SERVICE FACSIMILE ASSESSMENT 5 September 1963

SERVICE FACSIMILE ASSESSMENT 5 September 1963

Сообщение auditor » 28 дек 2015, 12:43

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

SERVICE FACSIMILE ASSESSMENT

A lecture given on
5 September 1963

Thank you.

Well, you're very lucky today. Very lucky today. I'm not mad at anybody. What is this date?

Audience: 5th of September.

5 Sept. A.D. 13. And we have a lecture here on Scientology m, which wraps up the field of
psychotherapy.

I don't wish to overemphasize these banal, sweeping statements-and I don't even think you
heard it. In fact, I know you didn't!

I'll say it again. I have a lecture here which wraps up the field of psychotherapy. Thank you.
Thank you.

All right. Now, we have been walking around the edges of the field of psychotherapy, by
which we determine its relationship to the neurotic and the insane, and so on, for a very long
time. We've been giving the boys who we thought were holding down this field, the courtesy
of more or less staying out of it, and so forth.

But there are some interesting things which you should know before I go into the technical
material involved here. And this is sequitur to the two lectures which you have heard this
week, but there's some things which you should know at this stage.

The word psychiatry has no proprietorship, has no legal definition, is supposed to be the
treatment of the neurotic or the insane, and isn't owned by anybody, isn't patented, means
nothing in law, and so forth, but does mean something to the public. I consider that's
interesting.

We were having some press trouble here a few weeks ago, and I wrote at that time some
articles on this particular subject which clarified . . . I had to study two particular spheres-
that of newspaper, and had to study the field of psychotherapy to some degree. And although
I was talking a great deal about psychiatry, I finally differentiated exactly what I was talking
about. I was talking about the untrained mental doctor in the field of psychiatry.

He has no business there. Of course, you always look for an aberrated situation, you'll find
that there's a lie connected with it.

Things which people can't solve have a lie connected with them, and that thing we call a
service facsimile. And this happens to be the third-dynamic service facsimile. The medical
doctor who is not trained for and has no business in the field of mental healing is attempting
to take dominance over this particular field.

See, he's not a trained mental practitioner. In fact, somebody just gave me a clipping-some
London bigwig comments on the amount of training given the medical doctor. And I think it
was ten half hour lectures, most of which were unattended by the students. A real roast.

No, this man is not trained in the field of the mind. He's trained in brains and surgery. So
therefore he applies brain, gray matter and surgery and force and electric shock-naturally
applies these things because he doesn't understand the mind at all. He has no proprietorship
over the mind. And as a matter of fact he's not trained in the mind at all, he's trained in the



brain. He knows it occupies the skull and that you can shove ice picks in it, and this he
considers mental healing.

Ah, but he has told a big lie. He's told a whopping lie. And he's put it across on legislatures
and that sort of thing that the medical doctor is qualified to operate in the field of mental
healing. And of course he's not trained in the field of mental healing.

And all you'd have to do is bring pressure to bear on legislatures that people who are not
trained exclusively in the field of the mind may not practice in the field of the mind, and
you've secured the entire field of the mind. I think any legislature would pass this. "People
who are not trained in the field of the mind must not practice in the field of the mind." Banal.

It's on that stable datum that most legislatures pass laws-misrepresentation. You have to be
trained in the field of the mind, do you see? That's the isness of the situation. The big lie is
that people who aren't trained in the field of the mind at all are practicing in the field of the
mind and calling themselves psychiatrists, which they are not. They're medical doctors. The
only person you have to deny the field of the mind to is the medical doctor, and he has no
business there.

As far as the field of the human mind is concerned, George Hay, the other day, did a survey
out of all existing society records and so forth, and found out there were 272 mental
practitioners in England outside of Scientologists-272. And there were some eight nurses
who were also qualified to give diathermy to the disturbed-272. Well, we outnumber them,
man! Over and over and over, r mean, just active Scientologists outnumber them in England.
They're nothing to outnumber. There are 70 in South Africa. In all of South Africa there are
70.

In other words, there is no field of the mind. There's apparently a great deal of advertising,
there's the medical doctor, who is numerically very short in supply, and there's lots of articles
in the newspapers saying "the field of the mind, the field of the mind." There's legislatures,
there's appropriations, everything is all laid out just as though there is a field of mental
healing.

I wish to point out to you, my fair friend, that it's a totally unoccupied field. There isn't
anybody in it. They rattle around like an atom in a cubic light-year of space. See, they aren't.
You don't have an opponent. And one of our lies, then, is that there is some opposition. And
we have done the trick of putting an item where it isn't. See? We've said there's opposition
there; therefore we've mocked up our own opposition. And you know how serious it is with a
PC when you put an extra item into a GPM. See? Well, we've done that.

Now, somebody, gratuitously, someplace or another, I don't know on what budget, is
advertising the existence of mental healing. I don't know, but they're spending fantastic
quantities of money on it. There's nobody to receive the results of it except us. This becomes
a ludicrous situation.

Therefore, people qualified at Level III will very soon have available to them a certificate as a
psychiatric consultant. It's perfectly all right with me if you call yourself a psychiatrist.
Marvelous! People must be looking all over the society for these psychiatrists, you see?
That's 972. Isn't this a fantastic situation? When you look at it-when you look at it right in
the teeth, you see that it is a fantastic situation.

Now, when you recognize that human illness will surrender to R1C, and certainly to R2C -
you know, that's just "What solutions have you had to your lumbosis, bud?"-you're going
to get 60, 70 percent return. There will be 30 percent, 40 percent, something like that, that
won't recover.

That's because they require further care. But just your ordinary healing: you know what you
can do with an assist, you know what you can do in these various levels. The medical doctor



isn't even then safe in his own field of healing. He isn't safe there. Because I think that an
HCA, an HPA, very shortly, will be graduated in the field of healing. He'll know the three
corners of the ARC triangle and the eight dynamics, and he'll know some of the basics of
Scientology, and he will know how to keep in an itsa line and keep it directed to the person's
illness, or something like that.

And just about that level we have an HCA/HPA. And then your Level m is somebody who
can list and do a Prepcheck. So we've opened the gates here by taking out and training and
specializing in.

Now, when you think of your level of training, well, this is something else, isn't it? So that
requires a much broader recognition. And there's a lot of HCAs and HPAs right now who
won't be just eligible-through the training they are getting right this minute, they won't just
be eligible for an HCA or an HPA, they'll be eligible for an HSS, don't you see? All they've
got to do is round off their qualifications for HCA/HPA with their itsa line, don't you see,
and that gives them that. But they've already gone on to Prepchecking and meters and all
kinds of wild things of this particular character and so on, so they've practically completed
their HSS.

Now, how about you? How about you sitting here, you see? What do we do with you? Well, I
don't know, we've already got you a certificate, haven't we? And we can also make this other
certificate available to you, "Psychiatric Consultant."

