behind “the false interrogating of others” . _________

15G. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 15F. _________

16. FALSE INVALIDATION HANDLING. _________

16A. 2wc Has anyone ever heavily invalidated you unjustly? E/S to F/N. _________

16B. 2wc Have you ever heavily invalidated anyone else unjustly? E/S to
F/N. _________

16C. 2wc Have others ever heavily invalidated anyone else unjustly? E/S
to F/N. _________

16D. 2wc Have you ever heavily invalidated yourself unjustly? E/S to F/N. _________

16E. R3R Quad the item. _________

16F. L&N for the Intention behind “the unjust invalidating of others” _________

16G. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 16F. _________

17. FALSE VALIDATION HANDLING. _________

17A. 2wc Has another ever validated you for something you didn’t
deserve? E/S to F/N. _________

17B. 2wc Have you ever validated anyone else for something he didn’t
deserve? E/S to F/N. _________

17C. 2wc Have others ever validated anyone else for something they
didn’t deserve? E/S to F/N. _________

17D. 2wc Have you ever validated yourself for something you didn’t
deserve? E/S to F/N. _________

17E. R3R Quad the item. _________

17F. L&N for the Intention behind “the false validating of others”. _________

17G. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 17F. _________

18. “HIT” FOR NO REASON. _________
18A. 2wc Has anyone “hit” you too hard for no reason? E/S to F/N. _________

18B. 2wc Have you “hit” anyone else too hard for no reason? E/S to F/N. _________

18C. 2wc Have others “hit” anyone else too hard for no reason? E/S to F/N. _________

18D. 2wc Have you gotten yourself “hit” too hard for no reason? E/S to F/N. _________

18E. R3R Quad the item. _________

18F. L&N for the Intention behind “the ‘hitting’ of others unfairly”. _________

18G. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 18F. _________

19. INVALIDATED BEINGNESS HANDLING. _________

19A. 2wc Has anyone ever challenged or questioned who you were?
E/S to F/N. _________

19B. 2wc Have you ever challenged or questioned anyone else’s identity?
E/S to F/N. _________

19C. 2wc Have others ever challenged or questioned anyone else’s identity?
E/S to F/N. _________

19D. 2wc Have you ever challenged or questioned your identity?
E/S to F/N. _________

19E. R3R Quad the item. _________

19F. L&N for the Intention behind “the invalidating of others’ identity”. _________

19G. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 19F. _________

20. INVALIDATED INTENTIONS HANDLING.

20A. 2wc Has anyone ever challenged or questioned your intentions? E/S
to F/N. _________

20B. 2wc Have you ever challenged or questioned anyone else’s intentions?
E/S to F/N. _________

20C. 2wc Have others ever challenged or questioned anyone else’s intentions?
E/S to F/N. _________

20D. 2wc Have you ever challenged or questioned your own intentions?
E/S to F/N. _________

20E. R3R Quad “misinterpreted intentions”. _________

20F. L&N for the Intention behind “the invalidating of the intentions of
others”. _________

20G. R3R Quad the Intention, in No. 20F. _________

21. OBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS. _________

An HC List could be added here if the pc’s “think” is still weird.

NOTE: ITEMS THAT DON’T READ WON’T RUN. DON’T RUN OR LIST Q’s THAT DON’T READ OR YOU’LL REINTROVERT THE PC.

Frequent D of P Interview is vital whenever the case looks like it is not rapidly progressing. Also a quick assessment may be needed as a separate action to isolate possible charged areas of introspection.

At any time after Step 2 Objective Havingness should be done at session end. If one of the items in Steps 3-20 turns out to be false the pc will introvert further. In such a case indicate the fact of it having been unnecessary and get an F/N. Then run Objective Havingness. If the TA goes high (or low) and won’t come into range, assess a C/S 53RH and handle.

In the case of a pc in a psychotic break, the C/S would have to locate the last severe wrong indication, indicate the fact to the pc and get it corrected (as with a wrong item) as the first action.


EXTROVERSION

Def. EXTROVERSION: “. . . Means nothing more than being able to look outward ....” “An extroverted personality is one who is capable of looking around the environment ....” “A person who is capable of looking at the world around him and seeing it quite real and quite bright is of course in a state of extroversion.” (Problems of Work.)

The end phenomena of the Introspection RD is the person extroverted, no longer looking inward worriedly in a continuous self-audit without end.

The EP on a person in a psychotic break is the end of the psychotic break.

The RD is very simple and its results are magical in effectiveness. Flubs can wreck it so don’t permit them.

You have in your hands the tool to take over mental therapy in full. You need not fear the insane or the psychotic break any longer.

Here also is the cure for the continual self-auditing pc who is dug into his bank. It works on all pcs in fact with rave results.

Do it flawlessly and we all win.

THIS PLANET IS OURS.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: ams.rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





















[Additional data can be found in HCO B 20 February 1974, Introspection RD-Additional Actions, page 260- HCO B 6 March 1974, Introspection RD-Second Addition-information to C/Ses-Fixated Attention, page 262; and HCO B 20 April 1974, Introspection RD-Third Addition-Additional Introspection RD Steps, page 295.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo

DRUGS, MORE ABOUT

Reference: HCO B of 28 August 1968,
Issue II, “Drugs”.


WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS


The most wretched part of coming off hard drugs is the reaction called “withdrawal symptoms”. People go into convulsions.

These are so severe that the addict becomes very afraid of them and so remains on drugs. The reaction can also produce death.

In the reference HCO Bulletin above, B1 is mentioned as a means of easing convulsions.

Actually, practice since 1968 has shown that “Objective TRs”, a Scientology process described in detail in HCO Bs 11 June 1957, “Training and CCH Processes”, 15 July 1971, C/S Series 48R, “Drug Handling” and BTB 25 Oct 1971R, Issue II, “The Special Drug Rundown”, handle withdrawal symptoms when properly used. Great success has been achieved with them.

There is another supplementary way of handling withdrawal symptoms. This does not replace “Objective TRs” and at this writing is theoretical, being in a research phase. But so terrible can be withdrawal symptoms and so lacking in success has the medical and psychiatric field been, that the data should be released.

Muscular spasms are caused by lack of Calcium.

Nervous reactions are diminished by Magnesium.

Calcium does not go into solution in the body and is not utilized unless it is in an acid.

Magnesium is alkaline.

Working on this in 1973, for other uses than drug reactions, I found the means of getting Calcium into solution in the body, along with Magnesium so that the results of both could be achieved.

This was the “Cal-Mag Formula”.


CAL-MAG FORMULA

1. Put one level tablespoon of Calcium Gluconate in a normal sized glass.

2. Add 1/2 level teaspoon of Magnesium Carbonate.

3. Add I tablespoon of cider vinegar (at least 5% acidity).

4. Stir it well.

5. Add 1/2 glass of boiling water and stir until all the powder is dissolved and the liquid is clear. (If this doesn’t occur it could be from poor grade or old Magnesium Carbonate.)

6. Fill the remainder of glass with lukewarm or cold water and cover.

They will stay good for 2 days.

It can be made wrongly so that it does not dissolve. Variations from the above produce an unsuccessful mix that can taste pretty horrible.

Anything from 1 to 3 glasses of this a day, with or after meals, REPLACES ANY TRANQUILIZER. It does not produce the drugged effects of tranquilizers (which are quite deadly).

The application to handle muscular spasms and tics is now quite well established.

Using this to combat withdrawal symptoms is experimental.

The theory is that withdrawal symptoms are muscular spasms.

The matter should be given tests where persons suffering from withdrawal symptoms are available.

This does not supplant “Objective TRs”. These work.

But it may be that “Cal-Mag” would assist those suffering where no competent auditing is available.

As Calcium and Magnesium are minerals, not drugs, they form no barrier to auditing.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: nt jh
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1973RA
(Cancels HCO B 24 Nov 73, Rev. 30 Aug 74)
Revised & Reissued 12 November 1974
Remimeo


C/S Series 53RI



SHORT HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT C/S



This is the basic prepared list used by Auditors to get a TA up or down into normal range. A GF Method 5 may also be used after TA is in normal range to get pc’s case handled better.


_________________________________PC Name________________________ Date



1. Assess pc Method 5 on this sheet. (Go down the list calling off the items to the pc, watching the meter. Mark any Tick, SF, F,, LFBD [to what TA], speeded rise or Blow Up.) NOTE: A C/S 53RH should be reassessed and all reads handled until it F/Ns on assessment.

