6503C30 SHSpec-56 ARC Breaks and Generalities

The problem of getting materials out has to do with LRH's pen fingers and
the short (only 24 hour) day. Nevertheless, expansion is going rapidly. What
is interesting is the number of false data that you can get, that create a
false impression. For instance, you can get the datum that "they say", when
only one guy said it. We were thrown a curve last year. It was reported to
LRH from at least two sources that the gradation program was unpopular. In
fact, the gradation program alone was responsible for last year's
organizational upsurge. LRH let the gradation program wobble and modified it,
whereupon a decline set in. Most people think that it was the price shift at
the start of the year that caused the decline. But the decline was coincident with LRH leaving for vacation. When investigated, it was found that registrars were using the confusion caused by the price shift to deny service. They sold a lot of auditing, saying, "The price will be prohibitive in thirty days," and everyone went into agreement with it. The registrars also confused the public about what they could get with what, in terms of memberships. Furthermore, there wasn't a price rise. The price dropped!

Unlike registrars in central orgs, LRH never talked about money. Someone
would come in to a central org thinking about auditing, and someone at the org
who had money problems himself gratuitously gave the would-be PC money
problems. LRH never talked about money, yet people force a discussion of
money on him. If processing works, the person who gets it is more able to
have money. Since registraring to get money was never something that LRH had
to do, he is considering removing interviews with the Reg as part of the Reg's
hat. It must have been something added on the line that suppressed the inflow
of money. It must have been the selling.

LRH used to explain every datum at least nine times in a lecture, before
study tech came out. That got around misunderstood words, because the
material was put in various ways. When telling students to do something, he
has found that they will do what he said, so he has to be sure that he tells
them what to do very very clearly. Instruction is basically trying to cover
all of it so thoroughly that there are no gaps and no room for question on how
to do it. An old process gets all the quirks and weird ways to do it ironed
out as it gets used.

People in the L.A. org got the odd idea that a Class VI auditor would
only audit Level VI material. No. Class VI auditors can run Level 0, only
they would use E-meters, assess for the exact thing to run, etc. An auditor
uses all the tools of the trade that he has mastered. If a Class VI auditor
were doing a touch assist on a burned area and he could see that the area was
not getting better fast, i.e., that there was no TA on the process, he would
know that the PC must have something connected with the injury, like a
withhold or an overt. Having the PC point to where it happened and where it
is now is having him contact the environment and letting the whole incident
come into view. Now the touch assist can go to work.

Never accept rumor as something on which to base any action or decision,
except to investigate. Use statistics, which are particularities. If you
don't have stats for each individual, you get chaos, because it is a
generality. An organization will cause ARC breaks amongst its staff, if you
can't get a statistic on everybody present, week in and week out. People will
protest an organization as a slave-driving system, in the absence of stats.
The stat has to be on each individual, or it is worthless. It must also be
compared with former stats. This is what it takes to keep some activity or
organization going for a long period of time. The Galactic Confederacy had a
pretty good org board. The org lasted eighty trillion years. Its only flaw
was not having any provision for change or improvement. It had two billion
staff members in the central org. LRH set himself the problem of making an
org board that could cover from one person to two billion.

When things aren't staticized, you get rumors, injustice, and
authoritarianism, because a generality is operating. Earth organizations
commonly attribute success wholly to the man at the top, when in fact he is only 60% or 70% responsible. General MacArthur didn't win the war, though he was a bright cookie. In Korea, he didn't win, because he wasn't a good politician. He disobeyed a condition formula. He was in emergency and didn't promote. Public opinion is made out of someone's hat.

The moral is, that when you try to explain a condition with generalities
that do not apply, you muck up the whole situation. That is how Russia will
take the U.S. They have better propaganda. They are promoting communism, and
who is promoting democracy? Wilson and Johnson are reorganizing economies in
a period of decline -- emergency -- when they should promote what they cam
eventually deliver, be prepared to deliver it, etc. They are advertising a
crisis. "If you don't want to be something, don't postulate it." If you yell,
"Crisis!", you will get a crisis. Apply the proper conditions formula. U.S.
business operates an though it is in a perpetual condition of emergency. It
uses heavy promotion, etc. American businesses never apply the condition for
normal when they get there. So they never get out of emergency.

In emergency, you handle with a sledge hammer.

In normal, you handle with kid gloves.

All this has to do with dealing with what is actually going on. But you
can never find out what is actually going on from having just a mass of
something. There is nothing to compare it with. You can only find out what
is happening with the individual bits of something, never with the masses.
You get in trouble when you generalize what should be particular.

In scientology, we do make general statements about men. We can only get
away with doing this because we have studied many individuals. When we say
about "men" is actually a description of a thetan.

There is another interesting fact about generalities. We used to know
fairly little about ARC breaks. Now we know that "an ARC break is a
generality that should be a particularity." It was a single, but it was
called a many. "Only an ARC break can worsen a graph," during processing,
which makes an ARC break more serious than a PTP: "If there's no graph
change, there's a PTP." There is nothing wrong with a generality per se, only
with one that should be a particularity. If you get a generality when asking
for an ARC break, get the PC to particularize it. You can fail to find the
BPC by taking a generality as the BPC, instead of going on to find out who
"they" is. You would still have to get the specific "who", and it may take
several of these steps to get it. E.g.:

Aud -- Is there an ARC break?

PC -- Yes. The instructors are mean to me.

Aud -- Who is "the instructors"?

PC -- Pete.

Aud -- There is BPC. Has he failed to answer you?, etc.

PC -- No. It is actually the students.

Aud -- Who is "the students"?

PC -- Agnes ... I'd forgotten completely! She said I was a lousy
auditor, yesterday!

"What is basically wrong with [the R6 Bank]? All the GPM's are generalities!"
That is why people ARC break so hard on R6. The above datum concerning
generalities also solves loss. The loss of something produces a generality of
where it could be. When you lose something, it could be anywhere, which makes
it a generality. This is a lie, so the person ARC breaks. "One of the ways
to cure yourself of a [loss] is [to] remember that [the thing that was lost]
can only be in one place, not in thousands of places.

"It's an 'everywhere' that should be a particularity." [It gives the
individual an unflat listing question about "where?"]

"The test of 'What was the BPC?' is: 'When it is located, does the PC
cheer up?'" If you have to locate it more, you haven't found the BPC.