6403C09 SHSpec-9 Summary of Lower Levels
There has to be a bridge between Level 0 and Level V. Level V is
becoming a catch-all level of everything necessary before Level VI. We are in
danger of getting up to the esoteric levels of VI and leaving no bridge,
resulting in thirty to forty OT's and nothing else. Someone off the street is
in no position to recognize any part of an actual GPM. "Scientology
progresses on reality.... The lower levels are the contest of achieving
reality." You have to achieve a reality before you can make anyone better.
There has to be a bridge to clearing. "It's done by gradients." The PC must
be walked from a position of no-recognition of reality through recognition of
some reality, eventually to an ultimate reality, by gradients.
If you skip a step in a gradient, you get an unreality. Unreality is
associated with charge. They are the same thing. An RI that is too
overburdened with charge (inval, suppress, etc.) will be unrecognizable to the
PC, no matter how obvious it may be to the auditor. A person with too much
charge on his case can't understand or achieve reality. He must have reality
and understanding to go free. Understanding is related to reality, per the
ARC triangle. Therefore, understanding is related to charge, which you have
to get off a case first in order to clear it. Someone who has got lots of
charge will do very silly things. Stupidity comes about from charge, i.e.
unreleased, unresolved, stored masses of energy. For this reason, you can't
get a person to solve his problems by mere significance. The significances
don't enter into it. It is a person's overcharged environment that makes a
person too stupid to solve his problems.
The way out of the problem of not having a bridge is to attain
consistency of result. It breaks an auditor's heart for results to vary from
PC to PC. To get a consistent result and to get a reliable bridge to clear,
you have to attack the common denominator of aberration in all PCs, not the
particular quirks of particular PCs. Otherwise, results won't be consistent.
And the least common denominator of all aberration is charge. If charge is
what causes stupidity, then obviously what we should attack is charge. So the
lower levels, Levels 0 through IV, have to be aimed at getting off charge, in
the absence of any ability on the part of the PC to face the actual source of
the charge and erase it. We can't get anything but trouble from trying to put
the PC into the actual cause of the charge. So, at the lower levels, you
don't erase much charge. You get the PC out of the charge. Destimulation is
what we must aim for at Levels 0-IV, so that the PC will be moved out of
masses of charge. We destimulate by attacking key-ins. We are not trying to
get rid of the charge. We are trying to pull the person out of it. The
person can't recognize the actual goal until he is separated from the key-ins
that stupefy him. To get the pea under the mattresses, i.e. the bank under
the key-ins and upsets, you have to move the mattresses out of the way.
[Another analogy: There is a drain at the bottom of a murky pool. The PC
can't see it or find it, but he can drown trying. What you have to do is to
clean away most of the water and guck. Then the PC can find the drain and let
the water and muck drain off.]
You have to understand an RI for it to blow, since it is a thought, not
the symbols that represent it in English. That is why session ARC breaks,
inval, or whatever can prevent RI's from blowing.
Life is all jammed up for a person with RI's and GPM's. "The guy with
his attention gruesomely and howlingly concentrated on some little [tiny piece
of mattress ticking (see above) must be shown that he can do something about
the mattresses.] He can do something about it, and he gets a big reality and a
hope factor, and his confidence resurges on this basis: if he could get his
attention off just one [piece of mattress ticking] for a few minutes, it would
make him feel so different and so interestingly alive, compared to how he has
felt, that now he gets a big upsurge in reality, and you can get him to tackle
[a lot more]. You've got a gradient." In some cases, the environment is so
charged that the person can't take any attention off of it. In this case, you
have to give the person a change of environment, to a non-restimulative
environment. Here is an analogy: Say you have a lion tamer faced with four
ferocious lions, and all he has is a weak chair, and he is running out of
blank cartridges. You are trying to interest him in a bite-proof suit, but he
can't put any attention on it. You have to handle the lions first, lion by
lion, and then sell the overwhelmed trainer the lion-proof suit. [This would
be a Type 3 PTS handling.]
The next level up, above total overwhelm [Level I] is the person who is
so engrossed in his PTP's that he is obsessively solving everything, solving
his PT. Such a person goes around with wild strings of sol5ti/.s i. hi1 haadann the time: "If I do ... I could ... and so-and-so wouldn't ... and then
I'd ... and they'd ..., etc." His solutions are so pyramided that you don't
dare touch any corner of the pyramid, or the lot will collapse. You can
handle this PC by using your lowest level of actual processing, with itsa on
solutions, which takes over the automaticity of it. [See also pp. 576-577,
above, on auditing problems and solutions, as well as 6404C21 SHSpec-17
"Problems and Solutions", pp. 614-618, below.]
