6109C19 SHSpec-55 Q and A Period: Prehav, Sec checks, ARC Break Processes

[Details on prehav processes]

With the 5-way brackets and different flows, you are trying to knock off
the PC's obsessive valence, which he's stuck in by some stuck flow. E.g. a
sergeant always orders troops; no one orders him. Thus he gets a stuck flow
and eventually does something weird like becoming a troop or inability to
accept orders from officers. If someone kept giving orders, it would unstick
the flow, eventually.

Flows are the mechanism by which someone snaps terminals and gets valence
closure. You run a body continually; it never runs you. So you're in a
body. One day you get a reaction from a body and you succumb. The stuck flow
has snapped and is making the body and you succumb. The stuck flow has
snapped and is making the body run you. If you start consciously driving a
car you've been driving unconsciously, i.e. you start taking the car somewhere
instead of just letting the car take you, all sorts of weird things are liable
to happen. You might lose your ability to drive temporarily. In driving the
car unconsciously, you've already succumbed to a stuck flow. We have the idea
that a skill should be unconscious so one doesn't have to think. This is a
big reactive trap. When one has run out all the flows on a terminal that the
PC has as an obsessive valence, you'll have discharged the PC's compulsion to
be interiorized into it, or to command it or be unconscious about it.

The overt act / motivator phenomenon has to be part and parcel of this
stuck flow phenomenon. E.g. a sergeant tells his troops they're going for a
picnic. When they get out in the field, they find they have to build
fortifications. The lies and prevarications are part of what causes the
valence closure. If you start teaching a student about scientology and pushed
a bunch of false or misinterpreted data on him, that would be an overt. In
order for the stuck flow to come about, you have to have an individuation and
unease, an unconscious reaction, plus something unknown, something hidden. An overt in instruction at Saint Hill, far instance.

On the auditor process: a beingness is in the middle of a confusion, so
the process, "What are you willing to be? / What would you rather not be?" is a
limited process. It picks the stable datum out of the confusion, which is
reverse auditing. It is very good only on a limited basis. If you were going
to run a case with this, you'd have to run some 1A processes (Problems and sec
check processes alternated. See HCOB 6Jul61 "Routine 1A".) as part of the
auditing command.(See also p. 57 paragraph 4 for the theory behind this.) E.g.
for a long run, use:

1a What would you be willing to be?

b What would you rather not be?

2a What would Another be willing to be?

b What would another rather not be?

3a What confusion could you confront?

b What confusion could another confront?

You can use "problem" or "motion" in the confront command, instead of
"confusion", whichever reads best. To run a whole case with it, add two more
commands: the negative confront parts. That could run the whole case to
clear, maybe, after a very long time. If you ran it without the problems
part, it would run the PC right into engrams within a few hours.

On withholds, you first find some doingness, e.g. fish around for
anything he thought he should tell you that he's forgotten about. Clean up
with 2wc if possible first, asking, "What was it? when was it? What sort of
thing would you find it hard to tell me?" etc. You could use Peter Williams,
version of O/W: "Think of something you've done/withheld," for 3 or 4 cycles,
then, "Is there anything you'd care to tell me?" to give the PC a chance to
get the withhold off. You could use this latter after 2wc doesn't get it. Or
you could use, "What is unknown about my reactions?" to shake it out, clearing
the auditor so the PC can talk to him. You are not trying to run a sec check
on the PC however. If you get a read on withhold, the PC tells what it was
and it still reads, you release it with, "To whom wasn't that known? / To whom
shouldn't that be known?". This is the nastiest withhold process ever dreamed
up!

This process cleans up basic-basic on the ARC break chain: "What didn't
an auditor do? When? / What weren't you able to tell an auditor? When?" You
can clean up the immediate session ARC break with, "What weren't you able to
tell me?" "When?" Or a shorter process," What didn't I do? When? / What
weren't you able to tell me? "When?"

This is the final descendant of the discovery that communication is the
most important corner of the ARC triangle. As long as you run a recall, it's
perfectly safe to run, "What weren't you able to say?", but don't put it in
the present or future, or it will be an out-of-ARC process, e.g. "What
wouldn't you be able to say?" This could even be unanswerable. You can use
the past tense process with specific terminals, e.g., "What weren't you able to
tell your mother?" Psychotics have gone sane on, "Think of communicating with
somebody," run for 25 hours, despite the stuck flow aspect. But it wasn't
communication that aberrated anybody; it was the not-communications. So a
recall on the not-communications operates as a very powerful process. To
round it out as a total valence process, get the other flow, "What wasn't
(terminal able to tell you? When?" That would be a powerful valence
splitter. So skip Prehav 13* as a way to clean up PTP's with present time
environment terminals. Run the above.

* Prehav 13 is a process which combines overt running with prehav assessment
and running of brackets, relative to a list of charged terminals. See tape
6106C21 SHSpec-17.

There's a booster to this. The PC is in a position where he is expecting
somebody to do something because he is depending on somebody to do something.
If somebody doesn't do it, he's left in She soup. So in a session for an
auditor not to have done something and for him not to have been able to tell
the auditor is a frequent source of ARC breaks. Running that out picks up all
the times he wasn't in session and cleans up past sessions.

To make a long run out of this, use, "What didn't an auditor do?
When: / What didn't you do? When?" and "What weren't you able to tell an
Auditor? When? / What didn't an auditor tell you? When?" That Would made a
well-balanced process to clean up the PC's auditing track. She full dress
parade would be to assess all the people who the PC is having ARC breaks with,
take the best reading one, and run it in the above commands. This moves the
valence out. Don't run it very long on any of these terminals, or it's
dangerous. Use it especially on terminals who are connected to the PC but
object to scientology.

If you put ritual ahead of getting auditing done, you would be wrong
every time! Form can get in your road. The time for using perfect form is
when everything is going well. The whole world of diplomacy is a world of
form rather than doingness. The idea that the safe thing to do is to adhere
to ritual because then you are not responsible is the whole basis of
diplomacy. If you think form will get you out of trouble where you need wit,
you are wrong. Always put getting the job done ahead of doing it by the
rules. The rules will only fit a majority of cases. Being well trained to
use form doesn't excuse you from being clever when necessary, staying within
the Auditor's Code.