6207C17 SHSpec-171 Anatomy of ARC Breaks

TR-1 is [based on] the desire to get a response from the PC. If you
don't want to know, TR-1 will be out.

If you misread the meter, the PC will ARC break, but he won't assign
cause rightly. He will give you some reason for the ARC break, which, in
itself, might be true, i.e. a real outness, but the actual cause is earlier.
Even if he says that it is that you missed a read, it's an earlier missed read
that did the damage. There is always that much alter-is in the PC's protest.
If you touch a PC's bank, you put him into a state of alter-is. Because he is
in a state of alter-is already, he will frequently do something other than
what you have told him to do. If you let him get away with it, he will become
unauditable. Therefore, never ask a "Yes" response-type question without
asking what it was. This way you spot the alter-is. The PC thinks he is
doing what you said. but you mustn't acknowledge a lie by letting him get
Away with this.

The degree that PCs alter-is monitors the degree to which they protest
alter-is or acknowledgment of alter-is. Telling someone to do something
without having control of him is asking for trouble. You should go into this
by gradients, since you are asking for trouble if you try to control him at a
distance before he is up to it. Don't acknowledge an improperly done
command. It is fatal to Q and A with the PC's alter-is. The PC acts as
though it will please him for you to acknowledge his. alter-is, but it
doesn't.

A PC who starts giving the auditor orders has ceased to accept the
auditor as the Auditor, because the auditor acknowledged some alter-is awhile
earlier. Note that this ARC break or attempt to control the session occurs
some time after the missed withhold resulting from some alter-is. Both
involuntary and meter-read missed withholds result from wrong
acknowledgment. I would not Q and A with the PC's order. I would ask, "When
did you first think I didn't hear you?" or "What happened earlier in the
session?" The ARC break could appear up to an hour and a half after the missed
withhold that caused it. So don't expect, when asking for the missed
withhold, that it just happened.

Here is just what occurs. ARC makes up understanding. If you fail to
understand what the PC said, ARC breaks down. This is bad TR-4. At this
point, willingness to talk to the auditor drops out, and so does interest in
his own case, because the PC feels that he doesn't understand as much about
his case as he thought he did. The greater one's understanding, the easier it
is to blow things. The auditor must understand and the PC must understand,
for the PC to blow anything. As-isness depends on understandingness.
Alteration always pursues failure to understand. Not-isness accompanies the
notion of incomprehensibility. That is what happens with the insane. [They
are not-ised because they are incomprehensible.] The deepest lie is
pretending to understand the alter-is. All people have to do to make some
advance is to come off their high horse and admit the lack of understanding
and not pretend to understand. When one snarls about a PC, just recall the
first time one didn't understand the PC.

Understanding is in the area of knowing and not-knowing. [See pp. 14-15,
above, for a discussion of the first four postulates.] That is a vary
high-echelon pair of postulates. They come right after Native State, so they
are rather esoteric buttons for a lot of people and can lay an egg. But a
severed communication line, with the missed withholds involved, is very
comprehensible. Hence the idea of a missed withhold communicates well. Its
mechanics are easy to handle.

One kind of missed withhold is a communication intended and not
received. This is unacknowledged truth, the inadvertent withhold. That one
makes the PC scream like a Banshee, since it is right on the button of the
creation of his mind and the universe. For instance, if the PC can't get,
"It's hot in here," acknowledged, he will try to make it stick if he possibly
can, even manifesting it physiologically. The other kind of missed withhold
is a failure to find out something wrong. The PC has put through a lie, which
you have acknowledged. Either way, the session blows up. For instance, the
PC says, "I have never had anything to do with women in my whole life," Gin
answer to a question about women]. This is a very low reality, probably due
to an original low affinity. So you don't give an acknowledgment; you don't
buy that. You check the question on the meter.

You cannot create an ARC break by establishing truth, only by refusing
truth and accepting lies. It is never wise or kind to permit someone to
depart from truth in order to spare their feelings. The E-meter isn't a
lie-detector; it is a truth-verifier. The auditor uses it to establish the
truth. If he can establish the truth of the situation and acknowledge it, he
will never have an ARC break. This requires that an auditor not be shy about
establishing the truth, even if the PC is protesting and blushing. The only
way you will come out a friend of the PC is by establishing truth. The idea that social lies are necessary is one of the mechanisms for making more bank. Actually, if you told only the truth for twenty-four hours, you would do very well. You would have real friends. But it requires a strong man to enter into this, because there may be repercussions. The first part may be rough, but eventually it has its reward. The way down is stepping back from the truth. If an auditor goes into session with social mores and kindness in play, the session will go to pot.

You can build a whole universe out of bad auditing, because of alter-is.
That is why your metering has to be one hundred percent accurate and your TR-4
has to include understanding the PC. A PC will forgive a lot of fumbling if
it is clear that the auditor's intention is to establish truth. It is better
to be a knucklehead than to know it all. You can even act stupid as a way of
making sure you understand. An auditor must establish truth.