6108C17 SHSpec-41 Rudiments and Valences
An E-meter ceases to register in the presence of an out-rudiment. This
may fool you into thinking a process is flat. If you get the rudiments in,
the process will again move the TA and needle. Keeping rudiments in is the
most important part of auditing. You can find the rudiment because only the
out rud will move the meter.
[Details on goals running]
A valence is a synthetic beingness, or a beingness which a PC is not but
thinks he is. It can be a duplicate of any existing beingness, or a synthetic
beingness created by what others have said about the other beingness. There
is no such thing, really, as one's own valence". "His own valence" is just
himself; he's either himself or in a valence. A valence is a package. A
graph is a picture of a valence, and any change you got was because you
shifted his valence. This is a very important datum. The PC will not gain in
any way through any effort to alter the characteristics of a valence he's in.
The PC will only change if you change the valence as a whole package, because
the PC takes no responsibility for any of the now-I'm-supposed-to's or the
package of characteristics which is the valence. All the person can reach is
a knowingness of the identity of the valence. What does the PC use the
valence for? Survival, the road out, surmounted by knowingness -- a valence
is a solid knowingness; a body is a solid knowingness. A valence is an effort
to get someone to know you are there, to get someone to recognize something.
Therefore they are a road out of unwanted areas. Say a soldier gets hit with
a mortar shell. He doesn't want to be there; he's in the wrong valence. That
knowingness (valence) is now invalidated and becomes a not-knowingness. So he
exteriorizes and decides that the only way to fight a war is to be a general
or a war correspondent. If he can't be that, he'll keep on trying, war after
war, life after life. Finally he gets it together and becomes very successful
at it. Then he finds all war correspondents being shot for fomenting war. As
he is shot, he decides he'll be Mata Hari. He gets a female body, moves on up
the line, becomes Mata Hari in war after war. Then eventually he gets
executed for that, etc. These are all efforts to solve the problem of what to
do in a war. Every valence picked up is an effort to solve a problem.
Valences are antiquated solutions. So you can say these identities are
antiquated solutions to confusions.
The goals which go towards beingness are the more definite goals. They
are the more profitable ones in auditing, because they go toward identity. A
person is not himself; he is in a different knowingness as soon as he's in a
valence. You can fix up a valence's broken leg, as long as it's a valence
that isn't supposed to have a broken leg, which is why you can do assists on
almost anyone. The only person it will fail on is someone who has a
now-I'm-supposed-to of a valence. The PC has no control over this. Any PC is
being dominatedly in a given valence, but may be tortured or upset by other
valences which are only really the concern of the valence he is mainly in. So
any PC's troubles are only the troubles of the valence he's in. The troubles
are part of the now-I'm-supposed-to's of this valence. So there's no way to
remedy the difficulties on the valence, because they are outside the power of
the PC to touch. Here you get the oddity of, "Please audit me, but you'd
better not make me well." That's what it looks like.
The valence may have somatics turning on and off as part of the package,
which keep the valence from becoming something else. The PC will keep the
somatics to prevent himself from becoming an unworkable solution to a future
problem. Don't try to take that solution away from the PC, so long as it
seems vital that it be a solution. What you've got to do is to get the PC to
face up to the various factors that make that a valence. You can't make a
valence well; you can move a valence. So any process run at random on a PC
has a very small chance of success. This pre-selects our bag of tricks to a
small bag. You must ask yourself, "Is this process going to change,
familiarize, accustom the person to identity, or is it going to handle
environments which make identities vital, or is it going to alter valences?"
If so, it will work and stay working; if not, it won't.
What makes a valence stick the way it sticks? Let's newly define a
psychotic as someone who doesn't know what's going on in his environment and
who doesn't know what is going on inside himself. It's all unknown and
unobserved. Neurosis is when he's got some idea of what's happening in his
environment and where he is, but this is overbalanced by unknowingness.