So if you want this certificate, listen to this lecture! Because I'm not going to have it said
about us that we give ten one-half-hour lectures which nobody attended. We'll go them one
better: you're here, listen!

Now, you've already had two lectures on this subject. The difference is, we expect now that
you produce some results with this. Now, you've been getting your fingers . . . (This is the
lecture I'm giving you now. Those were mainly announcements. Giddy world we live in.)

The orientation of Scientology-reorientation of Scientology-looks very innocent. It looks
like nothing much happened. I put out these five levels of Scientology, you know, and it
brought order, order, order, order, order, and everything has been snapping into place
beautifully. Well, you're the winner, because you've gone all the way on up through the lot,
don't you see? And the future face of Scientology will look a bit different.

But Level III is expected to be able to clear. And it also, incidentally and accidentally, takes
in the whole field of neurosis and psychosis and gives you a greater purchase on this
particular zone and area than any mental practitioner in existence on the face of this planet-
or any other one, for that matter. You'll be far more qualified to treat the insane if you can do
this particular trick, because this is the only thing that makes them insane.

This is the basis of insanity. The basis of neurosis and the bringing about of a state of Clear
are all the same breed of cat, except they're just different degrees. It's what is wrong with the
mind, but it's in different degree. The degree is whether a person can live with it or not. And
if he can't really live with it but just worries about it all the time, all the time, and really can't
live at all, and so forth, well, we say he's neurotic. And if he can't even manage himself in his
environment, we say he's insane.

But what's wrong with him? He's got the final solution. He's got a final solution, ant that
solution is not necessarily the solution of being insane. It is some solution which is all-
pervading and makes it unnecessary to itsa anything. After that he never has to look. So of
course what happens to him? He just disappears in a mound of un-as-ised mass. He never has
to look. All he needs is the solution.

Now, in processing, a certain amount of introversion takes place. A certain amount of
introversion takes place by reason of processing. But that introversion is only undertaken to



bring about extroversion. The actual progress of a case depends upon the raising of the A, R
and C of that case, step by step, forward. The only way that introversion does not lead-
introversion and erasure of something-does not then lead to a greater ability to reach in the
environment, or greater ARC, the only reason that does not occur, is when over restimulation
is brought about.

In other words, you restimulate twenty units and pick up ten of charge, you see? Well now,
although you have advanced the case by means of erasure, you've actually increased the
introversion of the case by running it at too high a level of restimulation. That factor still
exists in Class IV. You've restimulated too much.

But it is full track, whole track, that is most likely to get a PC into this condition. You're not
likely to get this PC into this condition in the very circumscribed area of one lifetime. You
have to let his attention wander all over the whole track and on to the backtrack, and let him
itsa this GPM and that GPM and another GPM, and this chain and that chain, and not flatten
these things, and so forth, at Level IV, in order to get this individual more introverted by
reason of processing than extroverted. But of course, you're winning all the time, even
though you're winning with an introverted PC.

In other words, he's looking in all the time, he's looking in. He is not reaching more. He will
eventually come out of the woods at the far end of this thing and have a tremendous reach.
But during the period of his going, he is over restimulated and therefore introverted.

That's the ills of overestimation. They are not very great. You're not likely to spin anybody.

That's at Level IV. What about overestimation at Level III? Well, at Level III you take
somebody who is very, very batty. You could probably over restimulate him in this lifetime.
Let's take somebody who is in catatonic schizophrenia. Let's use a fancy term-doesn't
mean anything. Catatonia means they're lying still, in apathy, unmovingly and not reaching
anything. Schizophrenia means "scissors." I don't know how you can lie still in a scissors,
but they've managed it.

Just shows you what happens when strange people who don't know anything about the mind
try to invade the field and advertise that they can do something in it: they get things corned
up this way.

Let's put it more factually. This character is in total apathy-total, unmoving apathy. He's
lying there in the asylum. If you put your finger on the exact button this person could talk
about and would talk about, the person would communicate with you. But if you put your
finger on a half a dozen other things and plunge them into even this-lifetime engram, or
something like that, the person would spin more, don't you see? So the worse off a case is,
even in one lifetime-and this is true for all cases, even on the whole track-the worse off a
case is, the more careful you have to be about overestimation. If you restimulate something,
pick up the charge you have restimulated. That is the byword on this.

Now, you won't see very great upsets by this, but once in a while somebody will who is
pretty bad off, somebody who is pretty neurotic or something like that-if you're treating this
person, if you're processing this person. and you all of a sudden just ask them accidentally for
any pain or anything that was connected with that incident. . . And of course, they've been
running it on a conceptual basis and weren't close to anything like that, and they suddenly go
into more pain and they practically spin in front of your eyes. You got the idea?

So the worse off a case is, the less reach they have, the less ARC they have with their
environment-these are the things which measures worse off, see, the less reach, the less
ARC-the easier it is to over restimulate the case. Becomes very easy to over restimulate the
case, because you're using very powerful tools, actually, and they go into the mind like
they're going through hot butter. And it's very easy to do this.



So remember this; this datum monitors all clearing efforts, and that's Level III. You see,
you're not going on the whole track to clear anybody; that is the next thing you must realize,
that you're going to stay off the whole track. If you're going to clear somebody, you're going
to stay in this lifetime, and that's the only place you gonna stay! If you're practicing Level
III, you have not left this lifetime; if you're practicing Level II, you have not left this lifetime;
Level I, you have not left this lifetime. You got it? The only place you leave this lifetime is
Level IV. And the only reason you take somebody down the line on Level IV, if their tone
arm is sitting more or less in a very active condition. And it never goes low and it never sticks
high. And then you're going to run somebody down the track. Because then it's very difficult
to over restimulate them.

You can over restimulate them at Level IV. You can just, perforce, over restimulate them, in
spite of good tone arm action and so forth. You can do it.

But this is Level IV. This is Level IV, when you take them on the whole track. So Class I,
Class II, Class III, whole track? Nyet, nyet, nyet. See, strictly Russian participation in world
affairs. No!

Guy says, "You know, I think I've lived before."

"Oh, good. Thank you very much. I'm glad of that. Now, in your immediate environment
here, have you noticed . . . ?"

You understand? Why? Because if this person is having trouble . . . Now we get to the next
factor of restimulation? see? This is all a piece of what you've been hearing about
restimulation and everything else. This all integrates together very nicely. You got another
factor you're working uphill with, with any PC on this planet particularly, and that [is
environmental restimulation. And it is environmental restimulation that is the straw that
breaks the PC's back.

If you can audit the whole track on a PC who also has environmental restimulation, you are
doing something heroic. It can be done; it makes hard auditing, and you are doing it right this
moment in Z Unit. So don't think it can't be done. But you know, right there, that it's a
source of considerable amount of upset and worry. Guy has PTPs, he has this, he has that and
so forth. What are all these things? What's all this constant level of restimulation in this
environment?

