GOALS LISTING SHSBC-183 A lecture given on 9 August 1962

GOALS LISTING SHSBC-183 A lecture given on 9 August 1962

Сообщение auditor » 04 янв 2016, 11:30

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/

SHSBC-183 renumbered 201 9 Aug 62 Goals Listing


A lecture given on

9 August 1962

[Clearsound only. Not checked against the old reels.]

Thank you.

Well, this is lecture two, Saint Hill Special Briefing
Course, 9 August ... What's the year? Audience: 1962.
A.D. 12.

A.D. 12. All right, thank you.

What I'm going to talk to you about is technically just
listing. Listing: How to list.

In the beginning, there was the Model Session.

Now, what do you do in listing that is different than any
other auditing? Well, you prepcheck the object of and the
lines of the auditing command every session beginning with
a fast check. Got it? And I think if you do that, your
number of items that you need to list out a goal will
materially diminish. I think you'll find it saves its time
over and over and over and over.

So let's put in the rudiments - the beginning rudiments -
bangety-bangety-bang, and say the PC's goal, and
"to-be-a-tiger" it. In other words, get the middle ruds in
on it fast. Get it to firing if we can. Of course, we go just
so far, this thing is going to start firing latent, and
it's going to expire one way or the other. But after all,
it is our target. And to run somebody endlessly with his
goal suppressed and invalidated and all that sort of thing
is liable to require a large number of additional items and
all kinds of other things in the session, don't you see?
Other things might go wrong. You might even waste a whole
session and not even recognize that you have wasted one.

All right. Now, the auditing command, of course, is the
who-what lines, of which there are four.

Now, I'm not going to try to give you a wording of the
who-what lines and say that it will forever and always be true.

First you have finding the goal, in 3GA, and proving it
out, and then you get to listing. And in actual fact, the
first step of listing is to find lines that fit the goal.

Now, you've got a picture that you must comply with. And
the picture is an outflow arrow and an inflow arrow - arrows
pointing at one another. Draw a circle for the PC and then
draw a line going out from him and then the arrow-ends, and
then draw another line extending that one, but its
arrow-ends are in toward the first arrow.

And then you have the retarding arrow of the first line,
and then you have the retarding arrow of the second line,
and they're just arrows alongside the other two
arrows - going the opposite direction. In other words, you
got four arrows here: One is going out from the PC and one
is going in toward the PC.

And then you've got the other pair of arrows further out;
the first one is in toward the PC and the other one is out
away from the PC.

Now, the auditing command that you want simply matches up
the four basic flows. Now, you see, there could be 16 flows
listed, there could be 32 flows listed, there could be 128
flows listed. Don't you see? You could list and list - oh, wow!
But staying with four is the most economical, as far as we know
at this particular time. But those four must be meaningful
to the PC; they've got to make sense to the PC.

Now, we want to know - the first line is. "Who or what would
have it?" "Want it," "have it" - I don't care which one you
use. That's as far as the goal is concerned. Then "Who or
what would oppose it?" See, that's your outer arrow
pointing in toward the first arrow. "Who or what would
oppose it?"

Now we've got to have specifically "Who or what would keep
you from performing it?" or "doing it?" You see? And then
we've got to find out "Who or what would oppose its being

Now, how you get these words to go together is remarkable,
and so forth, but they must fire.

Now, the goal has a rocket read, and then so must the
lines. You've got to have a read on those lines. And the
read on these lines must exist not because you've made a
mistake on the line.

You recognize that you could write the wrong line, and so

Do you know, to date we have had three people, one of whose
clearing was held up and two that was loused up, right here
at Saint Hill, because nobody paid enough attention to the
wording and value of the wording of lines? So this is not a
light subject. This is a very important subject. And it is
the auditor's responsibility, not the Training Director or
somebody else's responsibility. This is the auditor's
responsibility. Those lines are there and they've got to fire.

In other words, when you read this line, "Who or what would
want to catch catfish?" that thing has got to fire on that,
not because the goal is on the end, but the line as a major
thought has got to fire. That's got to fire.

Now, remember that the whole rash of free needles that we
got out earlier this summer were all listed on this
simplicity. (I'll show you how simple it can be.) Line one:
"Who or what would want to catch catfish?" (Let's say this
is the goal.) Line two: "Who or what would oppose catching
catfish?" Line three: "Who or what would not oppose
catching catfish?" Line four: "Who or what would not want
to catch catfish?"

Now, those are the exact lines - the verb form changing on
two of the lines to an -ing. And look, even though they
were reaching madly and having an awful time on line four,
and scrambling around on it most horribly, they still made
it, see? Now, it was only when, on one (and I'm not saying
this just to be mean, although the person who is going to
hear it in a moment will swear that I said it just to be
mean) - the introduction of "your" into the line (unreported
by the auditor) - into one of the lines prevented that line
from ever going to free needle. Till one day I caught the
thing up and found out that this extra word existed in the
line, knocked the extra word out, had it prepchecked a
little bit, and wham, all four lines went to free needle.

See, there was one line in there - I've forgotten which line
it was, but it was something on the order of "Who or what
would oppose your catching catfish?" Not "Who or what would
oppose catching catfish?" See? Just the introduction of
that "your" on one of the four lines. See, it wasn't on the
other three. And yet this was listed this way by three
auditors, see? And the first auditor was completely
exonerated on the matter because nobody had formulated the
lines at that time to amount to anything and we were just
at the beginning of this level, and this auditor put them
together as kind of what the PC thought they might be, you
see? And there was a "your" in it. And that prevented those
things from going to free needle. So, in other words, the
wording Of the line can prevent or achieve a free needle
for that line. It is the wording of the line.

Now, our more modern version seems to hit people much closer.
And we have had at least one goal not go clear on the old four
lines, but be much easier to run, and is running much more
easily - and actually on the original four lines just went
up to 6.0 as the TA, and stuck. Right goal, but it just went
up and stuck because these lines were not adequate to describe
the situation, you see, and started moving again the moment
the wording was changed to these lines which we are now using.