A. Interiorization _________ Problems _________
Went in _________ Protest _________
Go in _________ Don’t like it _________
Can’t get in _________ Audited over out ruds _________
Want to get out _________ Feel sad _________
Kicked out of spaces _________ Rushed _________
Can’t go _________ Tired _________
ARC Brk _________
B. List errors _________ Upset _________
Overlisting _________ Can’t get it _________
Wrong items
Upset with giving _________ D Drugs _________
items to auditor _________ LSD _________
Wrong Why _________ Alcohol _________
Wrong Indication _________ Pot _________
Wrong PTS Item _________ Medicine _________

C. Some sort of W/H _________ E. Engram in restimulation _________
Are you withholding Same engram run twice _________
something _________ Can’t see engrams too
Is another withholding well _________
something from you _________ Invisible _________
Are others withholding Black _________
something from others _________ Loss _________
Has another committed Lost _________
overts on you _________
Have you committed F. Same thing run twice _________
any overts _________ Same action done by
Have others committed another auditor _________
overts on others _________
Not saying _________

G. Doing something with L. PTS _________
mind between sessions _________ Suppressed _________
Some other practice _________
M. Something went on too
H. Word Clearing errors _________ long _________
Study errors _________ Went on by a release
point _________
I. False TA _________ Overrun _________
Wrong sized cans _________ Auditor kept on going _________
Tired hands _________ Over-repair _________
Dry hands or feet _________ Puzzled why auditor
Wet hands or feet _________ keeps on _________
Loosens can grip _________ Stops _________
Wrong hand cream _________
N. Something else _________
J. Auditor overwhelming _________ Physically ill _________
Feel attacked _________
Something wrong with O. Repairing a TA that
F/Ns _________ isn’t high _________
Overrun F/Ns _________ Repairing a TA that
Missed F/N _________ isn t low _________
Items really didn’t read _________ Faulty Meter _________
Bad auditing _________ Nothing wrong _________
Incomplete actions _________
P. False Exam Report _________
K. Can’t have _________ WAITED at Exam _________
Low havingness _________ Upset by Examiner _________
Invalidation _________
Evaluation _________
Couldn’t get auditing _________
Interruptions _________


2. Use only the small falls or falls or BDs. The rises will however show where mass lies.

A. If A or any of the A Group, and the pc has had an Int RD, do an Int RD Correction List, and handle the reads. (HCO B 29 Oct 71R, Revised 14 May 74.)

If the pc has never had an Int RD, then give him a standard Int RD providing you have checked out on the Int-Ext pack and are good at R3R.

B. If any of these read, do an L4BR on the earliest lists you can find that have not been corrected. Lacking these do an L4BR in general. You can go over an L4BR several times handling each read to F/N until the whole L4BR gives nothing but F/Ns. Handle a Wrong Why or Wrong Indication or Wrong PTS Item per C/S Series 78.

C. If any of these, handle with 2wc and earlier similar to F/N. If more than one reads do biggest read first and then clean up each of the others E/S to F/N. If all read on assessment you have to get an F/N for each or 18 F/Ns. On overts and withholds, get what, and E/S to F/N. On out ruds, find which rud and handle. (See GF40RR HCO B 30 June 71, Revised 13 Jan 72.) Feel sad, handle the ARC Break. (Feel sad = ARC Brk of long duration.)

D. Rehab releases on each “drug” taken to F/N. Complete the Drug RD per C/S Series 48R after handling all reads on this assessment. If pc has had a Drug RD, do L3RD on it, and handle.

E. If any of these, do L3RD and handle according to what is stated to do on L3RD.

F. Clean up any protest and inval and rehab to F/N.

G. Find out what it is. If Yogi or Mystic exercises or some such 2wc E/S it to first time done, find out what upset had occurred before that and if TA now down do L1C on that period of pc’s life.

H. If Word Clearing, do a Word Clearing Correction List, handle all reads. If Study errors, 2wc E/S to F/N, and add a Study Correction List to the pc’s program.

I. False TA is wrong cans. Use HCO Bs 24 Oct 71, 12 Nov 71R, 15 Feb 72,18 Feb 72, 29 Feb 72R, 23 Nov 73, all on False TA. Then clean up the bypassed charge with (I ) Assess for best read (a) TA worries, (b) F/N worries. (2) Then 2wc times he was worried about (item) E/S to F/N. (3) Rehab any overruns due to False TA obscuring F/Ns.

J. These are auditor errors. Low TA is generally caused by overwhelming TRs and incomplete actions. A high TA can be caused by an auditor overrunning F/Ns or failing to call them. Or trying to assess through an F/N and mistaking an F/N right swing for a read. An F/N can be obscured and mistaken for a read if Sensitivity too high. These items are all 2wc E/S to F/N. Auditors who made them need Cramming badly or retread.

K. Can’t have or Hav. Find correct Havingness process and remedy.

L. PTS or Suppressed. Check for SP or get a full PTS RD.

M. Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N on each (or date to blow, locate to blow, if qualified).

N. 2wc to find what. Note BD item. If BD item covered by one of these categories handle per instructions. If not just 2wc to F/N and get further C/S instructions for handling if necessary.

O. Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first. If false TA handle per I above.

P. INDICATE and 2wc to F/N.

General. Handle Int RD (A) if it reads at all before handling rest as nothing will go right if Int is still out. For the remainder prefer to handle any BD group if you get a BD. If in doubt about what to do, return to the C/S.


Revised by

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder



LRH: nt jh
Copyright © 1973, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo
Tech
Qual Refers to HCO PL 15 Nov 74,
ARC Brk Reg “CFs, ARC Breaks in”
ARC Brk Auditor
Tours

STUDENT REHABILITATION LIST

TO BE DONE ONLY BY AN AUDITOR WHO
CAN MAKE PREPARED LISTS READ.



This list is for use by ARC Brk Regs and Auditors, Tours personnel, Tech and Qual when recovering blown Students or fixing up blowy Students or Students in trouble or Students who failed in practice.

By “blown Students” we mean Students who have left the org incomplete on their course, Students who have ceased their studies and are in the org, Students who have not gone on to their next service, staff who do not attend or have stopped going to study for any reason or Auditors in the field who have failed in practice.


ASSESSMENT

This list can be assessed Method 3 or Method 5 depending on the severity of the upset.

The EP is a Student who is no longer upset or blowy and ready to return to his service or course and does.


1. THERE WERE MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS. _________
(Find and clear them, each to F/N.)

2. NO HELP OR WORD CLEARING FROM THE SUPERVISOR. _________
(2wc which, if Wd Clg find out where he was having trouble and
use WC M4 to clear it up. Take to F/N.)

3. INTERFERENCE FROM THE SUPERVISOR THAT STOPPED _________
YOU FROM GETTING ON.
(2wc E/S to F/N. Clean up any protest.)

4. PERSONAL OUT ETHICS RESULTING IN A W/H. _________
(2wc what, handle as a W/H.)

5. SIMPLY BOOTED OFF FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO
GOD OR REGISTRARS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

6. DISPUTE OVER FEES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

7. YOU WERE GIVEN A WRONG WHY. _________
(L4BR and handle.)

8. TOLD YOU WERE PTS AND YOU WEREN’T. _________
(Indicate it. 2wc E/S to F/N. L4BR if any trouble.)

9. DIDN’T FULLY CLEAR EACH WORD. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N. Clear any Mis-U words.)


10. HAVING TO CLEAR WORDS YOU ALREADY UNDERSTOOD. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

11. ARC BRKS ON COURSE. _________
(ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N. Watch out for MWHs.)

12. PROBLEMS ON COURSE. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

13. ON COURSE FOR SOME OTHER REASON THAN YOU
STATED. _________
(2wc what, E/S to F/N.)

14. SCN DOWNGRADED TO YOU. _________
(2wc for details, find out who, PTS Interview if necessary.)

15. SCN PEOPLE LIED ABOUT TO YOU. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N. Find out who. PTS Interview if necessary.)

16. OUT 2D. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N. Handle as a W/H.)

17. DIDN’T PAY FOR THE COURSE OR SOME SERVICE. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N. Handle as a W/H.)

18. SOMEONE KEPT AFTER YOU FOR MONEY. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

19. THERE WAS A FALSE ATTESTATION. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N. Handle as a W/H.)

20. FALSE EXAM. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N. Handle as a W/H.)

21. COULDN’T APPLY THE MATERIALS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

22. COULDN’T MASTER A METER. _________
(2wc, find out what he didn’t understand about it and clear it up
to F/N.)

23. NOBODY TO AUDIT. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

24. PREVENTED FROM AUDITING. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

25. YOU WERE CONFUSED. _________
(2wc and clear it up to F/N.)

26. THINGS YOU DIDN’T UNDERSTAND. _________
(2wc what, clear it up to F/N.)

27. YOU HAD DISAGREEMENTS. _________
(Find out what, find the Mis-U words and clear to F/N.)

28. AN EARLIER SIMILAR SUBJECT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD. _________
(2wc what subject, find out what word in it was Mis-U and clear it
up. Clear each word to F/N.)

29. EARLIER FAILED COURSES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

30. DIDN’T USE WORD CLEARING. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N. Clear any words to F/N where he should have.)