You take, in an HGC, where people are walking in off the street: these people have PTPs;
they're just nothing but a walking PTP. Well, all right, that means their environment is
keeping them tremendously restimulated. Day after, day, night after night, their environment
is restimulating them. That's environmental restimulation. That's the wife's natter and the
kid's demand for another shilling. That's the income-tax folder that is lying in the mailbox.
That's the news that just comes out on TV that all males are now going to be conscripted
below the age of, and above the age of, or maybe, see? It's this, it's that, it's the other thing.
Environmental restimulation.

When this source of restimulation is at a high level, the PC is unauditable. And the difficulty
that the auditor has in carrying forward a case to a good win is basically-when dealing with
the public at large and that sort of thing-is basically auditor versus environmental
restimulation, not auditor versus bank at all. Now, this is so great that an individual who has
tremendous present time problems in his environment does not make progress on his
auditing. He will not change his graph.

Now, we know that. That's a stable datum-man, that's in with spikes and rocks and welded.
They know that in HGCs; before they operate very long, they learn that one. PC has a
continuous PTP throughout the intensive, there will be no graph change of any kind
whatsoever. If he has a PTP throughout the intensive and ARC breaks during the intensive,
the graph will worsen.



How to make a high graph? Well, you've got to audit the PC in such a way as to get around
the environmental restimulation. Therefore, the practice of an HGC operating mainly with
raw public or partially interested Scientologists or just newcomers, something like that-or
even old-timers, very often-is a battle with the environmental restimulation, the
surroundings in which this person lives. It's not a battle with the reactive mind at all.

Now, when this environmental restimulation rises or when the PC is more susceptible to it, he
gets into states which are called neurotic and psychotic. There are no psychotics on the whole
track-no whole track psychotics. Psychosis is a temporary condition which normally exists
in one lifetime. Interesting look, isn't it? Very temporary condition, because it's
environmental restimulation monitored by the susceptibility of the individual to that
environmental restimulation, and that's all there is to it. It's his ability to withstand the
restimulation of the environment versus the environmental restimulation.

Now, of course, a person's ability to withstand the environmental restimulation is one erg of
thrust back, you see, and the environmental restimulation is three ergs. Right away you're
going to get a condition-of course, I'm giving you an erg or a dyne or something like that,
you see, as some fantastically . . . I think a dyne is the amount of force exerted by one
something-or-other, infinite -one gram going one centimeter? What is this thing? It's
something on the order of a lead dropping from the end of the pencil to the table, don't you
see, over a distance of about a half an inch. You know, just nothing, see?

Well, this guy's a very weak little fellow and he lives on a little farm, and it's a long way
from every place, and it's awful quiet. But his environmental thrust-back is capable of only
one erg, see? And by God, one day the pigs get loose. And by God, he spins. You see, this is
proportional. This helps you understand what happens to cases.

And this other guy has three megatons of resistance, and he's got forty foot-pounds of thrust
in his environment, see? Nothing, you see? Doesn't even dent him, see? Run the whole track
like crazy, see? See, his environmental restimulation is fantastic, it would have killed forty
people, see? This doesn't happen to bother him. He can handle that much, don't you see?

So it's the environmental restimulation on the one hand and the ability of the individual to
front up to it on the other hand which gives you your difficulties of cases. It's those two
factors in combination-see, these two factors in combination. It isn't just the environmental
restimulation. Well, you see, there's fifteen office workers, and all of a sudden a concrete
mixer sets up across the street. And they start putting up a new building, and one of them
goes batty and the fourteen do all right. What's this? It's the same stimuli. See, same amount
of environmental restimulation, but one of those girls had very low resistance-that is, low
thrust-back.

Well, therefore if you simply studied the environmental restimulation and sought to reduce
environmental restimulation by social or public measures, making it a very quiet life, you
would make a lot of people go sane-this is perfectly true-but a lot more would go mad
with boredom. See, so the do-gooder, with his idea of "Peace, peace, peace, peace," is trying
to get himself an environment that he can live in, that he won't spin in, see? Don't you see?
And these characters that go out beating the drum along this line as an exclusive thing, you
see, they'll work the hardest at it because they're the most worried about it. But they create,
in the final analysis, a very dull world, and therefore they get protested against.

For instance, people have hobbies: Some people have some hobbies, some people have other
hobbies. Some people have the hobbies of knitting; some people have hobbies of sitting still
and daydreaming; some people have the hobbies of riding motorcycles and some people have
the hobbies of shooting down airplanes. See, there are various hobbies. This is how much
randomity an individual thinks is necessary to the environment.



And you're coming back now to an old principle of acceptable randomity. Well, acceptable
randomity is this ratio which I just talked to you about. People for a long time couldn't
understand this factor; well, here's the understanding of it. It's the amount of restimulation of
the environment measured against the amount of restimulation which the individual can
withstand. And these two factors together give you a constant.

Now, it's very hard to work out this constant because we have no actual figures, but express it
in terms of life: This individual is able to stand one dinner party. See? And he gets two
funerals and a suicide. You see how you can work this out? And here's this fellow who can
withstand two massacres, you see, and a wreck, and he gets as his environmental
restimulation one dinner party. See, so you get these differences amongst people. And it
makes them all look different, but actually it's on the same basis, and it's on this basis of
restimulation.

Now, you're busy auditing: You're auditing this guy that can stand the randomity of one
dinner party, and you audit him into an engram where he had a wreck. Now his environment
consists of what? The ability to withstand a dinner party, but the restimulation of the
environment is what you're running him on, which is one wreck. He's promptly swamped.
He's promptly swamped. He can't run that kind of an incident. He just goes in over his head,
don't you see?

Well, one of the ways PCs solve this is by not going in. And it is probably the favorite
method of resolution. They audit only what they consider safe. This is almost line one of
Book Three of Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health, see? The mind monitoring-you
know, it won't go in over its head. We got techniques now which can push a guy in over his
head, but that's beside the point. The point is that the mind tends to shut off any restimulation
that will overwhelm it. It just tends to.

It's like, this guy can stand one dinner party. And you say, "How would you like to have two
funerals and a wreck?"

"Uuuhgh, no!" See?

Actually, this gets so bad, that if two funerals and a wreck incur in his environment, he can
actually just be completely-they didn't exist. They aren't real to him. He locks them up out
there as not having happened. And so does he lock up his bank as not having happened.

In other words, his ability to resist restimulation is too low for him to face up to track, and
there's your problem as an auditor. How are you going to get rid of any track with this boy,
huh? How are you going to get rid of any track at all? How are you going to get anything
done on this case at all? Because that case is liable to sit there and not even come in close to
its track, or ambitiously going in over its head all the time.

So cases actually divide into three categories: those who are audited easily, those who won't
even approach the bank and those who are always trying to commit suicide in one.