Line one: "Who or what would want to catch catfish?" Line
two: "Who or what would oppose catching catfish?" Line
three: "Who or what would retard" (or "pull back")
"opposition to catching catfish?" And line four: "Who or
what would pull back" (what is it?) " ... from catching

Audience: "Someone or something."

Oh, "someone or something from catching catfish?" Now,
"someone or something" could of course be on at least two
of the lines, or on more of the lines, you understand. But
there is the pattern which we are using now. It's "pull
back" and "pull back," or "retard" and "pull back," on
lines three and four.

But the point is, the line has got to fire. You read the
goal, "To catch catfish," bang! "To catch catfish," bang!
"To catch catfish," bang!

All right. That read transfers over onto all four lines.
And it is not true that it transfers onto just three of the
lines and the other one isn't hot just now. See, it's
because that line that is not firing is not quite right.
See? You should be able to put these four lines together
and get them all to fire. You say, "To catch catfish,"
bang! "To catch catfish," bang! "To catch catfish," bang!
"Who or what would want to catch catfish?" Bang! See?
They've all got to fire that way.

Now, there are various oddball wordings which haven't
worked. We run into the problem of the negative goal. Let's
take the goal "not to talk." "Who or what would want not to
talk?" That's perfectly fine, isn't it? "Who or what would
oppose not to talk?" That's good, isn't it? That's fine.
We're just going along fine there. Now let's get to line
three on the old wording.

"Who or what would not oppose not to talk?" Double
negative. Enterprising auditor, shift the double negative,
of course, change it around so you don't have a double
negative, that'd make it "much better" - she never goes
clear. And line four, "Who or what would not want not to
talk?" That's really becoming garbage as far as the auditor
can see. Pretty gruesome.

But what do you know! Interestingly enough, it's perfectly
comprehensible to the PC. Double negative - so what? Doesn't
mean anything to the PC. The line means something to the
PC, but that it isn't grammatically something or other was
not a thing. So that first wording was perfectly okay and
was all right to remain just as it was, if you had a
negative goal.

But this wording didn't work, see - double negative, that's
all right, doesn't matter. But this wording didn't work:
"Who or what would want the goal 'not to talk'?" "Who or
what would oppose the goal 'not to talk'?" "Who or what
would not oppose the goal 'not to talk'?" For some cockeyed
reason it ceases to make sense very soon, see? "The
goal..." "the goal..." "the goal ..." Makes it
grammatical, but apparently makes it unworkable.

Now we'll get another one: Let's take the -ing out of it.
"Who or what would oppose catching catfish?" See? "Who or
what would oppose the goal 'to catch catfish'?" Now, this
one is important for you to know about, because PCs will
try to steer you into it. It hasn't the least bearing on
the situation. It doesn't go clear. Apparently this one
lays an egg. But a PC tells you that's real hot. The PC
will tell you "That's real good." And apparently it is for
the birds. See the difference? It's a different meaning.
"Who or what would oppose the goal 'to catch catfish'?" of
course is just dandy. That sounds good, doesn't it? Well,
it isn't the same meaning that you want on your list line.

We don't care about opposing the goal. To hell with the
goal - why keep it in that realm? We want to know who would
oppose catching catfish, not oppose the goal "to catch
catfish." It's "Who or what would oppose catching catfish?"
that clears the PC. See, that's the opposition.

It's the opposition to action. Because remember, these are
flow lines. When anybody tries to steer you away from a
wording which you think is proper and so forth, in arguing
it out with a PC, or figuring it out yourself or something,
just remember this: These are actions. These are actions.

Now, of course, we get "want the goal": that's a kind of an
inflow, isn't it? And that has always kind of loused me up.
I don't know quite why an inflow word like want works as an
outflow action of the goal. But it apparently keeps the
goal in the item's head that has got it.

See? But have, as far as I know - although I don't have too
much data on this - have apparently works equally well.

But it's what fires that counts. But what fires has got to
be actions of the goal. It's got to be action. Because
you're listing flow lines.

So this would be dead wrong: "Who or what would oppose
people who had the goal to catch catfish?" That's dead
wrong. You want to know who or what would oppose people.
Well, that's not the goal.

All right. Let's go a little bit further afield here. It's
after all catfish, isn't it? All right, so "Who or what
would oppose catfish?" You're practically listing two lines
at once. That's what messes up there. Because anybody who's
trying to catch catfish is opposing catfish too. And
anybody who's opposing catfish is also opposing catfish,
and you've got no opposition anyplace. So you might as well
just do the one line for the two; don't you see?

And there we come into the liability of listing lines. Now,
believe me, this is quite a problem, because you're liable
to make this horrible mistake, unless forewarned: The PC is
given four commands but actually only lists three lines.
Now, look at the mess this gets him into. He lists twice as
many items on one line and he lists no items on another
line, and an equal number on the remaining two lines.

In other words, he overlists one line and doesn't list
another line at all. And the PC is going to go round the
bend. See, he's really going to get cooked with this one.
Next thing you know, your tone arm is stuck, and you'll be
saying it's the wrong goal, and everything is all upset.

Well, the PC, through his own interpretation, can do this
just fine. So the best way to handle this is have PCs draw
you pictures.

Now, you want to draw the PC a picture of the one I just
gave you and present this as a problem to the PC of how
you're going to word this thing. Of course, you're going to
word this thing with current wording. If absolutely
impossible, you're going to change it. But you're going to
try to word it with current wording. But you want to show
the PC this thing. And it's this arrow that comes in toward
him, and this arrow that goes out that faces the other
arrow, and then this arrow that pulls back and then this
arrow that goes out parallel to the other one.