Level II is the first processing level. It contains repetitive processes
and objective processes. Here, there is a danger of restimulating GPM's,
unless you use only things that are not in actual GPM's. Is there something
that isn't in an actual GPM and can therefore be processed with impunity?
Yes. Nouns and most pronouns. Some pronouns are in goals, but at Level II
you are far enough from the GPM that pronouns are generally safe. But farther
along, you had better avoid such pronouns as "myself". "I" appears as a rare
item in GPM's, also.
But nobody has goals in the form, "To be a (noun)." Nowhere in GPM's do
you have noun terminals and oppterms. there are only "-nesses", "-ities", and
"-tions": adjectival and adverbial forms. So you can process noun terminals
with impunity. "Think of a communication," would perhaps lead you straight
into a GPM. "Think of a communicator," would not. That is the missing secret
of why the twentieth ACC made clears. Nouns were processed in brackets.
Nouns can only be locks. Therefore, when you process them, you get key-outs.
You would key out actual GPM's by keying out locks on RI's. Adding a pronoun
or a noun can make an unsafe process safe.
What is an actual GPM or an actual RI? It is a mass with significance.
That is what you need to know at Level IV. Therefore a key-in is and will
always be a mass with significance -- almost anything, in short, that you
could think of. So masses with significances key in actual GPM's, which is
why an environment is restimulative. PT is one huge mass of restimulators.
Present time is a haunted area!
It is not the significance that keys in the GPM or the RI. [So to key
one out, you have to get masses plus significances.] If you have an actual RI
with a significance and someone keeps throwing the significance at you, it
will key you in. So a process like, "How could you help?/How could I help?"
would throw the PC into the RI. To make it safe, you have to put in " ...
help you (or me)," so that you've got a mass plus significance. Running
masses with significance is important because, since masses with significance
key in actual GPM's, running them keys out actual GPM's. At Level I, the mass
with significance that the PC gets accustomed to is the auditor. "Recall a
terminal," would be a good process. ARC straightwire works because, and as
long as, you have a terminal, a pronoun like "someone" or "something" in it.
And for the same reason, you can prepcheck a mass that has a significance, as
long as it's there and you are running it. You can run it in brackets, etc.
At Level II, you have the PC do objective processes. This fact, plus the fact
that control, communication, and havingness contain basic laws of life, make
8C a high-level workable process. The laws of life, like control,
communication, and havingness, are senior to GPM's. But it is the wall that
makes 8C workable. It was the wall which, since it was a mass with a
significance, had keyed in actual GPM's. So when you get the PC familiar with
the wall, the wall keys out and the GPM destimulates. The auditing cycle
itself is helpful and beneficial, as well. The auditing cycle is probably the
basic process that makes Level II.
The PC's awareness of the auditor as a friendly, helpful mass with a
significance is also destimulative. This awareness of the auditor tends to
destimulate masses in general for the PC. Furthermore, the auditor is not
just a mass with significance but also involves a hope factor. This is a
two-pole universe, as Bucky Fuller once taught LRH in Elizabeth, N.J. The
two-pole nature of communication showed up when LRH tried solo auditing
himself on a line plot. He could go through it, but there was no TA. One
terminal gives no TA. One terminal plus a thousandth of a terminal gives a
bit of TA, etc. The auditor has to be real to the PC for there to be a
session and TA. Early on, this isn't true, so it is up to the auditor to
remedy the unreality of the auditor to the PC [i.e. to help the PC to find the
auditor]. Reality should increase with auditing.
A new process introverts the PC enough, so that at first the auditor is
less real to the PC. So at first, you could get less TA than when the PC gets
used to the process. Early on, the PC is so charged up that he has no reality
on any other terminals, and there is no terminal for him to discharge
against. He is a mobile standing wave. Such an "only one" gets no TA, since
there is no one else around. Charge has accumulated on this PC to the point
where no other terminal exists. He is trapped in the standing wave of
no-flow. This is an animated standing wave that blocks all incoming and
outgoing flow. The PC is stuck in a series of wins or loses. He has lost a
terminal that he could talk to, so he solves it by being in continuous communication with that terminal. Now, if people aren't that terminal, they are nobody. Or, he wasn't in comm with that one either. He mustn't be there and he mustn't communicate. There are tremendous key-ins involved here. To get TA, we would have to rehabilitate other-terminal-ism. At Level II, we would do it with
pronouns, since we can't assess for terminals. At Level III, you would assess
by observation, discussing things on a list with the PC and getting all his
considerations. You don't do much with the assessment. This applies to R3SC
slow assessment and R2C, assessment by dynamics, etc.