We'll call these cases Three, Two, and One, with the One, the case who can be audited, you
see, and the other two, you see, as cases that always are going it too strong, man. In eating,
you'd say their eyes were bigger than their stomachs and all this kind of thing. When the
other fellow, who just won't- Two, you know-just the guy that just doesn't even come
near the bank, he just doesn't have anything to do with it, see? "What bank?" you know,
"What bank?" Engrams all over the place, you see; he just got through going through a
windshield, see? "What engram?" you know? He's cutting his throat with it all the time.
Doesn't exist, see?

And you say, well, "Let's run out this accident you just had," see?



"What accident? Where? No accident. I just learn to take things calmly in life, you see?" And
he's sick and sick and sick, man. He just learned to take things calmly in life, see? He's got
something going there, see?

Well, how do we convert Case Two and Case Three into a Case One? How do we convert
these two cases, one which audits at a suicidal level and the one which audits on a no-
approach basis at all, and you can't get anything done . . . And that no-approach basis is your
most flagrant example of the stuck tone arm, the low tone arm, the dead thetan-these
misbehaviors of the tone arm, see? Don't come near the bank. Hasn't got anything to do with
him.

Now, how do you convert that case into one that is auditable with good tone arm motion?
I've given you a lot of technical data here. I don't really expect you to do too much with it or
think about it too much. I'm sure you understand it. But I'm giving you the actual technical
background to the highly elementary material which I'm now going to give you. This
material is very elementary.

All cases tend toward the safe solution. All cases tend toward the safe solution. You're
making a note on it, write it down and underscore it. That's very, very important. That is an
element of simplicity the like of which you never saw, see? Some cases-some cases-also
adopt a vengeful solution: "Getting even with them by dying."

Now, when I say all cases adopt a safe solution, oddly enough the dangerous solution comes
under the heading of a safe solution. This gets wacky, but "the safe thing to do is to jump off
London Bridge." Because it all comes under the heading of a safe solution, don't you see?
But it actually sounds highly `dangerous, and they very often go in over their heads. That
characterizes, then, your cases that you're having any trouble with or having any trouble in
processing. One has simply adopted a good, safe solution, and the other one has adopted a
dangerous solution because it is safe. I know it doesn't make sense. That's what's the trouble
with it.

Now, if you move these cases over into the auditable line, you will move them over on the
channel of safe solution: All cases move over on the channel of safe solution-safe solution.
Very, very important. Safe solution can be stated as "safe decision," "safe assumption," "safe
treatment," "safe environment," "safe position."

You have a world here which is security-oriented. It is, for instance, trying to keep up the
ideals and ideals of human rights. But we notice that human rights and human liberty are
succumbing. Why? Because twenty bystanders stand around and watch the cops mess up a
citizen's human rights, because they're all operating on a safe solution. So all human rights
disappear down the channel of the safe solution.

That is the hole in the bottom of the bathtub. It's the most dangerous thing in the world to
have a safe solution, because that is the hole out of which sanity drains.

A safe solution inhibits observation. And anything which inhibits observation destroys.
Whether a person is merely difficult to get over toward his bank, or is going in headlong, or
in a much worse state-these are specialized states and are not gradients of the other state-is
very neurotic or is completely psychotic (they are not cousins to these other states), it's just to
the degree that they have adopted a safe solution. That's all that establishes it. That's the
common denominator.

Now, you could make a lot of hay out of that, out of just that statement, just as a philosophic
truth. And it is a philosophic truth. And that is the plow that plows the furrow straight down
through the middle of the problem of the human mind, as it has been approached, and as it
has been attempted toward solution by mental healing-granting this thing called "mental
healing"-that just plows it right up, man. That's the end of that. This datum underlies mental
healing with the same sweepingness as "survival is the common denominator of existence,"



you see? Because it's actually another method of saying survival, in aberrated form. People
make survival solutions which then become so safe that they become contra survival.

So you have entered a brand-new datum here. You've got a brand-new datum which is as
compelling and as sweeping and so forth in the field of mental healing as survival is in life.
People solve things in the direction of survival even when it means they have to succumb.
When it gets into mental healing, you are actually investigating the difficulties people are
having surviving. But the basic method of survival is the safe solution, and that makes the
individual right and makes others wrong, and therefore, intends to enhance the person's
survival by bringing about a position of dominance; permits him to escape domination and
permits him to dominate others; and then at the higher level permits him to survive and
causes others to succumb-he thinks. With great amazement, you'll find committing suicide
as a survival computation as it becomes more and more aberrated. How to survive: not to
survive, of course.

Everybody is solving that. The miser: how does he survive? How does he survive? Well,
every once in a while in New York they dig somebody out of an attic or something like that;
he's been dead for three or four weeks. And the guy has got no stuffing in his mattress at all,
there's nothing in there but hundred dollar bills, you see? And his method of survival is to
have lots of money. And that's a very safe solution. But he's neglected, in his obsession with
this safe solution, to spend any of it in order to live.

So as attention becomes more and more concentrated, it becomes less and less sensible.

For an individual to be totally wise, it is necessary for him to be able to observe his
environment. He also must be able to permeate his environment. He has to be able to have
reach.

It isn't good enough to have a couple of maxims tucked behind your left medulla oblongata to
which you can refer in times of stress. The Arabian ruler, every now and then, would be
calling up poets to help him out in his efforts to rule a flea-bitten population whose favorite
pastime was executing rulers. and they would come up with such things, such gems, as "That,
too, shall come to pass away." Very wise. Very wise. And yet if it were adapted totally, it'd
kill somebody.

People have philosophy all mixed up with these witticisms, these platitudes. They look
through philosophy for safe solutions. And you can take a philosophic textbook that has been
down in the local library and has been read by pencil margin-scribblers, and all you're
reading there are things which they widely agree with, but which they also consider safe
solutions.

Philosophy, then, is not a study of wisdom. Philosophy is simply a study of safe solutions.
Makes it a very low-level activity, actually. For instance, Kant had himself a safe solution,
and l imagine that's what made him batty.

He had a good, safe solution. A lot of things were unknowable. They were so unknowable
that nobody would ever know about them. And this, of course, is completely nuts. If these
unknowable things can never at any time be sensed, measured or experienced, how the hell
did he know they existed? Well, he didn't. So he made up a fantasy over there someplace
called the unknowable. And this made him very comfortable. He could live in the knowable.

And this is so general, and so forth, you even find it in Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental
Health. Says you don't have to know everything in order to know this. Well, that's fine. And
that disarms one's thrust into this, and the amount of overwhelm; it lets him compartment
things and look at things in sections, rather than just be overwhelmed by the whole, don't you
see? Well, that's an entirely different operation than finding a safe solution, then drawing off
into a corner someplace with this safe solution and never looking at anything again. And that
activity is what you will find most people engaged in.