31. NO METHOD 1 WORD CLEARING. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

32. INTERRUPTIONS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

33. PREVENTED FROM STUDYING. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

34. ADDED TO YOUR CHECKSHEET. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

35. MISSING MATERIALS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

36. NO MATERIALS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

37. NO DICTIONARY. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

38. TECH TERMS YOU DIDN’T GET. _________
(Find out what. Clear to F/N.)

39. COULDN’T FIND THE MATERIALS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

40. TAPE PLAYERS NOT AVAILABLE. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

41. COULDN’T GET A METER. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

42. FORCED TO HAVE A TWIN. (2wc E/S to F/N.) _________

43. BAD COACHING. (2wc E/S to F/N.) _________

44. NO PRACTICAL. (2wc E/S to F/N.) _________

45. NO SUPERVISOR. (2wc E/S to F/N.) _________

46. NO PLACE TO STUDY. (2wc E/S to F/N.) _________

47. STUDIED UNDER DURESS. (2wc E/S to F/N.) _________

48. UNREAL QUOTAS SET. (2wc E/S to F/N.) _________

49. MADE TO DO TRs TOO OFTEN. (2wc E/S to F/N.) _________

50. SUPERVISOR OR SOMEONE GAVE VERBAL TECH OR
INTERPRETED MATERIALS. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

51. LOTS OF ADVICE NOT IN HCO Bs OR TAPES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

52. YOU WERE ON THE WRONG COURSE. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

53. SOMEONE MAD AT YOU ON COURSE. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

54. EVALUATION. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)


55. INVALIDATION. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

56. TOLD YOU PASSED WHEN YOU KNEW YOU DIDN’T. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

57. TOLD YOU FLUNKED WHEN YOU KNEW YOU HADN’T. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

58. NOT ENOUGH SLEEP. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

59. NOT ENOUGH TO EAT. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

60. NO PLACE TO LIVE. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

61. FAMILY TROUBLE. _________
(2wc E/S. PTS Interview if necessary.)

62. YOU WERE TAKING DRUGS OR ALCOHOL. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

63. SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR EYESIGHT. _________
(2wc what E/S to F/N.)

64. VIOLATED STUDENT RULES. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

65. SOME OTHER PHYSICAL PROBLEM. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

66. ERROR IN STUDENT AUDITING. _________
(C/S 5 3 RI. )

67. RESTIM. _________
(C/S 53 RI. )

68. BAD EXAMINATION. _________
(2wc to F/N and correct.)

69. CERTIFICATES NEVER CAME. _________
(2wc E/S to F/N.)

70. SOMETHING ON THIS LIST YOU DIDN’T UNDERSTAND? _________
(Clarify and redo list from that point.)

71. SOMETHING ELSE WRONG. _________
(2wc what, if no joy GF M5 and handle.)


Make sure this list is done by an Auditor who can make a meter read and your courses will fill up with rehabilitated Students.



L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright ©1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 AUGUST 1971R
REVISED 26 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo
Dept 13
Qual Div
Qual Bu
POST PURPOSE CLEARING

(This HCO B is the basic action of the
Post Purpose Clearing Unit of Div V,
Qual Div, or by Auditors as a technology.)



An essential part of HATTING as done in HCO is to get the person’s POST PURPOSE CLEARED by an auditor.


INSTANT PURPOSE CLEARING

HCO usually tells the person what the purpose of the post is and certainly the staff member’s seniors would.

This action is not metered and goes along with instant hatting. It is not done by an auditor.

“George, the purpose of your post is to_____. Any questions?” Questions are answered and clarified.

Giving the person on the post the purpose is a basic hatting step.


FULL POST PURPOSE CLEARING

This requires an auditor, an E-Meter, and is done in session.

Usually this is done after mini-hatting and after some experience with the post. It is NOT done in this full fashion before the person has any knowledge of the post. It can also be done during or at the end of full hatting.

But the sooner it is done after mini-hatting and some weeks’ experience on the post the more successful it will be.


AUDITOR QUALIFICATIONS

The auditor doing Post Purpose Clearing must be expert with:

1. TRs

2. Metering

3. Code

4. 2-Way Comm

5 . Flying Rudiments

6. L&N.

ADMIN

A Post Purpose Clearing is given full worksheet and report handling and person goes to Examiner.

A record of the session is kept with others done in the PPC RECORD BOOK with especially noted any Rock Slam.

PC

The pc must not be in an Ethics cycle, must be rested, not hungry and not ill or on drugs or medication.

ANY RINGS ON THE PC’S HANDS MUST BE REMOVED AS THEY CAUSE A FALSE ROCK SLAM.


HAT FOLDER

Staff Member must bring hat folder to the PPC session so if there is any confusion on purposes in it they can be cleared from the hat folder.


CASE FOLDER

Case folder of the pc must also be collected and examined before session. This is repeated in the Rundown so it won’t be missed.


POST PURPOSE CLEARING STEPS

PPC 1 — Get the staff member’s folder. Verify that he is not in the middle of some processes, repair or Major Grade. If so, don’t touch. Get C/S OK.

PPC 2 — Fly a rud or do a C/S 53RI if TA high or low. Note that it WAS high on the session worksheet. If the TA does not come down refer the case to Staff C/S and do not proceed. Case would need Folder Error Summary and a Hi-Lo TA List IX.

PPC 3 — 2wc about person’s post. Be alert to problems or w/hs and if these seem to be there do E/S to F/N on Problems and/or E/S to F/N on w/hs.

PPC 4 — 2wc “What do you think is your post?” to F/N. If pc can’t tell you resort to his hat and clear up confusions to F/N.

PPC 5 — 2wc “Tell me about opportunities you would have on your post.” This is carried to F/N. If no F/N treat it as a w/h and ask if there’s anything pc isn’t telling you. Carry any w/h to F/N. Then check the question again and get the F/N back by 2wc or E/S to F/N. (If you start to clear w/hs in the middle of the Q then the w/hs will F/N but the Q hasn’t yet so must be F/Ned also. Overts may come up as well as w/hs and if so F/N them by E/S.) Pc should finish this step with F/N, Cog and GIs.

PPC 6 — 2wc “How does your job align (compare) with what you incline (would like) to do?” Get any conflicts into view if not clean. Go E/S to F/N if there is conflict. If no F/N despite Itsa on conflict ask for overts or withholds and carry this to F/N. Check Q again to be sure it F/Ns.

PPC 7 — Go over hat mat’ls covering pc’s post purpose. Ask him how does it seem. Get an F/N or clear any confusions up to F/N.

PPC 8 — L&N, “What do you think is the purpose of your post?” to BD F/N item.

PPC 9 — 2wc “How does this purpose tie in with the purpose of your Division?” Clean this up if there’s doubt. Use folders or OEC books. Be sure it’s cleaned up to F/N.

PPC 10— 2wc “How does this purpose tie in with the purpose of the org?” Clean this up to F/N.

PPC 11— (Using PPC 8 purpose) “Then is (quote it) the purpose of your post?” Get a revision so it’s really it or accept it. Say, when it’s decided, “Then (quote) is the purpose of your post.”

PPC 12— 2wc “If your post was not done what would happen to the org?” Clean this up to F/N.

PPC 13— 2wc “How do you feel about accomplishing your post purpose?” Clean this up to F/N.

PPC 14— Thank pc and send to Examiner.


Complete worksheet.

Enter results in log.

Put the session report in pc’s folder.

_________

Send a report to the E/O AND TO FLAG if the person Rock Slams and note it in the folder for pgming to include Ex Dn.

If you can get no satisfactory F/Ns and Cogs and VGIs or if Exam report is bad, DIRECT THE FACT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE HAS AND THE C/O AND THE CASE SUPER FOR IMMEDIATE CORRECTION. The Remedy is L4BR on the whole RD, L1C, C/S 53RI and do the clearing again.

_________

Post Purpose Clearing counts as a completion for the Dept on an F/N at Examiner’s.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: nt .rd
Copyright ©1971, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF I DECEMBER 1974
Remimeo


WORD CLEARING LISTS FOR
PREPARED LISTS

Reference. LRH ED 257 INT
DELIVERY REPAIR LISTS


Here is the list of prepared lists with their word clearing lists.

PREPARED LIST WC LIST

HCO B 24 Nov 73RA BTB 9 Apr 72RA, Issue VII
C/S Series 53RI Revised I Dec 74
SHORT HI-LO TA CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
ASSESSMENT C/S SCIENTOLOGY—C/S SERIES 53RI

HCO B I Jan 72RA BTB 9 Apr 72RA, Issue IX
LIX HI-LO TA LIST Revised I Dec 74
REVISED CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
SCIENTOLOGY—LIX HI-LO TA
LIST REVISED

HCO B 29 Oct 71 R BTB 9 Apr 72R, Issue X
INT RUNDOWN CORRECTION CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
LIST REVISED SCIENTOLOGY—INT RUNDOWN
CORRECTION LIST REVISED

HCO B 15 Dec 68R BTB 9 Apr 72R, Issue V
L4BR CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
SCIENTOLOGY—L4BR

HCO B 19 Mar 71 BTB 9 Apr 72, Issue VI
L1 C CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
SCIENTOLOGY—L 1 C

HCO Pi 11 Apr 71 RA BTB 28 Apr 74
L3RD DIANETICS—CLEARING LISTS
AND R3R

HCO B 2 Apr 72RB, Issue II BTB 3 Apr 72R, Issue I
Expanded Dianetics Series 3RB EXPANDED DIANETICS SERIES 2R
L3 EXD RB CLEARING LISTS AND R3R

HCO B 29 Feb 72R —————
FALSE TA CHECKLIST

HCO B 16 Apr 72 BTB I Dec 74, Issue VII
PTS RD CORRECTION LIST CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
SCIENTOLOGY—PTS RD
CORRECTION LIST

HCO PL 7 Apr 70RA BTB 9 Apr 72RA, Issue I
GREEN FORM Revised I Dec 74
CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
SCIENTOLOGY—GREEN FORM

PREPARED LIST WC LIST

HCO B 30 June 71 BTB 9 Apr 72R, Issue III
EXPANDED GF 40 RR CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
SCIENTOLOGY—EXPANDED
GF 40 RR

HCO B 15 Nov 73R —————
FEAR OF PEOPLE LIST—R

HCO B 15 Nov 74 BTB 15 Nov 74
STUDENT REHABILITATION LIST CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
SCIENTOLOGY—STUDENT
REHABILITATION LIST

