6106C14 SHSpec-14 Seminar: Withholds

You don't destroy records when you are pulling withholds, and you don't
agree with the PC to do this. If you do, it is as much as if you were telling
him you'll withhold for him, and he won't get much gain.

The only liability to getting the PC to where he can't be influenced by
the reactive mind is that, in a sense, you are auditing him towards a state of
no-effect: total serenity, total no-effect, the way the Lamaist did it. The
individual must be able to experience to live. It is possible to plough
someone in on a level and make them look good, but not clear. This is
education by fixation [see p. 37]. One should be able to do anything on the
Prehav scale. Repairing his ethics will eradicate his impulse to do hasty
things and get action on a rational basis, as a result of inspection, not
based on inhibition. This is a new thing on earth in human behavior.

There's nothing wrong, in theory, with native state processing, as
practiced in 1957 and 1958 -- knowingness deteriorating by postulate to
not-know, to must know, to can't know (forget), to remember. This processing
was too simple and of too much generality to be functional. An OT process,
"Tell me an intention that failed," "Tell me an intention that succeeded,"
would be a one-button clear process if that could be run (since it's Axiom 10,
Factor 2). But it's too simple to plumb the reactive mind with. A certain
level of complexity is necessary to resolve cases. The worse off a person is,
or the clearer they are, the more you need to run the secondary scale (greater
complexity). How many buttons are there? There are all the beingnesses ever,
all the doingnesses ever, all the things anyone ever had or could have. You
can't force a person to grasp reactively things which are analytically obvious
because it's reactive and nutty. A process must have some complexity to be
effective at a reactive level and some simplicity to make it easy to
administer.

If one invalidates the basic agreements and identifications of the MEST
universe, MEST changes characteristics. For instance, if you stop agreeing
that water runs downhill, and challenge that, it'll go all gelatinous and
globby.

A security check is running all the not-know off the case that it has run
on everyone and everything for God knows how long. You are actually running
the native state cycle of sequences, not withholds at all. Overts consist of
putting not-knows into the third dynamic. For instance, someone robs a store:
the storekeeper comes in and doesn't know who did it or when, or when it might
happen again. [Also not-knowing where the stuff is that was taken.] Then the
storekeeper runs the not-know on the police. Now the area has a not-know that accumulates in the society, until people can't trust each other and can't produce and the society is aberrated. Someone feels better when he gets off the overt of creating ignorance. Eventually he'll realize that this overt worried people. That's another overt. Then, eventually, he cognites on the not-know overt, and he'll notice his memory improving, his IQ going up, as he runs out overts of making people not-know (or be stupid, in other words). Sometimes a case will recover totally by getting off one big overt. Auditors don't effectively run Presession 37 ("What question shouldn't I ask you?", etc. See HCOB 15Dec60) because they aren't imaginative enough about all the evil in the world. It also requires the auditor to create not-knows about the PC. It works better to give the auditor a list of mean, nasty, vicious not-knows someone might have run on the world. This doesn't run a not-know on the auditor. This is the sec check. Different sec checks should be devised for different routines. Routine three cases need whole-track lists, otherwise, their whole track memory will get occluded. Whole track memory depends on some kind of whole track sec check. This also answers the question of why PC's feel better after giving up same withholds but not others. And what is a withhold? It's running a don't know or can't know on self or others. When the overt is on someone else, it gives a big resurge when it comes off.

Messing up time [by lying?] is a different breed of cat. It's creating,
for one thing. All of life is an invented episode. Writing fiction is done
with the intention to amuse and inform. The only not-know in it is to keep
the reader from knowing the end before he gets there. The only aberrating
thing about it, for the writer, is that it's a creative effort, which can wind
someone up in the soup [Cf. the effect on some people of Step six.] If you
tell a lie to obscure your own guilt, that's another not-know or false
knowingness, which eventually makes the person feel that all life is a
pretense [Cf. the sociopath.]. Auditing then becomes just a literary
criticism of life, as a romantic episode.