6211C13 SHSpec-211 Entrance to Cases

[LRH starts by referring to a recent bulletin: HCOB 11Nov62 "3GAXX --
Straightening Up 3GAXX Cases".]

The subject of entrance to cases is becoming broad and encyclopedic.
There is a new routine: R3-21. [See also p. 356, below.] The original 3GA was
highly workable, but insufficiently delineated, Routine 3-21 is 3GA plus all
the improvements, like tiger drilling. It would probably work on any case
that was well-prepared, but we can't count on a case being well-prepared.
Preparation would be done with CCH's and prepchecks. There have been frailties
in the preparation of cases that have made it necessary to develop things that
weren't really vital.

We rediscover havingness every six months, it seems. It has been six
months since the last time. No matter how tricky your auditing question is,
if the PC isn't there, it won't reach him or alter his case. No unusual
solution will get to him either. So, when faced with the unusual, do the
usual, the very ordinary.

The tricky developmental work has had uses and has brought us forward.
On a well-prepared case, tiger drilling the 850-goal list is easy. The PC
doesn't protest all the time. The PC who is not well-prepared isn't doing the
commands and has a dirty needle. He never completes the auditing cycle. The
reads you get while tiger drilling aren't coming from the po confronting
anything. They are coming from some automaticity.

Even if the case is well-prepared, you could still have difficulty doing
R3-21. The goal could be absent from the list, or on the list but so unreal to
the PC that it would never answer up if confronted. So you need a process
that overcomes the PC's enturbulated PT environment, etc. This process is
3GAXX. 3GAXX is designed to totally grab the PC's attention and interest and
to keep it where the rock slam is. It will always be true that a rock slam
will produce interest. It is sort of a forced in-sessionness. Interest
follows a rock slam. You are overwhelming the so-called "natural defenses of
the mind". You use the rock slam channel, find the goal, find the pairs of
items all along the channel by their rock slams. You can pretty well
overwhump almost anything in the PC if you can get on the trail of a rock
slam. You will be asked to do miracles -- to audit in noisy environments, on
poorly-prepared cases. For that you need very powerful processes. 3GAXX is
what you need. It is designed to capture the PC's interest so much that he
can only tell you what is in front of his face.

There are three bank elements that are handled in 3GAXX:

1. The rock slam channel.

2. The goals channel.

3. A set of pairs that lead from the dimmest beginnings of the GPM up to
the tiniest pair in PT. The route between these pairs is travelled
from PT back to the beginning.

The procedure is to

1. Find the goal.

and then

2. Find items that have built up by the existence of this goal.

This is a path marked by rock slams. 3GAXX has rules, such as the rule that
the PC's interest follows the rock slam. Since this is true, the PC has no
choice but to be in session.

Suppose the PC is protesting mid-ruds whenever you get off the rock slam
channel. This would be because he is only in session as long as you are on
the rock slam channel, where he can't help being interested. It could also be
because he has been beaten with mid-ruds to a point where he can't stand
them. When you are getting his pre-hav level items (by listing "W/W would
(pre-hav level)?", the answers come ripping off his circuits. When havingness
is low, circuits key in. Someone who is in indifferent contact with PT has
his circuits keyed in. Circuits are GPM items or their cousins, aunts, or
uncles. 3GAXX deals out the circuits that the PC would normally be using
anyhow, so he has no choice but to give them to you, and thus you do get an
auditing cycle.

You start out with a dynamic assessment. [See pp. 305-308 for the general
procedure.] Use these questions:

1. "What isn't part of existence?"

2. "Who or what have you detested?"

3. "Who or what would you prefer not to associate with?"

In listing and nulling these, follow the rock slam. [Note: These commands
might be the precursors of later PTS rundown tech. LRH recognizes the
enturbulative effect of environmental factors on auditing, though as yet there
appears to be no official form of ethics handling. There seems to be an
attempt to handle all of it through tech.]

So you are doing 3GAXX and now you call his attention to PT to get
mid-ruds in -- and you have a God-awful time. Nothing quite cleans up. If you
have goofed and invalidated one of his items, you will really be in the soup,
since he is allergic to PT, which is where he would have to be to clean it
up. So a process as beefy as 3GAXX must be done with expertise, particularly
when used on a PC who is not well set up for it. You have no leeway for error
when you have overwhelmed the natural defenses of the mind. That is why
untrained auditors shouldn't try to run these high-powered processes. With
R3-21, you can find the PC's goal, whether he is ready to find it or not, by
entering the case with Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam.