Now, that safe solution is what we call a service facsimile. And that's all it is.

Now, you can be a very cunning auditor. You can be a very clever auditor. And sometimes
(let me impart this to you on the side) you're going to have to be clever. You're going to have
to turn up your genius to a cube level to find that safe solution in somebody. It'll be lying
right in front of your face and you'll feel like a fool when you finally pick it up. But there it
was. But to find out exactly what it is, and to use that, and so forth-it's very easy to state,
very easy to do this. But remember, in the PC it is extremely alter-ised, complicated, and so
forth. Even though it's sitting right on top. It's not believable. That's one of the things.

There could be thousands of them, don't you see? And it's picking out the one from those
thousands. That's what's going to give you the most trouble. And sometimes you're just
going to do this on sheer genius and find that you were dead right. And other times you're
going to exert a great deal of time and trouble and sheer genius, and you're dead wrong. So
the final test of it is, is did it resolve the case?

"Have I found the service fac?" is answered by "When audited, did it resolve case? If answer
is `yes,' I have found a service fac on case. If answer is `no,' it didn't resolve case, I have not
found service fac." And in the first ones you find, the most you can hope for is that you have
found something that moves the tone arm and has moved you closer to finding the service
fac, see? So you [are] always willing to settle for that-always willing to settle for something
that moved the tone arm, because that, of course, will move you closer to finding the service
facsimile. See, always willing to settle for that.

And sometimes, after you've found two or three of these and each one you knew was the
service fac, but somehow or other this PC didn't go free needle. Actually, they've been very
droopy for the next couple of days. Hah-ha. You know, didn't resolve the case. Huh. "We
sure found the service fac on that Pct except it didn't resolve his case."

Yeah, I can hear you now, sitting around the table in the evening, coffee shop, saying, "Well,
sure found Joe's service facsimile, you know? I sure found it. It was a very brilliant job. We
managed to get these three coordinating lines, and they all crossed exactly in this place, and it
was `swallowing swords.' And he's always thought of that, and so forth. And we got his
service facsimile," and so forth and so on.

Joe comes up and he's looking . . . Or now he's in total propitiation: "Yes, they found my
service fac. Yes, they actually found it. I feel terrible-I mean, I feel good."

So you see, the test itself-the statement is very simple. And the test of whether or not you
found the service fac is very simple: It actually reads on the meter. If you have found a
service fac on the case, the needle will be looser and the tone arm in a more reasonable
condition. See? And if you finally walked it all the way through to the service fac on the case,
see, it's like all of these extra service facs you've been pulling off it are something like bands
of trees and sod that lie up against the mountain peak, you see? You haven't got the mountain
peak, but you sure got a lot of trees off of it, you know, and you got some rocks off of it, and
it's looking more like a peak, anyway. It was just surrounded in clouds when you first located
it, see?

The test of it, in each case, is looser needle, better-acting tone arm. See? So you're always
willing to settle for that.

Now, the other rule that you come up against here is, that which doesn't ran on the right-
wrong when found, you prepcheck. And that which won't run on a Prepcheck, you run on the
right-wrong. So you got it coming and going. This is pretty loose.

Well, let me see. You looked through the PC's folder, and you found "peanuts," and you
found "peanuts," and you found "brothers" and-you know, this is old-time stuff that's been



found on the PC, assessments of one kind or another-you found "mechanics," and you
found "dog biscuits," and you found "me," see? Various things, you know? You dug these up
out of his old 2-12 and his parts of existence and his this and his that, and that sort of thing.

Well actually, you could make progress with the case if you just applied this rule: is just
prepcheck each one. Got it? You could assess the list and take the one with the biggest read
and prepcheck that, and then assess the same list again. Because it must have some residence
in the case, you see? And whatever else you find, prepcheck that, don't you see? And just
prepcheck anything you found. See, just prepcheck it. And the second that you're not getting
tone arm action from the prepcheck, run . . . This is awful crude what I'm giving you right
now, you understand, but I'm just showing it. You can take this gun that's been developing-
that's R3SC-you can just take this gun and point it in almost any direction and birds fall out
of the sky, see? It's marvelous hunting, I mean. Case is going to make improvement no
matter what you do.

Well, that which you can't prepcheck with tone arm action you could treat as a service
facsimile, see? I mean, just one, two, one, two, see? So it either prepchecks or it runs on right
and wrong, see? "How would it make you right and make others wrong?"

Well, a PC-it doesn't do much on a Prepcheck, and it doesn't do much on right-wrong: All
right. All right. So there weren't any birds in that section of the sky the gun went off into. I
mean, you haven't done anybody any harm. You haven't done anybody any harm at all. And
this is sort of creeping up on the mountain. You take a layer of clouds off of it and you cut a
couple of trees on the slope and you bulldoze away an avalanche away from the side of the
thing and so forth. And it's looking bigger and starker and so on. More clouds coming off of
the thing, you see, and it's getting clearer and clearer to view. Because you can't keep up this
type of action without displaying, eventually, the service facsimile.

Now, the funny part of it is, even the most obtuse auditor, if he kept up this type of action of
assessing something or finding something that had been assessed, and prepchecking it, and if
it didn't prepcheck well, run right-wrong on it, see? You know, run the steps of R3SC on it,
see? If you can't prepcheck it, it's obviously turning on mass, so therefore, if it's turning on
mass, obviously it has something to do with the service facsimile. So you run the right-wrong
and you get that out of the road, and so forth. You just keep going at this sort of thing, and
keep a list of your debris, of other things that have turned up, maybe, in the process of doing
so. And your cleverness-your cleverness will pay off in length of time. The cleverer the
auditor, the shorter time he can do it in. This is about the only thing you're narrowing down.

But the very, very clever auditor can be too clever. I'm not warning you against being clever;
be a genius, man. Perfectly all right. But you actually can take this case . . . Now, that's why I
started this lecture with the restimulation data: you can take this case, and there is an
assessment I'm now going to give you which is so powerful that this poor guy has the
resistance of one dinner party, see, and you're going to present him with the guts of his whole
case. You're probably going to spend the next few hours holding his hand, because the walls
keep going bloooo-zooong!

Now, I told an old-time auditor who is a guest here today, Mike Pernetta, told him a little
while ago, I says, "You see, we're auditing the stable datum out of the road of the confusion,
so the confusion will flow off, and that's what the flow is on the E-Meter." And he went b-zz-
zz-zz-zz, you see, because he's been taught differently. He's been taught that you don't pull
the stable datum out from underneath the PC or you'll get the confusion, see? If you do too
sudden a yank, you see? And he turned rather pale when I told him this. So you'll probably
be rather pale occasionally.

