6207C10 SHSpec-168 Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking (Part I)

[See HCOB 2Jul62 "Repetitive Rudiments..." and HCOB 3Ju162 "Repetitive
Prepchecking", relating to this tape and the next.]

We are back to basics today in auditing. The forerunners of practically
everything done today can be found in DMSMH and Dianetics: The Original
Thesis. [See p. 270, above.] Suddenly, also, we are back to repetitive
processes, which auditors have always had success with, except for the
question of whether the process is flat. In the 17th ACC, LRH had just
lectured on comm lags. The next day, he asked how you could tell whether the
process was flat. No one could answer! The difficulty is solved with this
method of using repetitive questions. They are flat at a precise point.
One's troubles can come only from not reading the meter or not believing it.
Either will bring about an upset PC.

Model session, repetitive, per HCOB 4Jul62 "Bulletin Changes",
[Significant change is havingness, or the room rudiment, being dropped from
beginning rudiments, although retained in end ruds. See also HCOB 23jun62
"Model Session Revised".] has all ruds (except havingness) as auditing questions to be handled repetitively. You would think that slugging the PC with this many processes in one session would be catastrophic. It is, if done poorly. If you overrun by one question, the PC is in the soup. Likewise, if you ask one question too few, you get missed withholds. So either never ask for O/W or do it right. You can't avoid the fact of missing withholds, no matter what you try. You can miss a withhold just by walking in the room. So you can't just not ask questions, and if you ask a question, you must ask exactly the right number of questions. Some cases -- one in twelve -- even think you should know everything they are thinking. In these cases, any question you ask shows that you didn't know, so you miss the withhold. [See HCOB 12Jul62 " Motivatorish Cases". This is the "theetie-weetie" case.] The way someone got in that state was too much pretended knowingness on the part of others, plus overts against questions.

If this type of person exists, or if many people get into this state, and
they do, and if Man keeps being active while being secretive, which he will,
then it is inevitable that you will miss withholds an people. So you must
learn to run O/W and repetitive processes perfectly, not just fairly well. It
is rather easy to do repetitive ruds and repetitive prepchecking perfectly.
The only problem is that, with some cases, you have to add "to another" to the
"done" question. Otherwise the PC will give motivatorish answers, which spins
him in, and the question will never clear.

Auditing is as successful as it is predictable to the PC. Auditors get
spoiled by a howling success following an unusual solution. This includes
LRH. Such a success can hang an auditor up and get him stuck in the win. The
more we learn about the mind, the fewer unusual solutions we need and the more
textbook the solutions become. This is a measure of an auditor's
understanding of what he is doing. If he wins with an unusual solution, it
won't give consistent wins. As time goes by, he may get so many loses that he
ultimately stops auditing.

The closer we get to clearing, the fewer unusual solutions we look for.
To clear everybody, you have to know how everybody's mind works. We've got
that. At this point, we only need to modify the tech to make the result
easier for all auditors to get. Two things monitor our tech:

1. The results.

2. The ease with which auditors can be trained up to where they can
obtain the results. The ease of application of the processes.

The problems are these: A PC is built like a universe. There is a pride
postulate, on top of which mass accumulated. human being is determined to be
such merely by having a human body. A doll has the same kind of bank as a
human. "The PC's bank is not native to the corporeal self he is packing
around as an identification card." Incidentally, doll bodies Rot drunk by
inhaling alcohol vapors. Actually drinking would wreck the machinery. We
dramatize this nowadays with the brandy snifter. Any mass accumulated to the
PC accumulates on his prime postulate. The prime postulate is the basic
purpose or goal of a person. There can be a secondary "prime" postulate in
any lifetime. It is the alteration of the prime postulate that occurs in the
course of trying to put it into effect that causes mass to accumulate, from
the shift of attention and direction that inhibits the person's ability to
as-is. Change of attention is change and energy is change.

There is a lot to be understood about how mass evolves out of
alter-isness. If something goes from point A to point B with no change, point
A must be point B. By introducing space, you introduce a via. Space is a via
that causes and necessitates change in or of anything occurring within it.
That is one of the first things that happens in the course of building a
universe.

Once you have time, shift of attention causes motionlessness in time,
accumulation, dissipation, interchanges of masses, dislocations in space,
etc. After awhile, we get an individual who obsessively changes.

There are two things wrong with human personality:

1. Too much constancy.

2. Too much inconstancy.

Auditors do these two things: they "resist change, even when it is sensible,
and they obsessively introduce change when it is not required. Constancy,
without understanding, without reason, is simply a characteristic of MEST." So
is change. One should understand why one is being constant before being
constant. One should also understand what he is undertaking before he
introduces alteration.

Unlike life, oddly enough, auditing does not necessarily bring about its
own track and its own mass, because it is short track and it is singularly
deprived of duress. It is not something to worry about, unless done in a
knuckleheaded fashion which puts a person beyond help. That would be a
crime. You could audit someone badly enough -- it would probably take
auditing him on the wrong goal -- to kill him, perhaps. But it would take
some doing.

In prepchecking we had a problem. There is a problem of alteration and a
problem of too great a constancy. One of the problems is that an inconstancy
of approach by the auditor causes more trouble than an unusual solution
heals. Buttons can be wonderful in the right circumstances, but if the
auditor is inventing them, intuiting what is needed, they can improve the PC's
case, but they lower his confidence, because he can't predict what the auditor
will say next. The PC keeps coming out of session with his attention on the
auditor. This violates the definition of in-sessionness. If you have a
constancy that works: the four mid-ruds, that takes a lot of edge off the
case. There could be more, but what you are trying to do with model session
is to make the PC auditable, and to cause him to continue to be auditable.
The virtue of model session lies, not in its processing value, but in its
predictability value, and in the fact that it "takes the edge off the things
most likely to distract the PC."

Hidden in any case is a basic purpose, a prime postulate and earlier
prime postulates. It is amazing that we even have processes like model
session and prepchecking that do something for the case over the top of those
goals. It is incredible that these processes make the PC feel better. All
the auditor wants them to do is to smooth out the needle so that he can find
the PC's goal. The conflict of goals is the senior aberration on the case.
Any alteration of a goal adds mass to it and the bank. It is amazing that you
can handle handle case phenomena with other processes, assists, etc. But you
can't solve the case permanently without recourse to goals.

It is difficult and sometimes impossible to help someone who has overts
against that which is trying to help him. You have to set the PC up by
getting them off. Don't get spoiled by having good luck with one PC. Most
require set-up.

The other problem is metering. You can ruin an E-meter's effectiveness
on a gradient by not quite really cleaning ruds as you hit them, by neglecting
instant reads. An inexperienced auditor who overlooks the tiny reads that
occur on ruds questions can easily and shortly get the PC into a barely
readable meter, which only reads on the greatest of greats. The auditor
misses withholds from there on out. That is the problem: ending cycle too
soon on ruds because of missing reads.

The other problem is being too careful and cleaning ruds that are already
clean. Model session, run strictly by the book, is still not a muzzled
session. The auditor still must maintain 2WC with the PC and can make sure
the PC is content the rud is clean. Too many auditors withdraw from the
session, leaving model session to do the job and the PC wondering whether we
are alive at all.

An advantage of repetitive rudiments is that only one skill is needed for
repetitive ruds and repetitive prepchecking. One of the problems is teaching
a number of technologies or procedures. It is better to have one done
superlatively than ten done indifferently. Repetitive ruds and repetitive
prepchecking tend to get the PC talking to you cheerfully and happily, blowing
things and feeling better. If they don't, you are probably doing something
unusual with them.