You want to show him those four arrows, and you're going to
say, "That's oppose. That's opposed to doing your goal, and
this is doing your goal, see, and this is keeping you from
doing your goal, don't you see, and that's retarding the
other from being opposed. But at the same time, we don't
want this fourth line here to be the second line up here.
Do you see how that could be? See, who would oppose you
doing your goal? And who would not want you to do your
goal?" Ooooh, those things are getting awful ghostly close
together, aren't they? You got to have wording here that
means these four flows, with regard to the action of this goal.

Now, goals are action situations. Even "being a hound dog,"
as a goal - "to be a hound dog," see - requires an action. The
action is at least to be. That's not much action, but it's
still enough action to be action and it causes a flow. You
say, "Who would want to be a hound dog?" and of course now
you've got it pretty well made. Of course, there's some
action a little bit added in there. And "not want to be a
hound dog," see? You could get these things, you see, but
they're still actions. "Oppose being a hound dog," that's
guaranteeing action, you see? And "retard opposition to
being a hound dog."

These are very hard for PCs to wrap their wits around very
often. Particularly when they're lying at the bottom of the
GPM. There they lie, nobody has disturbed them on this
subject for millennia, you see, or triennia. Nobody's even
breathed it at them or mentioned it to them, and you all of
a sudden come along and propound the philosophic principle
of whether or not they're going to oppose or not oppose
being a hound dog, you know? They've just never considered
it. They'll be in this kind of a state: They know that
everybody opposes being a hound dog. And that is the
"truth." That isn't a fact, you see; that's the "truth."
The truth of life: Life opposes being a hound dog.

Now, you introduce a brand-new idea: You say, "Who would
want to be a hound dog?" "Want to be a hound dog?" Good
heavens, nobody's thought of that, you see ! Well,
factually they haven't thought of it for ages. See? And
these other actions, the other three actions ... So they
very readily steer themselves over onto one groove, if they
possibly can, and it'll be the flow they happen to be stuck
on at the moment you get them to figure it out.

So their advice is worse than useless. But you want to find
out whether or not they can answer it. That's what you want
to know. That's why you consult them. You don't take their
wording, but you want to find out if they can answer it.
And then you juggle the wording around or do anything you
have to do to the wording so that you can clear, you know,
invalidation, mistake, wrong word, anything like that that
you want to clear on this thing. And after this line is
cleaned up with a fast check on the mid ruds, like
to-be-a-tiger drill - after this line is cleaned up, brrrrp,
see - you say that line and you get pow! You get a read, see?
You say the line, you get a read. You say the line, you get
a read. Dandy. Here we go. That's fine, see? Now you want
to get the next one, so that when you say that line you get
a read. Say the line, get a read. Prepcheck it out. In
other words, you mid-rud the thing. You see, you get those
mid ruds in on the line, and then test it. You'd be
surprised how busy they are sometimes in invalidating
lines, and all that straighten-out.

So frankly, I've opened up a subject to you, you possibly
haven't looked at very intimately, and that is the wording
of a line to be listed. But that, second to the goal, is
the most important source from which all clearing flows - is
that line. And now, keeping an even balance amongst those
lines as they list.

All right. Now, so much for this wording of the line. Your
next step is to make sure that as you list, you list in
Model Session, your rudiments are in without antagonizing
the PC unduly - because, you see, you can put the rudiments
in so often that it amounts to no auditing, and then the
rudiments go out, see?

So your basic action is don't list too long on one line.
How long is too long? I'll tell you exactly how long you
should list a line, exactly how long: as long as the flow
in that direction persists.

Yeah, how are you going to know that? Well, short of an
oscilloscope, you're not. An oscilloscope will show you the
flow line. So you just pays your money and you takes your

But I'll give you an indicator. This would be slightly
overlisting a line, but would be safe. This is slightly
overlisting the line by an item or two, but it's very safe:
As soon as the PC says "Uh... and uhhhh ... ," change your
lines. Go to the next line. Why? You've hit the null point.

You see, don't be under the delusion that the PC is
thinking up these items. Don't make that mistake. He thinks
he's thinking; he thinks he's talking; he thinks it's all
going off, but actually he's just a wound-up doll. See, he's
just firing off ... He couldn't help it. He practically
couldn't help but give you the items, because they're being
dealt. See? Because they're stacked in the GPM in that way.
He doesn't think of any of them.

Now, if a PC is groping for the right wording, you've
overlisted. "I mean a ... uh ... I mean a ... uh ...
uh ... mm ... Oh, no, that isn't the right word. Uh ...
uh ... a uh ... a big ... a big ... uh ... no, a big,
big ... a huge ... uh ... uh ... a gargantuan ... Uh ... a
tr - tr - uh, let's see, a tremendously ... no, that isn't
.. uh, tremendously large ..." Oh, man, you overlisted a
long way back. You should have quit, see?

Now, that item will spew onto the paper, bang! Just without
any trouble from the PC. And long times in listing sessions
without many items coming onto the page is all caused by
the auditor not judging the flows right. Comm lag of the PC
eats up session. And if you keep the PC out of that comm
lag - you just list in rotation: one, two, three, four; one,
two, three, four; one, two, three, four; and don't let the
PC comm lag, or shut off an automaticity.

Isn't that neat? You mustn't shut off a PC's automaticity.
He's saying, "Tiger, waterbuck, water buffalo, uh ... big
snakes, pythons, uh ... Mindoro uh ... natives, pygmies,
uh ... pygmies, pygmies, uh ... uh...."

Well, the funny part of it is, is you mustn't have shut him
off at "water buffalo," because it'd suppress the next two
items. He can't help but say them, don't you see? They're
just being dealt off the top of the deck, one-two-three-four,
see? They're just coming right on up, one-two-three-four-five-
six-seven-eight-nine-ten-eleven, tr-tra-nun-nun, and then
"a ... a ... uh ..." Shift lines.

