6105C12 SHSpec-2 Assessment

"You, in trying to equate a relatively simple fundamental in scientology,
are of course picking up a fundamental which sits right in the middle of
anyone's case. And you tend to blow off a little confusion in trying to get
ahold of it. It would be easy to teach you to run a Diesel engine, but the
data we're teaching goes straight into the middle of a reactive computation.
SOP Goals does this exact thing, exactly reversing how the mind got
aberrated." The most hidden factors of a mind were the things that aberrated a
mind, because no one's ever freed a mind before, so they must have been the
most concealed or they would have as-ised. SOP goals undoes all the things
that plowed someone in; it consists of all the solutions a person adopted to
fix all the oddball circumstances he got into, ever, that no longer apply.
Who wouldn't want to have the kind of mind that could be happy doing something
simple? Basically, what you're afraid of is getting bored. This happens
because what you are doing is somehow inadequate to the demands of the
environment. If one's simple game gets invalidated, one looks for a more
complicated one. This could only happen if one had invalidated someone else
already. To get kicked in the butt, you must have kicked someone in the butt
and postulated that it's bad to get kicked in the butt.

If the way to do a perfect assessment were put on paper, there's a high
probability that it wouldn't be followed, because we're dealing with the basic
stuff of which the reactive mind is composed. And on this subject more than
any other, you'll find more confusion, more silly questions. The datum
restimulates the whole confounded bank. What happens is that the guy does
something which eventually recoils on him in a way which gives him a new
problem. He gets his motivator and gets a new beingness to have a new game.
But he's now not being himself, he's being a solution to the problem of
livingness. The solution eventually ends him up with a new problem which he
solves with some new beingness, some new game. Every time he gets overwhelmed
in some game, he shifts beingness to the new game which solves the old one.
If you clear someone without clearing up his be/do/have condition, he'll
realize he has no game and he'll recreate his old condition or be bored or
worried. He'll go unclear. He thinks it's less dangerous to be aberrated
than to have no game. If you clear (erase) his games conditions, across the
boards, he'll do this.

The essence of all games is beingness and doingness towards havingness.
The problem is that they get jammed into a can't have / must have situation.
In a games condition, the person "has to be something, but he can't be it.
There is something wrong with being what he is being, so he can't be it, and he dare not be it, and yet he must be it, and this emerges when you are auditing SOP Goals. A game or goal is abandoned because it was invalidated too many times. A guy goes into a new game and valence and ends up not being himself. In assessment, you are backtracking these valences, expressed as goals. Since by this time, the PC's comm with the world is very poor, you have to handle what's real to the PC, so that's what you handle. What's odd is that there's only one valence that's real to the PC at one time. In life, as the valence goes up, the PC comes down. This ends up with a serene valence and the PC out the bottom. So the individual goes around acting psychotic in a serene valence. This is the theetie weetie case. As you audit the person, the valence comes down and the PC starts taking over handling the game and the environment on his own determinism. As the PC gets out of fixed games, he can look around and find
he's got more games. If he's got more games, he'll go more clear; if less,
he'll go unclear. The act of finishing off clearing (doing more and more SOP
Goals) is what stabilizes the clear. Having to play the game is what prevents
one from playing the game; one can play the game as long as one doesn't have
to.

[Details on running of SOP Goals]

Any goal which is to put up a mockup is liable to be a false one and is a
dangerous one to audit. It is perishable, because the result of failure is to
create a mockup, so that you get into an arts goal. Always be suspicious of
an arts goal, because there's always the thing you can do when all else fails,
and that's usually the arts. When actual masses don't work to overwhelm the
opposition, they turn to aesthetic masses, which are closer to the thought
band. If you go just a little further with assessment, the case will likely
get into a better goals channel. You can ask, "What did you want to do before
you went into the arts?" This also applies to professions in the thought band,
like philosophy and law. A featherweight goal denotes a hell of a failure
just ahead of it.