Along with a terminal, we get a period of time. Time is very important,
to the degree that you can destimulate a somatic by dating it. This works
because "all restimulation depends on a mistake in time." The PC thinks that
the time something occurred is now. His head hurts in 1964, because he got
clobbered in 1944. The basic lesson that you are trying to teach about
engrams is that the PC's time is awry. The only thing that fouls you up in
handling an incident by just dating the incident and having it blow is the
fact that it has already been wrongly dated, e.g. the PC already wrongly dated
it. You can find the date of the wrong dating. You can find what the wrong
date was. There can be several wrong dates. Then you can find the actual
date on which the incident occurred.
In view of the fact that you cannot easily run terminals that have not
been accurately assessed, we can use this time factor at Level III, especially
if an assessment has been done by a higher-level auditor, to get something to
run in Problems Intensives, which involve getting the time of the incident,
terminals, etc.
[Problems Intensive is explained on pp. 134 and 249, above, and in HCOB
9Nov6l "The Problems Intensive -- Use of the Prior Confusion".]
We have made Class IV a clearing level. It is an assessment-type process
to make a keyed-out clear, using prepchecks. You use R3. Do a list of the
PC's goals, find one that stays in. So what if it is an implant goal or a
wrong goal? It stayed in. Do a terminals list for that goal. Both goal and
terminal lists should be short lists, listed to a clean needle. You don't get
somatics from wrong goals. You get them from right goals that are suppressed
or invalidated. So you list for the terminal with, "Who or what would have
(the goal)?" Find a terminal that is a noun, then prepcheck it up to a point
of high-level cognition or no more TA. Then do another goals list, and find
another terminal. This cycle, repeated, will give us a clear, by keying out
the actual GPM. Keep the goals lists for later on. You could use
higher-classed auditors to do the assessment steps.
The only thing that can key in an actual GPM is a mass with a
significance. So prepchecking the mass plus significance tends to key out the
locks that keep the GPM connected to PT. Keep it light, in agreement with the
PC's reality, so that you don't get him protesting or invalidating the actual
goal.
If you sum up the terminal into a service fac, you probably have another
family of processes to use. The terminal was [what the PC was using as a
make-guilty mechanism. This is a cousin to O/W.] So if the terminal won't
prepcheck, you could use service fac brackets on it: "How could you make
yourself right/others wrong about it?" However, it is not likely that you will
have to do this.
You can key out actual GPM's. Actual GPM's are keyed in only by masses
with significance, and oddly enough, there will be only one mass with
significance in the environment that is really raising the devil with the PC.
When you get that one, you can key him out. You can fish him out of the bank,
so that he can go back and clean up the actual GPM's.
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
SHSpec 276 6306C19 Summary of Modern AuditingSHSpec 329 6312C12 Summary of OT ProcessesSHSpec 33 6408C04 A Summary of StudySHSpec 034 6108C04 Methodology of Auditing Not doingness and OcclusionSHSpec 268 6305C23 State of OTSHSpec 312 6310C15 Essentials of AuditingSHSpec 038 6108C11 Basics of Auditing Matter of FactnessSHSpec 188 6208C21 Basics of AuditingSHSpec 114 6202C21 Use of PrepcheckingSHSpec 171 6207C17 Anatomy of ARC BreaksSHSpec 123 6203C19 Mechanics Of SuppressionSHSpec 310 6309C25 Summary II Scientology 0SHSpec 154 6205C31 Value of RudimentsSHSpec 074 6111C01 Formation of CommandsSHSpec 046 6108C29 Basics of AuditingSHSpec 093 6112C14 Anatomy of ProblemsSHSpec 47 6411C17 Styles of AuditingSHSpec 322 6311C07 Relationship of Training to OTDesign Guide 09 Torsional Analysis of Structural Steel Memberswięcej podobnych podstron