Now, I'll tell you when you've listed too long, slightly,
but not to the other degree "I can't get the right word for
it. I don't know what ..." Oh, you're way overdue, man!
You missed the 5:15, you missed the 6:20, see, you missed
the midnight express. No, here's the one: The PC says, "No,
that's not it." You've gone over. You've gone over, right now.

He's invalidating the item he is giving you. Why is he
invalidating the item he has given you? Because the other
flow line is now meeting the direction of his attention and
is overwhelming his attention so that any item he thinks up
is of course being overwhelmed by the other flow line
coming to him. Just like that, heh! It's very neat.

And you just listen to him, as he goes along on listing,
and he says, "A water buffalo, a tiger, a Mindoro native,
a pygmy, a uh ... uh ... uh ... uh... a p- python, auh...
um... uh... uh... a... a deer. No. No. No, that's not it.
Um ... a uh ... buck. A buck ... uh - no, no, um ... a
buck, uh ... No. No, not a - not - not - not a - not a buck
deer. Uh ... um ... let's see, now. Um ... Well, I
c-ca-can't really think of the name of the thing. Uh ...
uh ... a big ... uh ... a buck, uh ... uh ... uh ... a v ...
a very lar - uh ... It's a certain kind of a deer they have
down in Mindoro, a uh ... a dak, or u ... u ..." Oh
man, you missed the 6:15, the 8:30, the 10:25 they've all
gone by. See? That's the whole gamut. You have run the lot
now, see?

Your first indicator was "and a uh...." Well, out of
courtesy, you could let him give it to you.

He'll say, "... a uh ... buck."

And you say, "All right. Thank you very much. Thank you so
much. Now, all right, we're going to start on the next
line. And here we go." We've shifted gears, and we're now
listing on something else.

That's really the way to get away from the pin fast, and
your PC doesn't get suppressions, and you don't have to put
in the mid ruds all the time and all that sort of thing.
Just catch it on that first "ahh ..." And it's just
handed to you on a silver platter.

He tells you. "This line has run as far as it's going to
go, and is now in an eddy area, and is about to turn around
and go the opposite direction." That's what he tells you with
that "ahh...." With the invalidation, he tells you, "It has
already turned around and is going in the opposite direction,
and anything I think of is being overwhelmed and invalidated
by the line which is now coming the other way." See? And when
he can't think of it at all, he's just totally overwhumped.
Now the line is really racing at him.

But similarly - let me make this point again - it is a high
crime to shut off an automaticity because he won't be able
to get it again. This thing is firing off and you put a
suppression right on the middle of the thing. He's going to
tell you all of a sudden thirty items - brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
And you say, "Well, that's enough."

He says, "Bu-bu brrr-b-brr - brrrr..." And you put in the
mid ruds at that point, you find it was all suppressed. The
PC feels kind of loused up. He feels kind of betrayed and
so on.

So there are the basic tricks of listing: (1) At the
beginning of the session get in your rudiments.
(2) Get your goal fast-checked. (3) Now, there's two ways
you could go about this: One is simply to fast-check the
first line you do, and then when you get to the next line
give it a fast check; when you get to the nest line give it
a fast check - first time you ask it, you see? You get to the
fourth line, give it a fast check and then don't check them
anymore. Just see if it fires, that's the only thing you
want. It's very fast. See? That could be done that way, or
you could take all five of these things - the goal and the
lines - and just read them all off to see if they all fire,
see if there are any suppressions on them, you know. And
clean them up, bang-bang, get them all firing, bong, and
then go on to your session. Two ways you could go about
this. Find out which one is best for you.

Now, you center his attention on the lines, of course, too
solidly, in prepchecking the things, and he'll start giving
you answers, then you're already in session. So that has
some liability connected with it.

Now, your next action is to get the PC to list the first
line down to a point where he says "And a ... uh ... uh ...
let me see...." Let him see by all means. But if he sees
for more than a few seconds you say, "Well, all right.
That's fine. We'll get that one the next time we come around.

Now, let's start on this next line," see? Let's not leave
him in thin air. And just list to the comm lag. Go straight
along down the line. List to the comm lag. List to the comm
lag. List to the comm lag.

Now, you're going to get in trouble sooner or later because
your lines are going to get ragged if you list to the comm
lag. And that's liable to upset you. So you take one of
those times when he's feeling very, very easy, and catch up
a few items. And it's a nice balance which you do.

But if it's straining him to think of any more items just
to make you catch up, you abandon catching up. You got it?
Because it's not a quantitative process, after all. It's
the amount of now, see? It's the amount of now that we're
interested in, not the number of items. And number of items
is merely an approximation of keeping them level. That is a
sloppy index of how much flow has been gotten off any one
of these lines.

As far as checking the mid ruds is concerned, every time
you turn around, you won't have to do it if you list this
way, which makes for very fast listing. But if you make
yourself a bunch of mistakes - this is really when to use the
mid ruds, a fast check of the mid ruds, not a repetitive
check. If you make a big mistake, and this PC is going
brrrrrr, and you say "Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very
much! Yeah, thank you! Yeah, thank you! Yeah, well I got
that! Now, is there any other item that - a person or being
there that would want to catch catfish?" And the PC is
sitting there looking blanched, you know? He's been struck
dead. He's halfway through an automaticity, and he can't
get it out.

Actually, recognize what's happened to him. You've suppressed
thirty or forty items, just like that. Bang! You didn't quite
see what you were doing, you know? You didn't realize he was
running off an automaticity and it was just tearing right
on down the line, and you all of a sudden gave him a nice
Tone 40 acknowledgment, see? Brought him into present time,
put him into the session, crash, you see, all that sort of
thing, and you just smell the rubber burning.

You make a goof like that, don't let him yap or get upset
about it, just get in your mid ruds.

Suppress - man, that is really going to be hot. You made him
suppress the lot. Get the idea? Or, if you were kind of
sleepy and it was a summer afternoon, and you suddenly wake
up to realize that the PC for five minutes has been sitting
there saying various things like this: "Is it a large ...
a ... a large tiger, a ... a ... a very - no, no, a
tiger, a stri ... a striped ... I can't quite get the
word for this. A tiger with horns. No, that would not be
right," and so forth.