An additional method of entering the case is Roll Your Own Pre-hav. [See
HCOB 7Nov62 "Roll Your Own Pre-hav".] The pre-hav scale, to be exact, must be
given by the PC in his own words. So find the pre-hav level and ask the
represent question. Get a list and find the item, which will be his perfect
individual pre-hav level. This procedure gets rid of the necessity for huge
long assessments, and you will probably wind up with a rock slam this way.
You will list, "Who or what would do that?", and get a terminal or oppterm -- it doesn't matter which. The assessment can be done simply by calling each level, assessing by elimination down to a few items, tiger drilling those items to one and saying, "Consider committing overts against _______ ." This should turn on the slam.

So you get the item, which is "the protagonist or antagonist in the game
which pursues from the fellow having had a goal in the first place." They are
like a pair of dumbbells. There is also another pair of dumbbells: the
not-pair, pinned to the positive items electronically, e.g.:

W/W would smoke? W/W would not smoke?

[W/W would oppose smoking?] [W/W would oppose not smoking?]

POSITIVE ------------------------------ NEGATIVE

You can, however, safely ignore the negative items. You could find the item,
get the oppose, represent, oppose that, represent that, etc., etc. You are
not trying to clear somebody this way, although you could, theoretically, by
going back item by item down the rock slam channel. It would be hard, though,
lacking the goal. It is easier to go down aways, pick up the goal, and then
list it. Unburden the goal. Then find it and work with it.

If you kept discharging the case and at the same time disorienting the
case, you would get further and further from finding the goal. You would
really just be enturbulating the case, say, if you kept giving the PC items
that didn't slam. He would keep getting fuzzier and more confused. This
could occur when you went by "detested person", etc. [See p. 333. See also p.
243, above.] There is a pair there, which you have ignored if you go on to the
dynamic assessment and the represent, etc. So your rule is to make a pair.
When you get an item that rockslams, you oppose it. If it is still hot, you
represent it. This isn't all that smooth, when the PC is not clear. The
items can be out of order. You have to pick your way through it. The test by
which you go is, "What is still slamming?" It will slam if you run, "Get the
idea of committing overts against [it]."/withholding from [it]." If it still
slams, it hasn't been opposed, even if you think you got the oppterm.

The GPM straightens out only because you have gotten the PC to recognize
the matter, energy, space, and time that the item consists of. It has been
recognized and placed where it should be placed. The PC has seen what it is
opposed by and has gotten sensible about it. This goes back to the earliest
laws of the mind that LRH formulated; namely, that things are composed of:

1. Identities.

2. Similarities.

and 3. Differences.

[This is from Dianetics: The Original Thesis and DMSMH. See note on p. 198,
above.]" "A GPM is in a state of total identification when you [first] greet
it.... Every ... item is every other ... item. When you list, you are
bringing about a similarity from an identity.... By causing [the PC] to find
the item they [the other items] were all pinned to in the first place,
differentiation takes place, and the thing starts blowing apart." Just calmly
finding that the PC is a rockslammer and telling him, will make him
significantly saner right there. "He was mad at the whole environment. Now
he knows what he's mad at specifically [e.g. scientology, Ron, etc.]. Now if we find, "Who or what was mad at (whatever he was slamming on: scientology, or whatever)?", we would have a pair [that] would tend to blow [because] a slam is the meter manifestation of a games condition. It's the unsuccessful effort to withdraw from the thing he must attack."

It takes two items, minimally, to make a package. "One stick won't burn.
It takes two to make a fight." Every package has at least two items and really
four, including the "not" pair, i.e. you also have to find out what wasn't
against scientology and what scientology isn't. A rockslammer is only bad off
before he has been detected. When he finds out what his target really is:
scientology, and then finds out what would attack that target, he will feel
better. He will start to shed that valence, and he can be someone else. But
the more rock slam you leave behind you, by leaving items, the more the rock
slam will diminish. The PC's attention is on those by-passed items, and he
can't confront the items ahead of him. Since he only slams on things that can
become real to him, the slam fades out. So you had better get all the things
that he can confront. If you have available parts of his line plot with
unopposed items, you can free up more of his attention by filling in those
blanks.

So here's why you are doing 3GAXX. You are releasing sufficient
attention from fancied opposition in the environment so the PC is not
distracted and going back-track from the ruffled point of the environment. As
you go on, he will get less and less confused and more and more able to find
his goal. Eventually, you find the goal, after you have a hatful of items by
a variety of methods. You could take a goal like "to dance on eggs" that
fired only three times, but which rocket reads once in awhile. You can do a
represent list on that goal to get a similar goal and pull apart goals. You
can list for the goal that a given item would have. [Cf. expanded dianetics
"wants handled" rundown.]

But unless all this improves the PC's presence, alertness, and available
attention, you would do better to just give him a Problems Intensive and
CCH's.