HCO B 4 Feb 72RC BTB 9 Apr 72R, Issue XI
STUDY CORRECTION LIST CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
REVISED—Study Series 7 SCIENTOLOGY—STUDY
CORRECTION LIST REVISED

HCO B 27 Mar 72, Issue I BTB I Dec 74, Issue II
STUDENT CORRECTION LIST CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
—STUDY CORR LIST I SCIENTOLOGY—STUDENT
CORRECTION LIST

HCO B 27 Mar 72R, Issue II BTB I Dec 74, Issue III
COURSE SUPERVISOR CORRECTION CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
LIST—STUDY CORR LIST 2 SCIENTOLOGY—COURSE
SUPERVISOR CORRECTION LIST

HCO B 27 Mar 72, Issue III BTB I Dec 74, Issue IV
AUDITOR CORRECTION LIST CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
—STUDY CORR LIST 3 SCIENTOLOGY—AUDITOR
CORRECTION LIST

HCO B 27 Mar 72, Issue IV BTB I Dec 74, Issue V
CASE SUPERVISOR CORRECTION CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
LIST—STUDY CORR LIST 4RA SCIENTOLOGY—CASE SUPERVISOR
CORRECTION LIST

HCO B 27 Mar 72, Issue V BTB I Dec 74, Issue VI
EXECUTIVE CORRECTION LIST CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
—STUDY CORR LIST 5 SCIENTOLOGY—EXECUTIVE
CORRECTION LIST

HCO B 21 July 71RC BTB 9 Apr 72R, Issue IV
WORD CLEARING CORRECTION CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
LIST REVISED SCIENTOLOGY—WORD CLEARING
CORRECTION LIST

HCO PL 9 Apr 72
ETHICS—CORRECT DANGER
CONDITION HANDLING (Danger
Assessment, Long Form and
Short Form)

HCO PL 13 Mar 72
Esto Series 5—PRODUCTION
AND ESTABLISHMENT—ORDERS
AND PRODUCTS (Product
Clearing Short Form)

PREPARED LIST WC LIST

HCO PL 23 Mar 72 —————
Esto Series 11—FULL PRODUCT
CLEARING LONG FORM

HCO PL 12 June 72 —————
Data Series 26, Esto Series 18
LENGTH OF TIME TO EVALUATE
(Slow Eval Assessment)

HCO B 28 Aug 70RA BTB 9 Apr 72R, Issue VIII
HC OUT-POINT PLUS-POINT Revised 30 Nov 74
LISTS RA CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
SCIENTOLOGY—HC OUT-POINT
PLUS-POINT LISTS

HCO B 2 Dec 74 BTB I Dec 74, Issue VIII
DYNAMIC SORT OUT ASSESSMENT CLEARING LIST WORDS IN
(Revised from BTB 4 Dec 71, SCIENTOLOGY—DYNAMIC SORT
Issue II, Replacing HCO B 4 Dec 7 1, OUT ASSESSMENT
Issue II, R-1C Assessment
by Dynamics)

_________


KEEP THESE LISTS IN SUPPLY FOR USE. TRAIN AUDITORS TO MAKE THESE LISTS READ. USE THEM FOR RAVE RESULTS AND YOU WILL SEE A GOLDEN ERA OF TECH IN YOUR ORG.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt jh
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 DECEMBER 1974
Remimeo
TR Course
Checksheet
HQS Course
All Auditors
C/Ses
HSDC Checksheet
Academy Levels
Checksheets
SHSBC
Supervisors
TR 0—NOTES ON BLINKING




WHO is doing the confronting? Are you a body? Or a thetan?

Students are trying to do an offshoot called Blinkless TR 0. There is no such thing. Sitting with any attention on the body just isn’t confront—you aren’t doing the drill right.

If your body blinks then OK—but if you are making it blink BY HAVING ATTENTION ON THE EYES then your TR 0 is out.

If the Supervisor came over and said, “Flunk, you blinked,” I wouldn’t Q&A but continue doing TR 0 instead, because I didn’t do it.

Excessive blinking shows the thetan is in his eyes. That’s not TR 0.

Nervous muscles can be cured with Calcium-Magnesium.

The body should not interfere with your confront. Just don’t use any part of it.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 DECEMBER 1974
Remimeo
Cancels
HCO B 10 July 1964, Reissued 5 December 1974
as Integrity Processing Series 6R

HCO B 10 July 1964, “Overts—Order of
Effectiveness in Processing” remains
as originally issued.

Cancels BTB 9 Dec 72,
“Why Overts Work”

Integrity Processing Series 6RA


EFFECTIVENESS OF OVERTS IN PROCESSING

(The data in this Bulletin has been taken
from HCO B 10 July 1964. It is useful in
Integrity Processing.)


ARC BREAKS

The commonest cause of failure in running overt acts is “cleaning cleans” 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.

“Have you told all?” 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.

“Have I not found out about something?” 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: “Is this question being protested?”

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.


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 “best” remedy, the individual thinks, is to withhold. “If I commit evil actions, then my best guarantee for not committing is to do nothing whatever.” Thus we have the “lazy”, 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 turnabout) 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 “have no withholds” and “have done nothing”. All of which, seen through their eyes, is true. They are merely saying “I cannot restrain myself” and “I have not willed myself to do what I have done”.

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 “done” that this person knows he or she has done may be “ate breakfast”. 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 “seeks the explanation of what I did that made it all happen to me”.

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 happens.

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 “Have you told me anything beyond what really has occurred?” Or “Have you told me any untruths?”

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.

LRH:nt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1964, 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[The 5 December 1974 reissue of HCO B 10 July 1964, which the above HCO B cancels, was taken verbatim from HCO B 10 July 1964.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1974R
Remimeo REVISED 14 DECEMBER 1974
Ex Dn C/Ses

Expanded Dianetics Series 22R


EXPANDED DIANETICS
REQUISITES


The recent review of Expanded Dianetics has shown that Ex Dn can be made to fail if the pc is improperly set up for it.

The following checklist is for use by C/Ses to ensure full set-ups for Ex Dn have been done.

Attach to the inside left cover of the folder.

1. Pc has done a full set of TRs 0-4 and 6-9. _________

2. Pc has had a full battery of Objective Processes run to full EP. _________

3. Pc has been given a thorough C/S 1 and is grooved in. _________

4. Pc has completed (very) Drug RD which is FLAT. No no interest
but reading items remain unrun. No medicine, drug or stimulant
left unrun. _________

5. Pc successful at Dianetic Engram running. Can run Dn easily. _________

6. Pc has had Word Clearing Method 1 run very flat to F/N list. _________

7. Pc has been Word Cleared Method 5 on the L-3ExDRB and R3R
words. _________

8. Pc has had any high or low TA handled with a C/S 53RI. _________

9. Pc is not in the Non-Interference area. _________

10. Pc has had any messed-up L & N and Why lists corrected. _________

11. Pc has not been left in the middle of a major action or RD to start
Ex Dn. _________

12. Pc is getting Ex Dn after Dn, after Exp Gr 4 or after OT3.
These are the only points Ex Dn is run on a case. _________


Only if you make sure each of these points is fully in will the pc fly on Ex Dn.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rd
Copyright ©1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JANUARY 1975

Remimeo Cancels HCO B 15 July 1971, Issue I,
Class IV C/S Series 28R, 32R, 33R, 36R—
HDCs “Quads Cancelled”
Ex Dn
Spclsts
QUADS REINSTATED


With the release of the Introspection RD and the Vital Info RD and recent HCO Bs such as the revised GF 40 Expanded it is vital that the original Quad Dianetics materials be made fully available to you.

am therefore re-issuing them as: C/S Series 28RA-1, “Use of Quadruple Dianetics”, 32RA-1, “Use of Quad Dianetics”, 33RA-1, “Triple and Quad ReRuns” and 36RB-1, “Quadruple Dianetics, Dangers of”.

These HCO Bs are fully valid and must be Word Cleared, starrated, done in clay and drilled by any HDC, Cl IV HDC or Ex Dn Specialist before they are permitted to audit Quad Dn.

QUAD RULES

There are two rules that must be observed in running Quad Dianetics:

ONCE A PC HAS BEEN QUAD HE IS QUAD THEREAFTER.

WHEN CATCHING UP UNRUN FLOW ZEROS ONLY RUN THOSE THAT READ.

Running unreading Flow 0s when putting in missing F0s, as in a Quad pc who was switched to Triples then was having his unrun F0s run, is the reason for overrun manifestations and BPC.

NEW PCs

New pcs may be started on Quad Dianetics and if so must remain Quad thereafter.

Old pcs run Triple, let them remain Triple unless you have to do the Introspection RD or some Quad RD. If so, put in the reading unrun F0s before attempting a new RD Quad.

There are probably quite a few pcs run on Quads from 1971 who have since been run Triple. These pcs should be called in and have their reading unrun F0s run.

Don’t now create a further backlog by mixing up process flows on current pcs.

DO IT RIGHT, TRIPLE OR QUAD.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1975
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MARCH 1971
REISSUED 13 JANUARY 1975
Remimeo
HGC Auditors
Dn & Scn
Checksheets C/S Series 28RA-1
C/Ses


USE OF QUADRUPLE DIANETICS



With the introduction of QUADRUPLE DIANETICS the problems of how to C/S it arise.