And you wake up suddenly, the PC has been going on like
this for about five minutes - be an awfully good thing to get
in the mid ruds. In other words, the mid ruds are something
with which you pick up goofs. And if you're really a smooth
auditor you don't goof.

Now, how many items does it take per line to list a goal
out? How many items? What an interesting question. It's
almost philosophic in its impulse. It has a lot to do with
how smoothly it was done, oddly enough. And the less
smoothness it was done, the less in-sessionness it was done
with, the more items you are going to have. So therefore
you can't say how many items should appear on a list as
just a fait accompli. How many items, bang! You see? You
can't say that. But you sure can say that it isn't going to
be ten or fifteen. Ten or fifteen hundred? Now we're
getting more into the zone and order of magnitude.

But speaking, then, we're only speaking for the first goal.
How many is it for a second goal? How many is it for a
third goal? How many is it for a fourth goal? Well, these
things become shorter and shorter, these lines do.

So, how many clears the goal? Well, as many as you write
down well and expertly to a point where the needle goes
free. That's how many it is. And it certainly is not going
to be less than a thousand, I don't think. We've got the
third goal, I think you're still within that order of
magnitude. But I'm just guessing there.

The first goal, seven thousand items on each line I
wouldn't worry too much about it unless the TA has gone up
and stuck and has been stuck for a long time, or something
like this, you see? I wouldn't worry about the number of
items. I'll tell you what to worry about in a minute. But
the number of items isn't something to worry about, you
understand? Too few - God help us.

That, no.

Now, of course you don't ever null these items, and the PC
is going to ask you, "Why are we writing them down?" It
would be an interesting question: Why are we writing the
items down? Well, my answer to that is writing them down is
a better acknowledgment and it's a much better way to keep
tabs on your lists, and there's various reasons for writing
them down. But amongst them isn't nulling. We don't ever do
anything with these items. I don't know anything to do with

Your PC at first will be rather puzzled as to which one it
is. Well, of course, that's the joke. It isn't a Which one?"

He's been going a long piece of track on that goals problem
mass, man. He's had an opportunity to collect an awful lot
of identities. And the identities which he personally has
picked up has had the opportunity to collect an awful lot
of enemies. And he himself has collected an awful lot of
things which oppose enemies. And he himself has had a very
interesting taste for things which prevented him from doing
his goal. He'll begin to wonder after a while what
possessed him. And all of these things combined make
quantity. And the quantity is large.

All right. Now, let's talk about how long a line is listed.
It is listed exactly to free needle. It is not listed one
item beyond free needle. Hear me now: not one item beyond
the free needle. Not even one! Needle was free.

Now, the proper conduct of an auditor, when observing a
free needle on a line, should be professional. He should
not suddenly get hold of one of his favorite valences of a
rodeo performer, start bucking about in the chair and
trying to put a quirt to the E-Meter.

"A free needle! Ha-ha! Hey-hey! Ha-ha! Ha - that's enough,
it's a free needle. Hey, do you want to come around and see
this?" That is not optimum auditor conduct. It's all right,
because we can run the suppressions off.

But you'll feel like that when you first see one. You go to
the next line and list it to free needle or, if it doesn't
go to free needle, until the flow runs out as usual.

Sometimes one of them goes free, and three of them will
stick for a while. Some of them then you've got two free,
and the other two are sticking. And then sometimes you've
got three free, and one is all hung up. And then eventually
it goes free.

Well, the way to do that is you keep going one, two, three,
four, see? This thing is stuck. This line is sticky; it's
not free. Come back here to your next line in sequence,
see, and put one, two, three, free needle, see?

Now your needle is free when you go to your next line; your
next line doesn't upset it at all.

Now, I can't lay down a rule absolutely here, because it
may not make the least bit of difference. But if you said
the line to the PC and you get no needle reaction of any
kind whatsoever and nothing happens to the needle, it might
be very foolish to list it. So we go to the next line and
we read the thing off and there's no needle reaction of any
kind to it, you see, and the needle is still free. And we
come to the line we had that was sticky in the first place
and it's still sticky, now we list that thing on down until
we get to a comm lag, and it's still stuck.

Well now, which line do we come back to next? Because
nothing is cooling this thing down.

Well, you'd better check them, hadn't you?

Now, it won't upset anybody if you put one item on each one
of these lines. Now, we're into a completely questionable
area of what is the right thing to do? Experience will tell
what is the right thing to do. I can't give you a packaged
answer, but I can tell you this: is don't list beyond a
free needle! Because it's quite upsetting. It's something
like asking for a rudiment answer when there isn't one, see?

And if I were to lay down an operating rule for myself on
this, as something I would now be guided by, I would wade
myself through this. I would read these other lines and see
if I could get a stick, or a fall, see? Something.

And I'd get an item. And then I'd walk back to the line
that was stuck, and I would list it till I got a comm lag.
You get the idea? And I'd walk myself through this. And if
I had three lines, all of which were giving a free needle,
I wouldn't test all three in rotation every time. I'd test
one after the other. In other words, I'd take the sticky
line, I'd list on it to a comm lag, and then I'd choose
another one of these lines - not the one in rotation; I'd
skip a rotation, see? - and then I'd list some more sticky
needle and then I'd choose the third one that was free and
test it now. You know, I'd just walk my way through this,
sort of like on eggs. You get the idea? And I wouldn't list
those lines. My instinct would be agin' it. If I couldn't
get a fall or stick or any needle misbehavior on it, I
don't think I would touch them. I'd ask the PC if he had
any items on these lines, but my auditing command would not
be "Who-or-what-would-want-to-catch-catfish?" "Can you
think of anything right now that - anything, anybody, want
to catch catfish? No, you can't. All right. Thank you.
Huh-huh, that is - that's fine. Thank you very much." Get
off of there, see?