In other words, you can climb this hill too vertically. You can immediately grab the mountain
and say "It's gone," see? And the PC is saying, "My God, what am I doing in all this mist?
Where am I? What is this? What is this? See, what-where, where, where, what? Ooh-oh-oh-
oh! Something terrible is happening to me!" And he feels masses going this way and that



way, and pains are turning on and off, and the end of the room-the boards all look like
they're going like this, see?

See, with great genius, you just "Tsk! One mountain less!"

So you see, it isn't necessarily the wisest thing in the world not to sneak up on the case. But
this isn't going to do him any harm, providing you run R3SC on it until it's flat. Now, you do
this assessment and drop it in his lap, this is going to be the immediate result. It's got to be
audited, now, to make it all right. So you're going to see periods on PCs when they're not
going to be happy about the whole thing.

Now, I told you that any PC is liable to say, somewhere in the running of service
facsimiles-one of the tests of a service facsimile is, does the PC say at any time "I'm not
quite sure that it is wise to get rid of this"? See, he's going to say that on a real, honest-to-
God service facsimile, somewhere along the line. That's what he's going to say. Well, you
find the service facsimile, he's going to say it all at once. "Huhhh!" He's going to try to put
on the brakes all over the place. Of course, he isn't going to make it.

Now, you're not going to do anything very desperate to this person, as long as you finish him
up. Oh, so he's going to have a few bad days-it's all right. It's all in the business.

But you possibly, you possibly-now, let me give you this word of caution -will practice in
a field of neurosis or psychosis at some time or another, see? You go into that field, you make
awful confounded sure that you unburden the cliffs before you pull the mountain out by the
roots. Because that person, by reason of being spinny, cannot withstand the environmental
restimulation in the first place, so you've added the processing restimulation plus the
environmental restimulation to somebody who cannot stand the environmental restimulation.
So of course they can't take any. So, the only course you can follow with that case, even
though he is standing there-and this will be true: he will be standing there nakedly saying
his service facsimile.

It becomes very tempting. You look at some of these characters, and they'll be just saying
their service facsimile. It requires very little genius to figure out exactly what the wording is
to make a service facsimile there, because he'll be saying so.

Now, therefore, the environmental restimulation has got to be reduced to some degree on the
case. You follow this? In other words, the reduction of environmental restimulation should
always follow, and you should be able to make good that minimal environmental
restimulation during processing will occur, must always occur and continue to occur during a
course of processing.

You have any environmental restimulators present in the vicinity of a psychotic and you're
not even going to come near it, anything, no matter what you know. See, because you add the
environmental restimulation of processing to, you see, the actual existing environmental
restimulation, and it-guy is already overwhelmed by the environment, so of course he just
spins, spins harder. So that's why you must approach this on a gradient.

Now, with cases that are just walking about, I don't really give you any caution about it at all,
because it doesn't matter to me whether or not these cases go to bed at night and have holes
fall in the middle of the floor and various other odd phenomena occur, because they're going
to get processed again and the process will take care of the restimulation.

It's a ghastly thing to confront. And the better the assessment and the less the assessment has
been approached on a gradient-see, in other words, the less slopes of the mountain you have
processed before you process the service facsimile- why, the greater shock it is to the person.
There's plenty of restimulation. You've just taken their whole difficulties of this lifetime and
done an "ectomy" on it, just like that-bang! out, gone, man! There it is, you see, and you
leave him with nothing but the confusion. There sits the confusion. And it hasn't any E-Meter



to bleed through and no auditing commands to guide it off and so forth, so it just starts hitting
the PC from all directions.

Remember, this PC adopted this because he couldn't stand the confusion. So he adopted a
safe solution. A safe solution is always adopted as a retreat from the environmental
restimulation-always, inevitably.

Well, therefore, doing a service facsimile assessment doesn't necessarily require great
accuracy at first. There have been things found on the case, there's things this guy is worried
about on the case. Take some little stable data, R1C type of approach to the situation, that sort
of thing. It's very good for the case.

And this becomes healing, you see, at Level II of Scientology. You've got healing now.

You say, `Well, what have you done for your lumbosis? Anybody in your family have
lumbosis? What did they do for it?" don't you see? "What have you done about them?" Any
kind of a crisscross that might occur on a valence shift or something, you just get the person
talking about it.

But it's solutions. You're asking them for safe solutions, stable data. And the more stable
data they have put in, the more safe solutions they have put in place about their lumbosis, the
less the lumbosis will discharge. So you keep plucking these things out, and eventually the
lumbosis will.

But of course, when the environmental restimulation is too great, no charge will {low off of
the case, and you will have that percentage of case which, just by talking about a few things,
won't give you a tone arm shift. And that's because this person is already pretty
overwhelmed. See, the environment itself is the overwhelming factor.

But let's get back to the other: How do you raise . . . how do you raise the ability of an
individual to withstand environmental restimulation? If this is a big factor, as I gave you in
the beginning of the lecture, if that's a big factor, how do you raise his ability to do it? Well,
you do-you pull his service facsimile. His service facsimile is what, m actual fact,
reduces-besides his innate capabilities, which might be different-it's what reduces his
ability to see his environment. The more safe solutions he has adapted, the more
environmental restimulation he isn't as-ising, the more he isn't confronting up to, the less he
can confront up to. This becomes a dwindling spiral with great speed and rapidity. So
therefore, the thing which reduces his ability to handle his environment, oddly enough, is the
thing he has adapted to handle his environment for him. You remove that and you at once
increase the individual's ability to handle the environment.

Because he's now seeing it. He's inspecting it. It might not make him happy, but that's not
what we're trying to make. We're not trying to make a happy person, we're trying to make an
able person. There's many a lunatic who is quite happy.

Now, if you bring about a condition, then, at Level III, where an individual does not have
environmental restimulation, he won't be interrupting his processing because of
environmental restimulation, and you will be able to go at Level IV on to the backtrack
because he's no longer fighting the environment. And that restimulation is not added to his
case all the time. And it's that added restimulation which can be counted on to lock up his
tone arm if he has any fragility of his tone arm, see? It's this little added restimulation of the
environment. The environment is too restimulative, therefore he can't go on the backtrack,
see? So it's very important that you get that out if you want a smooth, faster run to OT.

And now I will let you in on why I have suddenly gone into this line: is because I want a
faster run to OT. I don't care anything very much about whether anybody gets Clear or not.
That's just between you and me, see? Make a hell of a lot better human being, it solves
neurosis, solves psychosis, makes a guy able, is a fast thing to do, it is not a slow freight



through Arkansas. You can make a Clear by getting off enough service facsimiles. You can
make a stable Clear so you don't keep apologizing for the fact he's only a Keyed-out Clear,
because he's going to stay that way longer. You see, and all this is better human beings,
better human beings, and so forth, and that's fine. And it's a well worthwhile state to achieve,
and people will be happy with this state, and everything is fine.

And just between you and I, I don't really care about the state at all-I want somebody to be
able to hit the whole track, see? So it's been developed, and I put up the speed of
development to cut down the length of time in processing at Level IV, which is already a
sizable amount.