This rule is followed:

IN ALL BUT HCO B 24 July 69 DIANETIC ASSISTS WHERE IT CAN BE USED AT ONCE, THE FOURTH FLOW—O—MUST BE RUN ON ALL ITEMS FORWARD FROM THE FIRST DIANETIC ITEM EVER RUN ON THE CASE IF THE PC IS QUAD AND THE FLOW O READS.

Where a case has already had Flows 2 and 3 run on Singles, one goes back and runs Flow 0 on those items if it reads.

Where a case has only been run on Single Flow Dianetics (Flow 1) one goes back to the first Dianetic Item ever run of which record can be found and does F 2, F 3, F 0 in that order checking the command for read before running it, and then verifying the F 1.

To C/S a case for Quad Dianetics it is best to first lay out a Scientology repair, making sure the case is flying, then list out the items already run on Single and Triple. Then get them run so that all four flows are complete on each item in sequence from first to last.

This includes any LX items, former practice, drugs or any other engram running. These, like Dianetic items, are listed in their correct sequence of former running.

Then the missing flows are run if they read.

A rehab step of the flows already run is not necessary. This rehab of a flow already run to EP is usually used only when there is question about its having gone to F/N Cog VGIs.

In C/Sing for Quadruple one COMPLETES any flow of an item found that did not F/N. This is indicated on the item list.


DOING THE LIST

The item list is done by the Auditor in his admin time for well done time credits.

All former Dianetic items ever run are listed and what flows have been run on them and to what end phenomena.

Example:
Engram List

3 Sept 69 Sadness (exact wording that was used) F 1
4 Sept 69 A Bored Feeling F 1 Bogged
6 Sept 69 An Apathetic Outlook F 1 Bogged
6 Nov 69 LX Agonized F 1 F 2 F 3
7 Nov 69 Former Therapy F 1 F 2 F 3
F 2 Bogged
9 Nov 69 Earlier Practices F 1 Bogged

10 Nov 69 A Horrible Sadness F 1 Bogged
5 July 70 Int RD F 1 F 2 F 3
F 3 Bogged
6 July 71 An Awful Pressure F 1 Bogged

Such a list is then handled from the earliest forward by:

(a) Completing the bogged flow and

(b) Completing the missing flow, if it reads.


INT-EXT RD

This is handled in its proper sequence on the list if the TA is not high or very low.

If the TA on the pc is currently high, Int is handled before any other action is done and all four flows are run on it with the understanding that a pc run Triple on Int must have the Flow 0 checked for read before running it.

A drug chain also makes a high TA if in existence or unflat.


AUDITOR CHECKOUT

BEFORE RUNNING ANY DIANETICS QUADRUPLE EVER Y AUDITOR HDC, VI, VII, VIII AND C/Ses MUST BE CHECKED OUT THOROUGHLY ON THE QUAD DIANETICS CHECKLIST:

BTB 6 May 69R “Routine 3 R Revised’’ Issue II
HCO B 4 Jan 71 “Exteriorization and High TA”
HCO B 23 Jan 71 “Exteriorization”
BTB 1 Dec 70R ‘ “Dianetics Triple Flow Action”
BTB 20 May 70 ‘ ‘TR 103, 104 Rundown”
HCO B 7 Mar 71 “Use of Quadruple Dianetics”
Reissued 13.1.75 C/S Series 28RA-1
HCO B 4 Apr 71 “Use of Quad Dianetics”
Reissued 13.1. 75 C/S Series 32RA- 1
HCO B 5 Apr 71 “Triple and Quad ReRuns”
Reissued 13.1. 75 C/S Series 33RA- 1
HCO B 21 Apr 71 “Quadruple Dianetics—Dangers Of”
Reissued 13.1. 75 C/S Series 36RB- 1

Any other HCO B of subsequent issue on this subject.

THERE IS A PACK ON THIS SUBJECT AVAILABLE FROM FLAG.


FLUBS

If any Auditor has a poor record of getting Dianetics Results, of bogged flows, etc, he needs an HDC Retread. His drills and TRs are out or he is committing Gross Auditing Errors.

Dianetics gives remarkable results only when flawlessly done.

The commands must be precisely given and all commands 1-9 A-D are used. It is NEVER shorted “because the pc did it”.

THUS ANY HDC TO AUDIT QUAD DIANETICS MUST:

(A) HAVE A RECORD OF GOOD FLUBLESS DIANETIC AUDITING or

(B) MUST HAVE A RETREAD UNDER A COMPETENT SUPERVISOR and

(C) MUST BE STARRATED (for true, not just checked) ON THE ABOVE CHECKSHEET OR THE FULL QUAD PACK.


C/Sing

Quad Dianetics, with the above, otherwise C/Ses the same as general DIANETICS.

It should be realized Dianetics is its own field of C/Sing. This remains the same in Quad Dianetics.

PROMOTION

Quad Dianetics should be promoted only when you have Dianetic Auditors, the Auditors checked out and okayed to audit as above and when you CAN DELIVER.

IVs or VIs should be available to do the Progress Pgms and steps.


UPPER LEVELS

When the IVs VIs VIIs VIIIs or IXs are checked out as above, they should use Quad Dianetics to handle any and all Engram steps called for in general auditing.

That they are upper level Auditors does not make it less necessary to do the above.


RESULTS

Quad Dianetics, including the rerun actions, produces some very startling new gains.

Well done Dianetics always has produced fine results.

Quad Dianetics almost doubles the gain.


REMEDIES

Any and all Dianetic Remedies and general technology remain in full use. They are not changed at all. Only the zero flow is added in each case.

Good Luck.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:ntjh
Copyright ©1971, 1975
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 APRIL 1971-1R
ADDITION OF 13 JANUARY 1975
REVISED 22 FEBRUARY 1975
Remimeo
(Cancels HCO B 4 Apr 71, Reissued 13 Jan 75, same title.
Does NOT cancel HCO B 4 Apr 71RA, Rev. 24 Mar 74,
C/S Series 32RA, which is still valid.)

(Changes in this type style)


C/S Series 32RA-1R


USE OF QUAD DIANETICS


With the introduction of Quadruple Dianetics it is mandatory important urgent that one does not audit four flow items until one has brought all earlier Dianetic items into four flows.

TRIPLE

This also applies to Triple Dianetics. On a case where only Flow One (Single) has been run, you don’t suddenly run a Triple (F1, F2, F3) such as on the LX Class VIII Lists until one has run the earliest Dn item ever run (or that can be found) on Dn Triple and then on forward on Triple up to the LX.


QUAD

However, one would now not bother to run only Triples forward. He would locate the earliest Single or Triple (if no Single Flow) item and run it Quadruple by now running the missing flows. In the case of a pc run Triple, Flow 0 is checked for read before running it.

INT RD

In doing an INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN one mustn’t suddenly introduce the 4th flow (F Zero).

If the case has only had Triples in Dianetics one mustn’t suddenly introduce a Flow Zero on INT. The case should be done on Triple Flow INT.

THEN all earlier Dn items in sequence run are:

(a) Listed from W/S or Folder Summaries.

(b) Brought up to current by running in all the missing flows of Quad.

(c) The INT RD fourth flow is audited in when one gets to it IF IT READS.


REASON

Auditing additional flows while earlier items remain Single or Triple restimulates the missing flows and stacks them up as mass. They can make a pc uncomfortable until run.

All the missing flows (that were not run) are still potential mass.

This mass restimulates like something too late on the chain when a flow not run on earlier items is run on later items.

Auditing itself is a sort of time track. The earliest session blows the later sessions.


FULL FLOW TABLE

Before running Quad Dianetics one makes a table of earlier items run. Like this:


FULL FLOW TABLE

Flow
Date Item Previously Run Must Run

2.3.62 Guf Shoulder F1 F2, 3, 0
3.3.67 Gow in Foot F1 F2, 3, 0
30.4.67 Chow in Chump F1 F2, 3, 0
29.9.68 LX Anger F1, 2, 3 F0
LX Peeved F1, 2, 3 F0
4.10.69 Feeling Numb F1, 2, 3 F0
5. 9.70 Int RD F1, 2, 3 F0
9.10.70 Feeling of Goof F1, 2, 3 F0
10.10.71 Dn Assist on Head F1 F2, 3, 0


FLOWS

F1 is FLOW ONE, something happening to self.

F2 is FLOW TWO, doing something to another.

F3 is FLOW THREE, others doing things to others.

F0 is FLOW ZERO, self doing something to self.


R3R COMMANDS

Standard R3R Commands are used on Quad Dianetics.

They are the subject of another HCO B.

The Zero Command however is very easy being “Locate an incident of (loss or emotion) (pain and unconsciousness) when you caused yourself to have a(an) (item)” with the other commands of R3R as usual.


NARRATIVE

The question will come up, do we Triple or Quad Narrative items or Multiple somatic items.

The test is, did the flows already run F/N when they were originally run. If they did, include them. If they didn’t run exclude them.

This does not mean you omit everything that didn’t run.

REPAIR

While auditing this FULL FLOW DIANETICS you will find various chains that did not F/N when originally run.

These are included and should be concluded to F/N. This means one has to find out if they by-passed the F/N, went too early, jumped the chain, etc. Usually an L3RD assessed on that faulty action will give the answer. It is easy to make these old flubbed chains F/N unless you work at it too hard. Usually the reason they didn’t is visible on the old worksheet. The auditor forgot to ask for Earlier Beginning or by-passed the F/N or jumped the chain or tried to run it twice forgetting he’d run it before. Corny errors.