PC said, "Yeah, I just thought ... uh game wardens catch
catfish every now and then." And then you've set it down,
see? All right. He just gave you that gratuitously; that's
to keep from missing withholds.

You're at a touchy end of the case. And obviously to you it
isn't a touchy end of the case at all, because the PC is
now practically Clear and a Clear can stand anything. That
might be your reason. If the needle is this free, why,
doesn't matter how we treat the PC, does it? Well, that's
the wrong kind of thinking. Because right at that stage of
the game it is rather edgy, because you could take one of
these free-needle lines and you could list it right on into
a hole. In other words, you could stick it all up again.
It's already happened here, don't think I'm just dealing on
theory only. Overlisting has occurred.

All right. That's enough for that. You can certainly list
through to free needle on four lines.

Now, if one line consistently and continually hangs up, and
you can't make it go free, then you investigate the living
daylights out of what is wrong with that particular line
and see if you can find anything wrong with it at all. And
see if you can get any variation of wording of that line to
fire nicely and neatly, and continue listing on that new
wording, and that line will go clean.

Okay? That's in case of emergency. Because there might have
been, throughout, something wrong with that one line. See,
you might have missed it. Already been done here, so it can
happen. Three lines went free, one didn't.

Well, when that happened before, "your" was in the fourth
line. That "your" was enough to keep that line from going
free. And an examination of it - only took a couple, three
sessions of listing after that, and all four lines were
free, just like that, see? So, suspect that if you get too
much an inequality of this, and it's hanging on too long,
don't let it go for months; look into it.


All right. Now, what are the dangers of listing? Number
one, listing is auditing. It is auditing and must be
treated as such. It is the only therapeutic action
undertaken to free a goal - is merely listing. The pc does
not give out these answers analytically, no matter how
bright and alert the PC might act. They're all being dealt
off the bottom of the deck, all out of the reactive mind,
and you must not worry as to whether the PC is inventing
answers or dreaming them up or thinking of them
analytically or anything else. Just be calm about this.
Look, there are enough things to worry about in auditing
without inventing things.

No, just take what the PC gives you, man. Keep the session
going and relax. See? All right.

Now, as you are starting in with the goal, you have a
period of danger. And this period of danger begins at the
moment of finding the goal and is over when you have proved
beyond doubt that this goal, while being listed on all four
lines, turns on pain on line one, sensation on line two, a
little more sensation than pain on line three, and a little
more pain than sensation on line four. And when you've
proven that to your own complete satisfaction ...

Well, look, you're looking at me as though I should detail
this more, but figure it out for yourself, man. Figure it
out for yourself. Lines one and three belong to the PC. And
lines two and four belong to the enemy. And the enemy is
sensation and the PC is pain. That's easy. And unless you
get that optimum condition of affairs, that goal is wrong.
And you better get off of that, hotter than hot and faster
than fast.

Line one - here's what makes a goal wrong: Line one turns on
sensation. "Who or what would want to catch catfish?"

Dizzy, misemotional, groggy, "Uh-u-uhhh-ohhh," see? Pressures.

"Who or what would oppose catching catfish?"

"Ouch! Oh, what a terrible pain went through my head. Oh,
what an awful pain in my back. Oh, dear, dear, dear. Ohrrarr.
Ohh, my - ouch!" See? It's the wrong line! That should be
turning on sensation; it's turning on pain.

And we get to line three, which is the PC's own line again,
since it's an allied line, and the person says, "Nyoom-m!
Oh dear, still very dizzy and so on, so on and so on and so
on and so on ... Very dizzy, and there's this little tiny
pain in my ear, but that doesn't amount to much.

Sure makes you dizzy, doesn't it?"

And he gets to line four, "Who or what would pull back your
goal?" - you see, that's the enemy, man - and, "Ouch! Urp! Pain
went through the back there. What was that?" Now look, that
condition as a purity seldom exists. It won't exist for
very long. If you continue to list this it all becomes sen.
Everything gets to be sen. But if you go too far on this,
everything goes sen. The bank starts to become hard, beefy,
lumpy. The person wakes up in the morning and the ridges he
usually had are now really ridges. We're getting an
exaggeration of the situation. That bank is becoming heavy.
It's like running Creative Processing without having the
goal "to create."

And the PC will wake up in the morning, actually, and he'll
feel like there's a board going through his head, see?
Something like this. And he's ... And it all turns into
sensation. It's all dizzy, groggy, pressures, nausea,
misemotion. Starts to feel like after a while he didn't do
anything to high blood pressure, probably, but he starts to
feel like high blood pressure would be much more
comfortable. You see, all four lines go to sen. That's an
interesting item, isn't it? Now, if all four lines went to
pn, I wouldn't worry. But if they all went to sen, to hell
with it.

Get out of there. You're wrong. I don't care what you
think, you're wrong! You got it? I don't care what the PC
says. That's the wrong goal! Yeah, it read! Yeah, it's
fine. Yeah, it checked out. Yo. Yo, we had three
instructors and the governor of Australia check it out! I
don't care about all those arguments! The line is wrong!
because that is the final proof of a goal. You got it?

You haven't got a goal until you have listed it two or
three hundred items on each line, as the auditor. And that
will save your bacon. Of course, if it checks out
beautifully, PC got pain on it, bang, and so forth, you're
pretty sure, aren't you? But the final test of any pudding
is the listing. You go two, three hundred items deep on
this thing; if it's turning on pain in the right places and
sen on the right places, and that sort of thing, oh boy,
you're in. Go for broke.

Now the only thing could happen wrong is you start listing
with the rudiments out. Something crazy goes on in the PC's
life, he's got PTPs like mad or rudiments are wildly out,
or something of the sort, you see? And in a minor way - you
see, checking the goal out every time is just a way of
speeding this up. It won't prevent clearing, and checking
the lines out won't prevent clearing by listing. They just
blow it down.