Upscale from that, you know what's happening where you are, but not what's
happening inside someone else a few feet away. You don't always know what's
going on with everybody. That makes a slight unknowingness. The stuck parts
of your track are the points where you knew what was going on where you were,
but not what was going on around you, because there are points of
disagreement: there was a know facing an unknow. The unknow can get so
overwhelming that one adopts a valence to solve it. You pick up a valence
which knows about these things. Many scientists are solely being valences of
scientists. They've got it confused with the whole track beingness of a
technician. When you see the level of pretense of a valence, it becomes
spotted for you; it seems artificial. Anyone who's identified himself by some
set of tricks has thereby put himself in a valence. The fact that he's in a
body is an obvious valence, but it's the valence that he's using the body to
be that's the auditing target. Just having a body isn't necessarily a valence
if he's aware of having a body, not ploughed in below his level of
consciousness.
As an auditing target, a valence is the MIP package a person has composed
to solve the problems of existence which he knows nothing about. It's always
easier to pick up a weaker valence than a stronger one, so your logical target
in auditing is the weaker one.
If your PC has a bunch of chronic somatics, they're part of the valence
picture, not part of the PC. He's got to have two counter-opposed identities
in order to feel pain. 1957 was when this was worked out. To have experience,
he'd have to survive; to survive, he has to be something other than himself.
Otherwise, he can't survive, experience, and live. You haven't a chance in
handling this person until he realizes that he can live without the valence.
He's been in a games condition as a valence against some environment -- which
probably no longer exists. Women are particularly confused here, because at
the present time, the society is in flux and has no really clear idea of where
women fit in, so women have more problems finding the valence to solve the
problem of situations they're not really in anyway. [Identity crisis?]
To straighten out a case, you've got to move a valence. Say a fellow has
a toothache; you've got to find out who had a toothache (c. 1950 tech) and
split the valences. This is more effective than putting him in comm with the
tooth, since it's not his tooth. Whatever his difficulties, find out who had it or would do it. [Cf. XDN "wants handled" rundown.] You could say, "What beingness would be a good solution for a tough environment?" You process "who's" -- valences. If you want to cure a toothache, run it back and forth with, "Who would want to cure a toothache / Who would have a toothache?" and get a terminal, to cure the toothache. You already have the goal, of course. You can also use this technique for the hidden standard.
For a long time, we had the question, "Should we handle solids or
significances?" The answer is, "Solids," but the further answer is that you
shouldn't handle conditions of a valence. Handle the valence. This is the
limitation of a touch assist. Always handle the terminal. This brings Prehav
13 into the limelight. [Prehav 13: a process which takes a list of charged
terminals and combines overt running with prehav assessment and running of
brackets on levels assessed out. See 6106C21 SHSpec-17 or p. 42, these
notes.] Prehav 13 will also fix up rudiments.
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
SHSpec 169 6207C10 Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking (Part II)SHSpec 119 6202C22 Prepclearing and RudimentsSHSpec 168 6207C10 Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking (Part I)SHSpec 166 6206C28 RudimentsSHSpec 133 6204C17 How and Why Auditing WorksSHSpec 79 6609C01 Gradients and ARCSHSpec 66 6509C09 Classification and GradationSHSpec 038 6108C11 Basics of Auditing Matter of FactnessSHSpec 167 6206C28 Question and Answer PeriodSHSpec 82 6611C29 OT and Clear DefinedSHSpec 75 6608C16 Releases and ClearsSHSpec 033 6108C03 Creation and GoalsSHSpec 73 6608C02 Suppressives and GAE sSHSpec 61 6505C18 Organization and EthicsSHSpec 299 6308C27 Rightness and WrongnessSHSpec 073 6110C31 RudimentsSHSpec 53 6503C02 Technology and Hidden StandardsSHSpec 39 6409C15 Scientology and TraditionSHSpec 027 6107C11 Problems and Solutionswięcej podobnych podstron