RESULT

The result of doing a FULL FLOW DIANETIC ACTION on a case is quite spectacular. The shadowy remains of somatics blow, mass blows and the pc comes up shining.

OFFERING FFD

Offering the public Full Flow Dianetics must include the cost of FESing, FF table making, and C/S work since it is sometimes lengthy. The auditing can be remarkably brief. The greatest amount of time is usually spent on the C/Sing and the table making.

FFD is offered to the public in intensives as per HCO B 31 May 1971R, C/S Series 39R, “Standard 12 1/2 Hour Intensive Programs”. Admin time spent on C/Sing, FESing and FF table making should be deducted from the Intensive Hours purchased by the pc. This must be made known to the public when purchasing the service.

When offering FFD it should be called Quadruple Dianetics—4 times more powerful than previous auditing.

A C/S must liaise with the Dissem Sec and Treasury Sec on selling it or he’ll find the org is losing money doing the C/Sing and tables.


OT WARNING

When doing Quadruple Dianetics on Clears and OTs (and a very few others) it may be found that many chains are now missing or are just copies of the original. Don’t be disturbed. Pc says they’re gone now they’re gone. Just F/N the fact and carry on with the next flow or item.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt .rd
Copyright © 1971, 1975
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1971
Remimeo REISSUED 13 JANUARY 1975
All Auditors
C/Ses
Class VIII
C/S Series 33RA-1


TRIPLE AND QUAD RERUNS



LAW: WHEN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOUR FLOWS OF AN ITEM OR GRADE ARE LEFT UNRUN, WHEN USED IN LATER PROCESSES THE EARLIER UNRUN ONES RESTIMULATE AND MAKE MASS.

This tells you that high TAs, heavy pressures and even illness can come from by-passed flows.


BY-PASSED FLOWS

Example: Dianetic Singles have been run on 7 items. Now the Auditor begins to run new items Triple without running Triple on the already run items. The result will be 7 unrun Flow 2s and 7 unrun Flow 3s. These will restimulate and form mass and by-passed charge.

Example: Now let us say all 7 previous items have been run Triple. And the Auditor now runs a new item Quadruple. This leaves 7 unrun Zero chains. These can restimulate and form mass and by-passed charge.

Example: Now let us say that Dianetics was all run Single and Grades were run Triple. This will restimulate the Dn chains F2 and F3.

Example: Let us say that Dianetics and Scientology Grades were all run Triple. An Interiorization Rundown is now run Quad. This will throw all Dianetic and Scientology unrun Flow Zeros into restimulation and give by-passed charge.

ANY LATER GRADE RUN WITH MORE FLOWS THAN USED IN EARLIER ACTIONS CAN THROW THE EARLIER UNFLAT FLOWS INTO RESTIM, PILE UP MASS GIVING HIGH TA AND BPC GIVING ARC BREAKS.

REPAIR

The more the condition is repaired by L1C, L4BR, etc, etc, the worse the Mass gets.

SOURCE OF HIGH TA

Thus High TAs have three principal sources:

1. Overruns

2. Auditing Past Exterior

3. Earlier Unrun Flows restimulated by those flows used in later actions.

There are other minor ones such as Drug Background, illness, etc, as per Hi-Lo TA Assessment.


REHABS

One must NOT recklessly or continuously rehab a past major action. This causes overrun. The thetan is placed at the end of the incidents not yet in restimulation or run and the bank gets more solid.


MASSY THETANS


The whole trick of this universe is contained in thetans copying or picturing incidents and then getting stuck in the later portion of them.

“Incidents” is the keynote. A thetan is incident hungry.

This is what traps him.

For some reason he has to be at the earliest end of incidents to erase them. The later he is in incidents and the later he is on the track the more solid he is.

This also applies to the “auditing time track”.

By omitting things like flows on the auditing time track, the thetan thus becomes massy.

The whole theory of the Interiorization Remedy is based on having gone out (later) after he went in (earlier). So Exteriorizing can stick him. (People buy the Int RD to Exteriorize but the remedy is only done to permit further auditing. They Ext of course when the bank is handled.)

When flows of items are by-passed and then later restimulated by auditing them, mass occurs.


GETTING IN ALL FLOWS

When doing additional flows on earlier items or processes one must also check or rehab those flows marked as run to F/N in worksheets.

This again will leave unflat flows and BPC unless it is done.

And if it is overdone it will raise the TA by overrun.

So if one had a case that had Single Dianetics and was later run on Triple for new items (but the Singles not done into Triple) one would have to RUN FIRST the missing unrun flow or flows if they read and then check the first Single Fl for flatness, then check other previously run flows.

The rule is run the previously unrun one or ones first if they read to get charge off, then verify or run the ones listed as run already.

Then one would do the same for the next item. Run the previously unrun flow or flows if they read and then verify or run those listed as already run to be sure they F/N.

All items, in chronological sequence, and all processes, would have to be run Quad.

IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME NOW TO RUN IN ONLY TRIPLES.

Whether you have the Quad commands or not they are easy to figure out as you are only missing the Zero Flow, self to self.

So all C/Ses and auditing actions are “Rehab or Run Fl, F2, F3, F0 if they read” when getting in all flows on things run to date.

HIGH TA

When you are sure an Int RD has been done correctly and its 2wc went F/N and the TA later goes high, you check the Int RD. That is the most usual reason. This simple action is amazingly subject to flubs.

If the TA goes high later you can do a C/S Series 53 or a Hi-Lo TA Assessment and handle.

If the TA is still high or low, you had better check the state of flows. Were more flows run on later actions than were run on earlier actions?

If so, your pc has felt massy, sometimes even ill.

The right action is to get in all flows from the beginning. And do it Quad. Bring all his auditing up to Quad.

(If his folder is not available, he has kind of had it. I know of no way, at this writing, to recover lost Dn items but will have to work something out.)

NOT IN TROUBLE

If the pc is not in trouble, his best bet is to get on up the grades to Expanded OT III.


IN TROUBLE

If he is massy and is having trouble the best bet is to:

1. Be totally sure of his Int RD.

2. Check O/Rs particularly of a major grade twice or by-passed F/Ns, locate and indicate them.

3. FES, list the items and grades and do a Full Flow action from the beginning of his auditing, raising them all to Quadruple.


RUNNING ZERO FLOWS

The Zero Flow in Dianetics is a bit strange. It can be done by full R3R BUT it often depends on the decision the pc made and may F/N very suddenly. It is easily overrun and can be very fast.

A pc can be gotten into trouble on Zero Flows if the Auditor is slow and is not alert to his meter and misses the F/N and gives R3R commands after the flow has blown.


REHAB OR RUN

The Auditor getting in Zero Flows can also ARC Brk the pc by failing to verify if the previously run flows are flat. All the Auditor wants is to see them F/N on the command. If they don’t he runs them.

Sometimes when he has “run them” again he finds they are being overrun or run twice and has to rehab them by finding this out. The pc sometimes doesn’t know until he actually starts to run them. Then he finds they are already run. The clue to this is a climbing TA. If the TA goes up, get off that flow and rehab it.

Example: Pc at first thinks “Pain in shoulder” F2 was never run. Starts to run it. TA goes up. Auditor must pull him off of it by finding out if it is being run twice and rehab it to F/N.

The moral in all these reruns is don’t firefight, keep an L1C List and an L3RD List handy and use them.

RESULTS

The results of straightening up the Int-Ext RD, rehabbing O/Rs and putting in ALL FLOWS on a pc are fantastic.

Getting an All Flows Rundown done correctly gives one all the latent gain the pc
has been begging for.

So send to Cramming all C/Ses and Auditors who flub.

Program it right.

C/S it right.

Audit it right.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt jh
Copyright © 1971, 1975
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 APRIL 1971-1R
Remimeo
All Auditors ADDITION OF 13 JANUARY 1975
Class VIII REVISED 22 FEBRUARY 1975
Dn Chksht
Int-Ext Chksht (Cancels HCO B 21 Apr 71, Reissued 13 Jan 75, same title.
Does not cancel HCO B 21 Apr 71RB, Reissued 21 Sept 74,
C/S Series 36RB, which is still valid. )

C/S Series 36RB-1R

QUADRUPLE DIANETICS
DANGERS OF

(Applies also to Int-Ext Rundown)

(Ref HCO B 4 Apr 71-1R, Addition of 13 Jan 75, Revised 22 Feb 75,
C/S Series 32RA-1R, and HCO B 5 Apr 71, Reissued 13 Jan 75, C/S Series 33RA-1)


In observing Quad Dianetics in the hands of Scientology Auditors not specially briefed or who had additives and figure-figure on how to move a case already run on Singles and Triples into Full Flow,

INVARIABLY THEY OVERRAN.

This makes getting Quad Dianetics in on a case dangerous unless the Auditor has the hang of it.

The flagrant (and I do mean flagrant) errors found consisted of (a) not being able to run precise Standard Dianetics in the first place; (b) re-running already erased chains “to find if they were flat”; (c) Out TRs to a wild extent; (d) refusing utterly to accept pc’s data; (e) faulty metering; (f) complete ignorance of the Auditor’s Code, notably committing the crime of Invalidating the pc; (g) running unreading Flows when catching a pc up to Quad.

REQUIREMENTS

Anyone essaying to run Quad Dianetics MUST BE CRAMMED on his R3R, the use of L3RD, all data on Quad Dianetics (as per references above and including HCO B 27 Mar 71, “Dianetic Erasure”), his basic TRs, his metering and the Auditor’s Code, and this HCO B.

