6202C22 SHSpec-119 Prepclearing and Rudiments

Terminology: it's a prepcheck, and the whole activity is prepclearing.

One index that a withhold chain is working well is that the PC's
havingness doesn't drop as much as before. TA motion is another indicator.
One could clear up "environment" as part of ruds by prepchecking "rooms".
This would in effect be prepchecking havingness, to some extent.

We can locate withholds About games conditions. What has the PC denied
people; what has he pushed people out of? If you prepchecked this for broke,
you would find that his havingness would stay in without a havingness process,
provided that he was willing to talk to the auditor at all times. So use
havingness while getting the PC to talk to the auditor. Then use things like

the Joburg [Form 3] for new students and Form 6A for old-time auditors to
clean up withholds. For problems, find what problems he has caused people in
this lifetime and prepcheck them as overts. The Problems intensive gets you
to the problem he is sitting in. You could go at it that way, getting prior
confusion, etc., or you could shortcut it by getting what problems he has
caused in this lifetime as the zero question.

Prepchecking might get you a MEST clear, a clear for this lifetime. A
psychoanalyst would be able to learn to do this. He would be flabbergasted by
it, especially when he learned that it was only a preparatory action. This
system can be adapted to whatever the PC is doing.

You don't want the PC to give you a whole lot of unconnected withholds.
If he does give them, take up the one that reads and clear it up. Keep to the
withholds on the same chain. Mine a chain, a subject. There is an art to
converting what the PC says to a "what" question. You have to listen to what
the PC said. There are some rules. It must not be too general, so wide as to
miss a chain; it must not be so narrow as to pin the PC in a single incident.
It should be aimed at the part of the withhold that is most dangerous to the
PC. You must not take motivators or criticisms, other people's withholds, or
explanations. If you get one of these, you turn it around.

Given a motivator, ask what overt the PC has done to that class of
people. Many motivators are untruths anyway, at least in part, so it throws
ruds out for you to accept one. Just convert it do an overt with no Q and A.
A criticism likewise leads to an [overt]. It is a hope that they can damage,
with an inability to do so. It is a bit higher toned than a straight
motivator. A motivator is based on an unknowingness; a criticism isn't, necessarily. A criticism is also a confession of an overt. It converts, as a question, to "What have you done to _______ ?" It is not always true that criticism is based on unknowingness, but motivators always are.

It always seems safe to the PC to get other people's overts off. This is
below motivators, actually. If the auditor lets the PC get these off, you
will get a session where the PC made no goals or gains. When the PC says that
A said B did something, ask the PC which person he knows, then get what the PC
has done to that person. On explanations, you know there is an overt, so this
also converts to, "What have you done?" Actually, the explanation itself is
perfectly innocent, but it leads to a target, eventually. It is an
extenuating circumstance for some overt. You have to figure out what.

One way to open up some areas is to ask, "What should be done about
_______ ?", with the dynamics in the blank. The PC goes off on some point,
and you can mine it. Whatever you get on some target, convert the question to
handle it.

In doing this, you are steering the PC down a chain of incidents that he
considers relatively discreditable. Because he considers them discreditable,
he is not in communication with the subject matter. He feels at the effect
point of the subject matter. The PC is the source of the aberration with
which he is boxing, as far as one lifetime or valence is concerned. The
individual has chosen certain areas as his randomity. If he is giving other
people's withholds, however, he is not even on the cause-effect line.
Motivators -- being effect, victim. Criticism = the impulse to destroy.
Explanation = lines in a dispersal. You are walking the PC back to being
cause by knocking out any reason he has to attack certain points or defend
himself from them, or to retreat from certain subjects on his track, so he can
communicate on all subjects. Naturally, on areas where he is not being cause,
he doesn't know. If you want to find a person who is in total ignorance, pull
other people's withholds. Here, the PC doesn't even know he has a bank or
aberration on the subject. On the motivator, he knows that he is in trouble,
but he doesn't really know why. A critical PC may understand the situation,
but he wants to make nothing of it. Similarly with explanation; there may not
be any unknowns. [See Fig. 8. Cf. the O/W cycle, as given in HCOB 5Jan61
"0-W A Limited Theory".]

What you handle is determined by what is real to the PC, as shown by what
reads on the meter. If you get a read, it is the charge generated between the
not-know and the know. The PC must know something about it to have a clash
with the not-know on the subject. If it is totally known, there will be no
charge and no read. If it is totally unknown to the PC, in the bank, and
everywhere else, it doesn't register on the meter. When the PC gets audited,
he will know more. Something that didn't show up before may well now read on
the meter.

Similarly, the more a PC knows about his own life, the more charged up
the bank will appear to be. So you are always getting new withholds off the
PC, as areas of occlusion are located better. It is not an endless situation,
since the PC's ability to find withholds and blow them increases. At first,
withholds are few and blow slowly; as the PC gets audited, he gets more
withholds, and they blow faster and faster.

195a

FIGURE 8

WITHHOLD MANIFESTATION "SCALE"

OPENNESS Pc just gives the auditor the withhold.
This is a withhold that is not dangerous.

EXPLANATION Equals lines in a dispersal. The
withhold is seen as somewhat dangerous. There
may be no unknowns in the explanation; he might
understand the situation but want to make
nothing of it. Nevertheless, it is an
extenuating circumstance for some overt.

CRITICISM Equals the impulse to destroy. The
PC hopes that he can cause damage, but is unable
to do so. The withhold is seen as rather
dangerous. It is not necessarily based on
unknowingness. He might understand the
situation but wants to make nothing of it. It
is a confession of an overt.

MOTIVATOR Equals being effect, victim. He
has elected himself to be at the effect point.
The withhold is seen as super-dangerous.
Motivating is always based on unknowingness.
The PC knows that he is in trouble but doesn't
really know why. It is a confession of an
overt.

OTHER PEOPLE'S WITHHOLDS The PC is not even on the cause-effect line.
Withholds are seen as so unsafe that it is only
safe to get off other people's. The PC is in
total ignorance. He doesn't even know he has a
bank or aberration on the subject.

Don't go for backtrack incidents with prepchecking. The PC will just get
mired down if you don't get this lifetime straightened out by getting ruds in
on it. He will get wins on it and have gains. If you were a crackerjack
expert on 3DXX, you could probably produce all the gains of prepchecking in
terms of clearing up this lifetime, blowing things into view, etc., but you
would probably run into things like missed withholds, which would make the PC
blow, and lots of out-ruds, etc. One of the things you could show the PC with
prepclearing is that his ruds can be gotten in.

[More details on prepclearing procedure and ruds]