So by reducing the environmental restimulation off of Level IV processing by knocking out
the service facsimile-which is what encourages the environmental restimulation-we then
have enough attention free so that we can go whole track and erase things faster. And we're
not always being held up by "The guy is a low-tone-arm case," "The guy has a high, stuck
tone arm," "We started to do a GPM, we got a little bit mixed up, we went into the Bear
goals, and then we got into the Helatrobus, then-ha!-uhuugh! Didn't realize it but we were
in the invisible-picture goals all the time!"

Now, we don't want that PC's tone arm all locked up because of environmental restimulation,
see? Session restimulation also drops, because any difficulty your PC is having in session is
actually environmental restimulation, because the session is part of the environment also. So
if he has session trouble and he has rough sessioning and that sort of thing as one of his
difficulties, of course if you delete that off he can get a lot more done on the whole track
anyway. So I'm just getting rid of sources of restimulation, don't you see, and reasons of
restimulation in order to buck into the backtrack and really hit the things that have to be
knocked out, so we don't have to worry about these other things, you see? That's important.

Now, what is this assessment beyond assessment"? I see you've all got your paper ready to
put down this assessment. Two or three of you are going to be very surprised; you're going to
pick up some folders tonight and find yourself looking at it and say, "Why haven't you done
this?" You know, I mean, that kind of an attitude. I'm good at that sort of thing. After I get
something figured out, I have no patience with people who don't understand it! Yeah.

Anyway, the assessment is a simple one. And we're back into our "old, worn-out, creaking"
technology of listing and nulling lists. And if you don't know how to do this, man, you just
haven't been around and I feel sorry for you. But I'm afraid nobody is going to waste much
sympathy on you. There are many liabilities you can get into with listing and nulling lists,
and if I hear anybody running a parts-of-existence list 187 pages, why, we've got a quiet
place over at the other end of the estate where a gunshot won't be found. So, watch it!

Because this just becomes asinine, man. I mean, some people can take these lists and run
their service facs crazy on them. Oh yeah, that's a fact! I mean, just run fabulous amounts of
lists.

How long is a list? Well, a list is as long as it has to be to be nulled. It's got the item on it,
and so forth. And I can see now, people fighting dirty needles and listing. And I can see now,
"Well, did they get the service facsimile on Jay? Did they get the service facsimile yet on
Jay?" I'll be saying.

And "Well, no, they're still listing."

"Let's see, when was that? Oh, that was, see, let's . . . When did they start listing? Let's see
the folder. Oh, well, they started listing a month ago," or something. You'd be amazed. I've
had this happen.

So come off of the corn. Come off of the corn. That's just nonsense. A list is as long as it is
necessary to be in order to keep the PC from ARC breaking because it's incomplete. And it's



just a list, don't you see? But no we get into all that trouble. But that's perfectly all right. We
can handle that now. Any nonsense that we see about it, I've already given you what the
remedy is, see. A quiet corner of the estate. Because I frankly am tired of this pound of
randomity.

My lists never go longer, never go longer than about eight, nine, ten pages, with about twenty
items on each page, see? So I don't understand a long list. I don't see any reason for a long
list. If your list isn't complete, it won't null, of course, but I've never had to do one longer
than that in order to get the thing to null, so I don't understand all this other-unless it is
simply safe to keep on listing!

So anyway, you do a list, parts of existence. Now, some of you are highly -I mean, you're
already rich because sitting right in your PC's folder will be a complete parts-of-existence
list. Probably already been done. Parts of existence-thing has sometimes even been nulled.

So you do a parts-of-existence list and then you null it. And I frankly don't care whether it
comes out to one in, two in, three in, four in, something in that range. I don't care. I don't
care if it rock slams, rocket reads. I don't care what the resulting item does, just as long as it
expresses itself some way on the E-Meter. I don't even care if it is right, as long as the PC
isn't in argument about it. That's the one thing that is objected to here.

So you do a good workmanlike job of listing. Just try to get yourself a nice list and null it
down rapidly, and so forth, to a point where you've got one item in. That's fine, that's fine.
You do that job, bless you. But if it comes out that four were left in and the list probably
wasn't complete in the first place and there's a lot of randomity, we'll just do the second step
to all four levels left in. You understand? We couldn't care less. It's just as long as the PC
isn't saying, "But that couldn't possibly-it's because I'm objecting to it, you know? I
accidentally put down `hoop skirts' and I don't know why I put them down, it doesn't have
anything to do with my case at all! It doesn't even answer the question."

And the auditor says, "Well, it's what is in, `hoop skirts."'

Because you're going for a service fac, so all things apply. And basically the individual is
very interested in his service fac. Now, the funny part of it is, the PCs come close to the
mountain, and they'll go right on up. They can't stop themselves. But there's a funny zone or
area before you get close to the mountain, and they sure bounce off of it. Because they'll
dramatize it; they'll only do what is safe; they'll only say what is safe. And they walk very
carefully and won't tell you anything missed up in anything like that. They're walking
through life on a tightrope, see?

And therefore, therefore, you may have to do several approaches, and this whole assessment
may have to be done several times. So the accuracy of your first do and the ease with which
you can do it or the difficulties with which you do it, 1 don't care about. Do you understand?
You probably already got enough in the PC's folder to prepcheck or run R3SC on for some
time, you understand? But I don't even care if you use that-because nobody here is in a
tremulous condition-or just drop the bottom out from underneath him with this assessment.
Because if he's too bad off, he's not really going to give you the service fac, but he'll give its
cousin, and that cousin is just as good as anything else.

Now, you've got a list of parts of existence, haven't you? All right, and you assessed it,
didn't you? And you wound up with one, two, three or four bits in. All right, dandy, dandy.
Now, we tried to wind up with one in. We hoped one would be in. Makes life simpler.

And then we take that item that we found, and we now list safe solutions for it, or safe
assumption about it, or safe decisions that can be made about it. It's what we can clear with
the PC. What we really want is service facs, with regard to it. But that's best expressed by
"safe solutions" or "safe assumptions." And then you make a list there. And once more this



isn't 187 tight-packed pages leading out, because that isn't the processing. That's just trying
to find something to process, you understand?

So, to the best of your ability, you get yourself a complete list that is nullable and that's got a
significant phrase or item on it, and so forth, and you get that out. Now, that doesn't mean
you've got the service fac. The item there is probably, however, either as close as you can get
to the service fac at this time or the service fac. It's one or the other. So we're going to treat
it, regardless.

Now, we're going to take this item; we're going to work it over. We're not going to do a
"represent" list on it, we're going to work it over. We're going to get this thing chewed on,
the final thing that we found out, see? I don't care what it was-"wearing petticoats." I don't
care what it is, see? And we're going to chew on this thing until we can get it till it's a
solution to more than that dynamic.