TRs

TR Zero exists so an Auditor is not ducking the session but can sit there relaxed, doing his job.

TR One must be done so the pc can hear and understand the Auditor (without blowing the pc’s head off either).

TR Two must be done so that the pc gets acknowledged. This can be so corrupted that the Auditor doesn’t ack at all but gives the pc meter reads! Instead of acks! Or keeps saying, “I didn’t understand you,” etc.

TR Three basically existed so that the Auditor would continue to give the pc commands and not squirrel off or pack up with total silence.

TR Four exists so that the pc’s origins are accepted and not Qed and Aed with or invalidated.

And, surprise, surprise, TRs are for use in the session itself, not just a drill. They are how one runs a session.

Metering can miss every F/N or give “F/Ns” with high or low TA. And one never feeds meter data to the pc: “That read,” “That didn’t read,” “That blew down,” just must not exist in session patter. “Thank you. That F/Ned,” is as far as an Auditor goes. And that’s the end of the cycle and says so.

Floating needles can be overlooked by an Auditor. In Quad Dianetics this fault is fatal.

Auditor’s Code must be in on all points and particularly Invalidation. Pc says, “That’s so and so.” An Auditor who says, “I’m sorry. You are wrong,” or any other invalidation is going to wreck a pc’s case. A full knowledge of the Auditor’s Code and actually applying it saves endless troubles. It is an auditing TOOL, not just a nice idea.


REHABBING CHAINS

One rehabs a Dianetic Chain that, according to a previous worksheet, erased by saying, “According to session records (flow direction) (item) erased.” That’s all. One does not say, “Did the chain giving others a headache erase?” One does not run it again to find out. One does not run a single command “to see if it F/Ns again”. One can say, “Do you agree that the chain giving another a headache erased?” But the more you ask a pc to look for an erased chain the more messed up things will get. It isn’t there. But the Auditor by his action can imply it should be there or might be there. A totally wrong approach would be, “Look around your bank and see if what isn’t there anymore isn’t there.”

Dianetics is NOT Scientology. A Dianetic Chain is not a release. If you try to use Scientology rehab tech on a Dianetic Chain, you have had it. It isn’t a “release” (which is a key-out). A Dianetic Chain is an erasure. You can’t rehab erasures with “How many times?”, etc.

The test of this is the doing. If you try to use Scn rehab on Dianetic Chains, the PC MIGHT TRY TO FIND SOMETHING. This causes him to key in other unrun or similar items.

It is a dangerous action at best to try to handle old erased chains. The best you can do is to tell the pc what the old W/S said. If no W/S exists leave the already erased flows alone!

FLUBBED CHAINS

Many times, a Folder Error Summary will give a flubbed chain and then fail to note it was repaired in the next session!

A C/S and Auditor would have been pretty irresponsible to just go on auditing past flubbed chains.

The only safe way to handle some previous flubbed chain is to:

(a) Verify in the folder if it was repaired.

(b) If still unrepaired assess L3RD on it and handle according to the L3RD.


L3 RD

Using the new L3RD (HCO B 11 Apr 71 RA) is a Dianetic action.


A Scientology Auditor erroneously can try to use it as a 2-way comm type of list. If a chain needed one more ABCD, then 2-way comm on it with no ABCD is not going to complete it.

L3RD has its own directions. Questions not marked with directions are used to indicate the fact. This can amount to 2-way comm as the pc chews it over. But L3RD where marked is handled by Dianetics actions. Look over the list and its directions for each question and you will see that some are given directions that are NOT 2wc.

Example: “Earlier beginning” reads. You can’t just say, “The incident had an earlier beginning,” and you can’t say, “Tell me about the earlier beginning.” The pc will go up the wall. There’ll be no F/N. You have to use R3R and get him to the earlier beginning and then run it and if it still doesn’t erase, get him to an Earlier Similar and erase that.

L3RD is a Dianetics List. It is not a Scientology List that is cleared each question to F/N by 2-way comm.

OVERRUN

Overruns are demonstrated by a rising TA.

If as you seek to get in Full Flow Dianetics the pc’s TA begins to average higher, overrun is occurring.

Example: While doing FFD pc’s TA has been riding at 2.2 and F/Ns. After a new FFD action it begins to ride at 2.5 and F/Ns. Something is being overrun. Find it and indicate it. And cease to stir the bank up so much! The fault is going over items already run.

Already flat zero flows are not uncommon. The zero flattened on the original Triple. Thus getting in that zero flow again is an overrun.

In doing a Full Flow Table you often find that the same or similar have been run in the past. Sometimes you find that a previous attempt to run the item a second or third time has resulted in an ARC Break, the reason for which was never detected.

The right action is to note the session date it was first run and just tell the pc, “Feeling Surprised was run three times. On (first date it was erased) it was erased. When later run it was an overrun.” This tends to blow the later charge laid in by trying to run the same item again.

It sounds so strange that erased chains can be overrun. But it is true. What happens is that pcs try to cooperate and put something there.


FIREFIGHTS

The action of a quarrel between an Auditor and a pc is called a firefight.

Restimulating earlier unrun engrams or overrunning chains upsets a pc. The best action, as soon as a pc is disturbed, is to do an L3RD fast and handle what reads the way it should be handled according to the L3RD.

The wrong way is to argue or try to go on.

The pc does NOT know what it is. He just feels awful. He tries to guess. He will ARC Brk or get sad if the Auditor continues.

The correct action is an L3RD.

L1C is not of great use in a Dianetic ARC Brk. L3RD is.

If the pc remains ARC Broken, try L3RD again Method 5.

A Scientology session would be handled with some other list (L1C, L4B, etc). A Dianetic session, including and especially FFD, is handled with L3RD.

You NEVER prepcheck while doing Dianetics. This mushes up the engrams.


INTERIORIZATION

ALL these cautions apply as well to an Interiorization-Exteriorization Rundown, when restim occurs one uses an L3RD quickly.

Int-Ext RD is essentially a Dianetic, not a Scientology action.


SAFE ACTIONS

A fully genned in Auditor, well crammed, well drilled, well skilled, can be trusted with Dianetics, Dianetic Quads and an Int-Ext RD. Auditors not so handled can get pcs into serious trouble with these things.

A safe course is to use Quad only on new never audited before pcs. Those begun on Triples, use then only Triple flows.

Another safe way is to use FFD only on OT IIIs or OT IVs and done only by fully qualified FFD Auditors who are also OT III.

The safest course is to require special drilling and cramming on Auditors who are already known for their results by actual success story stats and call FFD and Int-Ext RD a skilled specialty.


C/S RESPONSIBILITY

Any trouble a C/S is running into comes from the factors of TRs, metering, Code and incomplete or false Auditor’s reports.

If when I am C/Sing I ever find an Auditor has omitted key session actions or has falsified a report, I order that Auditor not to Cramming but a full retrain HDC right on up.

A C/S does not see these points. He can get the pc asked what the Auditor is doing or did. He can get sessions monitored. This helps him fill this gap in his data.

It’s what isn’t in the Auditor’s report that is often the trouble. Auditors omit what they said, omit the firefight, omit session alter-is in their worksheets.

All this sticks the C/S’s neck out for the axe of failure.

So particularly in FFD, Int-Ext and other such actions, a C/S has to act to obtain confidence in the Auditor’s TRs, Metering, Code Use and accurate Worksheets.


RISK

In FFD, Int-Ext RD and Power, experience has proven that if the Auditor is not top grade, if the C/S is not alert, we put a pc at risk.

The USUAL is what keeps the pc safe.


A thorough study of his case, looking for obvious bugs (such as Int-Ext RD done twice, the case a druggie but Drug engrams never run, Int done but its 2wc flubbed, FFD grossly overrun, to name a few serious ones), sending Auditors to Cramming for the slightest flub, insisting on standard TRs USED IN SESSION, good metering, use of the Code, accurate and complete worksheets, use of standard tech, all guarantee the safety and progress of the pc.


INTRODUCING FFD

FFD (like the Int-Ext RD) requires flawless C/Sing and auditing or the case goes wrong.

When these actions were introduced they showed up any flaws in case studying, TRs, Metering, Code and Worksheets.

There are two ways to handle. (a) Cancel FFD and Int-Ext as actions. Obviously that is going backwards and is impossible. (b) Begin and continue a serious, effective campaign in the org to (1) Train Auditors better, (2) Cram expertly on every flub, (3) Raise quality of TRs and metering.

As you can see, my approach is to improve quality of training, cramming and delivery.

Please help me out in getting this in.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:nt.rd
Copyright © 1971, 1975
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 JANUARY 1975

Remimeo
Dn & Ex Dn C/Ses
IV and VI C/Ses
Class VIII C/S
PAST LIFE REMEDIE


There are many remedies and considerable tech developed over the years on the subject of pcs unable to go earlier than this life. There was no full coverage bulletin which gave the full story on this.

The earliest was getting the pc to locate and run imaginary incidents. This is fully covered in Science of Survival, especially Book Two, Chapter Nine, “Imaginary Incidents”. The auditor clears the idea of imaginary incidents and running them, then persuades the pc to run them without forcing him.

Delusion tends to run off but the real incidents move into view as well. These imaginary incidents can be run R3R narrative or done as part of R3R procedure and running usual items and somatics. It can be incorporated into the AESPs run on the Past Life Remedy as part of the action of grooving in the pc.