But a wrong line will. A wrong line will prevent clearing.
"Who or what would try awfully hard to oppose catching
catfish?" And the next line to it is "Who or what would not
want to catch catfish?" you see? And the next line down the
line - all out of position, see, all misworded.

It would be too cruel an experiment - I have seen this in
actual action - but you can take four lines, check them out,
and then throw one. Now it will fire on a suggestion and an
invalidation, see, and a mistake. You can get it to fire,
of course, just like you can get a goal to fire. And now
insist on listing that line. "Who or what would know he had
to have to catch catfish?" And then put all the other ones
down correctly.

The action of doing something like that is to bring the TA
up to a stick. It's almost exactly 4.5 to 6.0. Almost
always. I haven't ever seen a tone arm on a misworded line,
or mislisting, or ARC-broke sessions, or overlisting in
sessions - the errors you can make, in other words -
that on goals listing didn't go up to 4.5 and 5.0. I'm
quite prepared to see one go up to 6.0, or to 7.0, or 3.75.
I'm quite prepared to, you understand. But it just happens
that every one I've seen have gone from 4.5 to 5.0 and then
stick. They'll stick at 4.5 or they'll stick at 5.0. And
more have stuck at 5.0 than at 4.5.

So when your tone arm starts lingering around 5.0 for a
session, and next session lingers around 5.0, don't be
surprised if the third session your PC all of a sudden
says, "Well, I was awfully dizzy. I was walking down the
street, and I saw the buildings sort of reel." You're doing
something weird. Something wild is going on here.
Something's happened. You got to straighten it out.

Now, what straightens out? How do you straighten one of
these things out? Well, you locate what's wrong. You better
check out the goal and get it to fire again if you possibly
can. Check out the lines, one after the other; see if
there's any disagreement from the PC on these lines or
these wordings. That's quite important. You're not going to
change them around just because he disagrees with them, but
you're going to sure make it's answerable, if you can.
Check out your sessioning in general (which isn't really
enough to keep it all hung up) and just straighten this
thing out and get it to rolling again. That's what you're
going to do.

Now, look: If you can't straighten the goal out after
you've listed a couple of hundred, if it ceases to fire
after two or three hundred items on each one of four lists,
it's sort of "Which way did they go? What happened?" You
got to get it back to firing again. Of course, if you can't
get it back to firing again, it was probably the wrong goal
in the first place.

The method we're using to find goals right now rather makes
it very difficult to get a wrong goal. That makes it pretty
difficult for you to get a wrong goal or run a wrong goal.
That's the beauty of it, and why I love that method. Ease
of auditing and positiveness of finding the goal were
enough to have this. And that's not why I'm happy about it.
It used to be that only an instructor or somebody who was
specially trained in that little tiny technique of
checkout - we could absolutely rely on the fact that it was
the right goal.

Now, any of you guys, if you're good enough to do nulling
by mid ruds down to a point where you find a goal, you're
so used to checking them out that checking out a goal
doesn't phase you anymore. You'll be able to actually look
at a goal and say "Well, boom, let's check it out." Brrr,
brrr. "To be a tiger" - tzal-tup-ub, bang, thud, bang.
"Yeah, it doesn't fire." See, that'd be all there was to
it, you know? "Let's see, is there a suppression on there?
That goal been suppressed? That isn't a goal." See?
Positiveness enters into the picture. And that's going to
save an awful lot of bacons.

So, preventing the wrong goal from being found has been
quite a campaign I've had to engage on here for quite a
while, and actually what was marvelous is that this new
nulling by mid ruds, not just for its value for the
auditor, but to prevent wrong goals from being found, is
worth its weight in planets, man, and it's pretty heavy.

Now, this idea of finding a goal, finding it firing, and
saying that is the person's goal or agreeing that it as the
person's goal - that's perfectly all right, because it can be
run out. It's an assertion, see? That's all right. But when
the PC keeps saying "No, it isn't my goal" and the auditor
keeps saying "Yes, it is your goal," a ridge is built up
which is pretty hard to take apart.

And it will keep a goal firing. So don't argue over
somebody's goal or you'll make it fire and fire and fire,
and its not his goal. You get the suppressions,
invalidation's off it, he'll agree with it if it's his
goal, and if it isn't his goal, he won't.

You could find an opposition goal. This is the other thing
that could be wrong. You could find an opposition goal.
Now, I don't know that by nulling by mid ruds you will find
an opposition goal. I don't know too much about finding
opposition goals, as distinct from finding goals. I can't
give you much data on this, actually, because I've never
seen an opposition goal that would fire after it has been
prepchecked and nulled by mid ruds. You understand? So
there's always the possibility that opposition goals
actually only fired because they were invalidation's
of the goal or something. You get the idea? And they might
not have had rocket reads on them at all, you see?

And somebody the other day came up with a reverse rocket
read on a goal, and immediately proposed it was probably an
opposition goal, which I thought was very interesting. So
if you see that sort of thing, let me know. But I don't
know that you can get a rocket read on an opposition goal.
I don't know that it isn't just the invalidation of the
goal that makes the opposition goal fire.

Well, you're fairly secure if you have found the goal and
checked it out. But don't be too cocky until you've got two
hundred on a line. And if you found a goal and then turned
it over to somebody to list, remember to reach out, by the
time they got three hundred on each line or something like
that, and say to the PC, "How are you doing? How do you
feel? All right.

When they ask you so-and-so and so-and-so, where does the
somatic come?" And the person says, "Well, it's so and so on."

"Now, what kind of a somatic is it? Is it a sensation, or
is it painful or what is it? And what line is it on?" And
check it all out yourself, you got the idea? You know,
don't read the auditor's report. That's a good prevention.

Otherwise than that, you realize that somebody who is
trained to HCA level could be quite competent in listing.
And listing is the longest part of clearing. So if you had
somebody helping you in auditing and you kept your eye on
the situation, a person with less training than is
necessary to find goals could list goals, and because he
was doing this sort of thing and doing some Prepchecking
and so forth as he went along, he would actually get up to
a point where he could locate goals. So it's a good
training school, listing is. See?