One of the early Dianetic Remedies was simply “What Attitudes would make one unwilling to go Earlier than this life?” R3R Triple exhaust the list then do Emotions Sensations and Pains separately.

Where the pc is afraid of going earlier or seeing the pictures, AESPs that would make you not want to look at earlier lives can be listed separately and run.

Often the pc won’t go backtrack because he’s a druggie.

What has happened here is that he restimulated past lives with drugs, got into frightening pictures that he didn’t understand and now backs off from ANY bank content except drugs. That is handled with a full Drug R/D, including a full battery of Objectives and all reading items run including “no interest” items. The standard approach on any pc is to get a full Drug R/D done first.

Another reason could be the pc is in recent shock of having died. Such a case is overburdened and is destimulated with general auditing and then gets a Past Life Remedy if he hasn’t gone backtrack. You could even do a Prior Assessment to this life.

The subject of invalidation of past lives and people talking about them out of session or claiming to be famous people invalidates past lives for a pc and is actually related to suppression and PTS phenomena. If you suspect this you could ask “Has anyone been talking to you about past lives or famous people?” From this question possible suppression in the environment can be located and used in a PTS R/D, HCO B 9 Dec 71R, Revised 21 Oct 74.

CHILDREN

Children are usually very burdened cases and can be hard to C/S on Dianetics as it hits this life only which will leave the pc wide open to key-in and at the age of 20 be found all keyed in “with all grades run”.

I find they are jammed into fiction stories, education, books and movies and run these like Engrams. These children speak of “remembering” all the time. They say they can’t go backtrack “because they don’t remember”. They don’t seem to take it from pictures. Contrary to psychology theories and popular belief I find children in very
rough case shape, nervous, frightened, griefy, etc. They get stuck in the books and movies they see.

I have handled this in various ways. The easiest way to unburden cases is by Objectives (contact processes) and Recall (ARC S/W, Self Analysis). That is a general approach. You can list for mental image pictures pc has seen in life in movies or books then get the AESPs of the best reading one and R3R triple or quad. Unwanted feelings, attitudes, emotions, sensations and pains as a child can also be listed and run to unburden the case.

A direct approach is to ask “What book or movie were you particularly interested in?” You’ll usually find that the person had a stuck picture on it. Then ask “Did you ever have anything to do with that sort of thing?” Then they go into it because you’re asking for an E/S. You could then run out the earlier incident R3R triple or quad and you’d be away.

Where the pc is stuck in upsetting incidents from movies or books you can list for “Bad incidents you’ve seen or read about”, take the best reading one and R3R its reading AESPs. Be sure to accept stories, TV, movies or books as these are fully valid to run.

REVIEW

A Scientology Review action that can be done is to assess Auditors Auditing Past Lives Dianetics Scientology Time Preclears and Erasure. Then prepcheck in order of reads, reassess and prepcheck. This is a valuable action to do before ARC S/W triple and often by itself will handle those unable to go past track.

A further Scientology approach would be to assess the Past, Memory Pictures, Past Lives and prepcheck in order of reads. Then L & N “Who or what would have no future?” then L & N “Who or what would it have been awful to have been?” These items can be checked and used in a PTS R/D or can have their intentions listed and run as part of Ex Dn handling.

SUMMARY

The technology on past lives is important for a C/S to know, especially the Dianetics C/S.

The subject usually resolves with a Drug R/D and general auditing but when it doesn’t you have these remedies to use.

Use them well.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:rs.rd
Copyright © 1975
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HYMN OF ASIA

An Eastern Poem

by
L. Ron Hubbard


Published
January 1975


“Man has long dreamed of solving the riddle of his own existence and achieving personal freedom. This has been the great hope of Man through the millennia of his histories—both East and West.

“Now at last, in the 1046 lines of the poem Hymn of Asia, is the statement that this hope has been achieved—You can be free.

“This moving hymn was written for a Buddhist Convention in about 1955 or ‘56, coincident with the celebrations in the Buddhist world of the 2,500th year of the Buddhist era. Later typed copies of this magnificent work, many in altered versions, were widely circulated from hand to hand in various countries of the world. The public demand for its publication grew enormous.

“Then in late 1973 its author directed its publication and subsequently personally supervised the collaboration of a talented artist, designer and calligrapher in the final preparation of the book. Here we have a beautiful edition which presents the fully correct original text of the poem, one surely destined to become a major document of Man’s spiritual history.

“Hymn of Asia concerns the fulfillment of a prophecy made 2,500 years ago by Siddhartha Gautama, better known as Buddha, the founder of the religion known in the West as Buddhism.”
(—Introduction to Hymn of Asia)

Available from your nearest Scientology Advanced Organization, or direct from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JANUARY 1975
Remimeo
Class VIIIs
Class VIII
THE PURPOSE OF CLASS VIII



The purpose of the Class VIII Course is to train an Auditor up to be able to deliver 100% Standard Tech and turn him into a zealot in pushing in Standard Tech in the field.

This has been the purpose of Class VIII since its inception.

Its materials are fully valid. The original checksheet has been restored. It is a tough and demanding course. It is not Fast Flow but 3 times through with starrates and exams.

THE ORIGINAL CLASS VIII COURSE HAS RETURNED.

Training of Auditors as Class VIIIs to forward Standard Tech is absolutely vital today. It is not “old” or “background”. Its materials cannot be found on any other course. They are only available on the Class VIII Course.

A real Class VIII Auditor cannot be compared with a Class IV or VI. A Class VIII is a flawless, flubless, smooth as silk specialist in Standard Tech. He can handle any case with ease. He is a dedicated advocate for Standard Tech. He pushes in Standard Tech in his area and sets an example by his own flawless performance.


STANDARD TECH

The way a Class VIII gets in Standard Tech is by encouraging lower classed Auditors to use the materials of Standard Tech and apply them.

A Class VIII must beware of invalidating lower classed Auditors and make sure he doesn’t fall into that trap. Invalidation never works and is in fact destructive. Under invalidation an Auditor will cease to audit well, will goof and back off from auditing entirely.

To get in Standard Tech, always encourage lower level Auditors to apply standard materials, tapes, HCO Bs and books. Help them to do so. Direct them to the references. See they get crammed, not invalidated. After all, they are willing to help, or they wouldn’t be Auditors.

SUMMARY

Class VIII is the standard by which other auditing is judged. Class VIII gives the certainty and precision of 100% Standard Tech. Class VIIIs get in Standard Tech by encouraging lower level Auditors to apply standard materials, never by invalidation.

Every Auditor should one day make it to Class VIII. No org can afford to be without at least one Class VIII. These are the Custodians of Standard Tech.


LRH: RS:nt jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1975 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 FEBRUARY 1975

Remimeo
Tech Hats
Qual Hats (Cancels: HCO B 25 Feb 72
BTB 25 Feb 72
HCO B 25 Feb 72 Canc. 26 Jan 75)




L10 PREREQUISITES



L10 is not restricted to only those who have completed OT III.

The only prerequisites to L10 are a completed Drug RD and Expanded Grades. It may not be done between R6EW and OT III, however.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt jh
Copyright © 1975
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 NOVEMBER 1957RA
REVISED 10 MAY 1974
REVISED 22 FEBRUARY 1975
Remimeo

AN OBJECTIVE RUNDOWN


(Note: The original issue from which this HCO B was taken was not titled “Objectives” but “Intensive Processes for Use in Operation Clear and Operation Staff Clear”. The original was unsigned. It was a Confidential staff only issue. When converted to an HCO B, the title was changed erroneously to “Objectives”. A corrected list of Objectives is therefore published below. Additionally, the original issue omitted two or three key objective processes and put recall [subjective] processes in their place, thus messing up ARC Straight Wire.)

OBJECTIVE: (Dictionary Definition) “Of or having to do with a material object as distinguished from a mental concept, idea or belief.” Means here and now objects in PT. As opposed to “Subjective”.

SUBJECTIVE: (Dictionary Definition 2nd meaning) “Proceeding from or taking place in an individual’s mind.”

Look around or physical contact processes are obviously “Objective”. Recall, think, remember or return on the time track processes are obviously “Subjective”.

Pcs who have been on drugs obviously have to be run on Objective, not Subjective, processes.

Anyone can be brought more into present time with Objective processes.

Objectives are vital in assists and other areas of processing.

Here is a list of workable Objective processes:

0. “Look at me who am I?”

1. CCH 0

2. CCH 1

3. CCH 2

4. CCH 3

5. CCH 4

6. CCH 1 to 4 repeat as indicated.

7. Locational (“Look at that object”) can be used as indicated, to end sessions or even to bridge from one process to another.

8. The following three must be run 1 command each consecutively over and over:

(a) “Look around here and find something really real to you.”

(b) “Look around here and find something you could go into communication with.”

(c) “Look around here and find something you would really like.”

9. The following three are run several times for the 1st, fewer for the 2nd, fewer for the 3rd. And then repeated (Trio).

(a) “Look around here and tell me what you could have.”

(b) “Look around here and tell me what you would permit to remain in place.”

(c) “Look around here and tell me with what you could dispense.”

10. Op Pro by Dup to Exterior.

(If pc exteriorizes a Dn C/S 1 and an Interiorization RD [flawless] should follow.)

The first 10 steps above could be called an Objective Rundown.

Note that this does not include many other Objective processes, man