Now, that lengthens the number of people you could clear by
three or four times. See? Now, you got to know all about
listing and you should list somebody to Clear just to see
how it looks and get the experience and that sort of thing,
but I don't expect you to list every goal to Clear that you
find. It'd be a much more economic situation for you to
find the goal and then keep your eagle eye beagled on the
somebody who is listing it out.

Now, how about auto-listing? Well, there is no telling. I
won't say that auto-listing is impossible. I don't believe
that it is possible or impossible, at this particular stage
of the game.

I believe that it would be better than nothing. Let me put
it that way. But to tell somebody to go home and list on
four lists and you will look into it in a couple of weeks,
it seems to me like it's sort of taking his life in your
hands! You know? I wouldn't be sure about this at all. But
I would say this - I would say this: that if you were on a
desert island and you knew your goal, and you knew exactly
what the goal is and it'd been expertly checked out, and
there was absolutely no way under the sun for you to get
Clear any other way, I would say that you should pick up a
pencil and a piece of palm bark. But we would know more
about that in due course.

Now, these are the various ramifications to listing.
Clearing itself consists of the cycle of finding a goal and
then listing it until you have a free needle on each of
four lines, finding another goal and listing it on each of
four lines, Ending another goal and listing it on each of
four lines. And the state of case is regulated by the
number of goals the person has which have not been found
and listed. Those are damping factors.

Now, here at Saint Hill it's fairly simple to make a
first-goal Clear - not simple, but with heroic activities
(let us put it that way), we can make a first-goal Clear.

Now, to find a second goal on a PC, and list that one out,
this is getting much more difficult.

We have just now found and checked out a second goal on
Jean, and that was very, very good news, that I was very
happy about. And at least it was stated to me in so many
words that it was checked out today. Was it?

Female Voice: Hm-hm.

Yeah. All right, that's a second goal. Okay, now she's got
a little time to list on this second goal. And I think they
possibly even may list it out because the listing, very
possibly, is much shorter than a first goal. But we know
more about that in due course.

She's already starting to depart from the standard state of
Clear, or such a person is already starting to depart from
what we have considered Clear. They're starting to move up
into Theta Clear or something like that, and it's an
adventure from there on out, because these various states,
now, of course are not regulated in any way by different
processes to different conditions. It's a gradient scale of
the same condition all the way, of course.

Now, I can't even tell you how many goals it is to OT. See?
Or how long it'd take you to find and list each one of
these goals. I was very happy to find today that the second
goal would fire so nicely. Nice. I was told they had good
rocket reads on the thing. See? I was very happy about that.

Somewhere up the line, why, the goals are not going to stay
in. They're going to start blowing.

But how far do you have to keep the goals not blowing to
get OT? See?

But that is the road that we are on, basically. And it's a
repetition of the same action.

The only improvement which I see in auditing which is
coming immediately up, and so on, is a mechanical
improvement. That is to say, a persistency of read - devices
to make a read more persistent and therefore more
observable by an auditor.

I don't see any changes to amount to anything on clearing
as such. I do see some dodges one could do to probably
shorten up finding a goal. And I see some frills one could
add onto listing that would possibly shorten the thing up
one way or the other. But I don't look for any fabulous
advance from along that line. I don't. Because there are
certain limitations that you hit, and the limitation is
that the person has got just that much case, and they have
to sit there just that long, and they can talk just that
fast. Get the idea? All right.

And maybe when we're all OT, why, maybe we'll look back
over the whole thing again, and we'll say it would have
been much easier had we done it this way. And I hope that
we're in that condition and don't have to do it some other way.

Those are the improvements I look for in clearing. I really
don't look for many other improvements. But I do look for
improvements that'll take little shortcuts - little faster,
something that is more valuable to do this than to do that,
you know, little things along the line.

And we may carve it down, we may carve it down
considerably. We may use various systems Of auditing. Just
given you one tonight: You find the goal, let am HPA list
it, see, under your eye. Therefore you've lost two hundred
hours of auditing, just like that. Various other mechanisms
of this character can be fine, and we can step it up into
quantitative clearing. Our problem now is quantitative

My immediate problem is to get some of you to read an
E-Meter better. Well, I'm solving that with drills and
attention and various things, and I'm also double-solving
it by making sure that a persistent-read E-Meter comes into
existence in the very near future that can be hooked up to
a Mark IV and red lights go on and pinball's dials go
around when you hit a read, see, and it stays on until you
do something about it or something like that.

But I have actually no quarrel - no real quarrel with your
drills, no real quarrel with your auditing presence, no
real quarrel with these things. I see just this metering
that's being a problem. And we'll get that licked.

I have a problem of how many of you can I push on through
to first-goal Clears in a space of time, when the fellow
alongside of you can't read an E-Meter and neither can you.
You know? Some of you are in that condition, and that's
worrying me. I got these various problems, but I haven't
got any technical problems now. I haven't got any. I'm not
even worrying about what's in the guts of this meter. I
just told them, well, what we need is an idiot meter. You
have an on-and-off switch and a red light. When you say
something to the PC the red light goes on. Or it doesn't go
on. And if it goes on you clean it up, see, and if it
doesn't go on, you don't clean it up. Idiot meter! These
things we'll have. These things we'll have.

I can undoubtedly find where we can best expect the goal to
appear on a list, and therefore cut down the number of
goals we have to null in order to find the goal, you know?
Do various other tricks of this character. But as far as
technology is concerned, we got it made, and you're doing
it. And the only thing some of you are doing wrong is
you're missing a few reads, see? Well, that's all I got to
cure, so that's easy. That's that.

Thank you very much.

=================== TAPE END

Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
Сообщений: 698
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original LECTIONS, TAPES

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 5