We found "peanuts" on our part of existence, and the thing to do with peanuts, the safe thing
to do with peanuts, was "not eat them." That was our item, see? Now, that is the resulting
item for "the safe solution to peanuts": "not eat them." See? All right.

` Now, you actually could process this. See, you could prepcheck it or run R3SC on it-you
probably won't be able to prepcheck it. Because it's too close in, it's going to turn on mass,
it's going to make things pretty sticky. But if you talk about this for a while to the PC and ask
the PC to phrase this up variously, "How might this type of an assumption apply to other
dynamics? Is there anything else that this would . . . ?" and the PC will have to give you a
variation of it. We're taking the parts-of-existence list now, and we're trying to see if this
solution fits other parts of existence, and how it would have to be rephrased in order to fit
other parts of it and "peanuts." Get the idea?

We're trying to do a subtle adjustment here that throws us into a broader version of our safe
assumption, so it applies to more than one dynamic. And if we can do that, why, hurrah,
hurrah, hurrah, see? We're probably sitting on a much bigger zone or area of the service fac.
This is a way of graduating it up, don't you see? But I've told you, it's perfectly all right for
you to just process it, just what you found, do you understand? But you're going to get very
smart, sooner or later, and you're going to say, "Well, what do you know? You know, this
fellow says `not eat them.' Hmm-hm. `Not eat them.' `Not eat them.' Now, let's see. Does
that fit to any other part of these dynamics?" and so forth.

"Not eat, yeah, not eat. Ah, yeah. Uh . . . it fits-yes, actually fits on the first dynamic. Fits
on the first dynamic. Fits on the first dynamic," and so forth. "When I'm processing, I always
feel like I'm eating my bank, you see, it's this `not eat,' you know, `not eat.' And oh, yes,
yes, fourth dynamic. You shouldn't eat men. Yeah, fourth dynamic, and fifth dyn. . . You
sure can't eat MEST. That's the best answer to MEST, is not eat it, you know?"

And so forth. Well, you've got it away from "not eat them." This is your most elementary
address to the situation. You see this thing is broader. There was just one little flag sticking
up, just one little piece of a dynamic had this assumption on it. But this assumption doesn't
actually handle peanuts: This handles the whole cockeyed sweeping lot. And when you've
got one that handles the whole lot, man, you're sitting there with your paws full of service
facsimile. And if you haven't got it, you've got to audit what you did get. See? You're going
to prepcheck it; if you can't prepcheck it, you're going to run R3SC. Or you're going to run
R3SC on it, and if you couldn't run that easily-you know, questions didn't come up-then
you're going to prepcheck it. See, you're going to handle what you found.

And then you're going to do the whole operation again. Only it's going to be a new parts-of-
existence list, because, listen, you've prepchecked a part of the service fac, so his lookingness
is going to change, so he's going to give you a different parts-of-existence list. See. And then
you're going to move in on that, and you're going to get whatever part of existence you now
assessed, and then you're going to take that part of existence, and you're going to list that,



you know? Safe solutions to it, safe assumptions about it, safe solutions to it- whatever it
was you could list that gave you things that sounded like service facs, see? You're going to
get that list complete, and then you're going to rip down the line; you're going to take one of
those out. There it sits. Now you've got a nice thing. And it says "assuming everything will
destroy me." Ohoooo-uoo-uooph. Boy, you have hit the bottom of the barrel. Safe
assumption. If you don't assume that, something might. And of course "eat peanuts," well,
that's actually devour-"devour me," "destroy me." That's as close as he came into it. So on
your second assessment he just moved in on the center of it, see? "Assuming everything is
going to eat me up." That was the service facsimile. You just found an offbeat of it, don't you
see?

And you keep working on it, you keep working on it and keep working on the PC until you
can't make your meter work. That's when you end.

Needle gets up toward the middle and it falls, see? And the needle-have you seen a needle
that is too difficult to set? You can't get it into the set area, because it-goes? And you can
guess about where the TA should be, but really can't make it very well. Now, that's really a
free, free needle.

PC's sitting there. The PC's not worried about anything.

But don't think the PC isn't going to worry at some place along this line, because you're
going to hit this point on every one of these things that you found. As you walk in on this, if
you're doing any kind of a job of assessment at all, he's going to say, "Ooohh, I am not so
sure. If I get rid of this . . . No."

Now, there's one other thing you must know about this, is you have sometimes processed
something on somebody, let us say-well, let's just use "eat"-"an inability to eat." And
you've processed this out gorgeously, see? And the PC is still in a horrible state with regard
to it. There's one more step you can do with it. After you've finished it all up and the PC-
the needle got looser and everything, but the PC, "Oh, I'm not so sure about this thing. Theaa
. . ." You've just cut the top of it off, see? So now do "a safe assumption about the inability to
eat" or "a safe assumption about eating." You understand? You didn't get close enough to the
service facsimile. You got the idea?

Let's say, "an inability to eat." Well, actually, I gave you a bum datum then: "a safe
assumption about eating" is much more likely to produce the service facsimile. In other
words, this is a flip-flop. He not only used "eating," but you only caught up to one portion of
it, you understand? And you can work your way through this thing, you can get a better
statement of what you just got through running and finishing up. And sometimes you can't
get that better statement, at which time, of course, you made it with the first statement.

I'm just talking about the adjustments of the assessment, see? You sometimes will get
something like "an inability to eat." That's a service fac. And it ran, he made people guilty
with it, and you know, people wrong and himself right, and it all ran out and prepchecked,
and everything had gotten better. But you notice the tone arm still hanging awful still toward
the end of this thing. It ran well for a long time, and still at the end of this thing the PC feels
kind of . . .

You say, "How do you feel about, now, the `inability to eat'?"

"Well, I don't know, I mean . . . whooa. There isn't anything for me in it, to eat, no . . ." and
so on and so on.

Well, you've flattened everything you could flatten out on the thing, don't you see? Well, you
better assume that you came close in on the mountain, and you'd better do a safe assumption
about the subject of what you found before. That's the rule. There's some safe assumption
with regard to eating that the person could make. You're sort of doing a safe-assumption list



on the safe assumption, don't you see? Represent. And you get closer into it, and that tears up
a lot more ground. Got it?

Now, that last one may have confused you. I couldn't care less, because I am not at any
moment saying that you must not exercise the highest level of genius in doing this. Look for
identification. Look for identifications-that is to say, A=A=A. You're doing this Prepcheck;
you're doing this Prepcheck on "dolls"-for some reason or other, "children's dolls," in this
lifetime, and so forth, on "dolls."

And they say, "All dolls are cheap," or, "Dolls are always given away."

Just watch for it. This is a totally unreasonable assumption, don't you see? "If you don't
watch dolls they are liable to attack you." Oh, yes? See? Completely unreasonable
assumption. Draw a little box around it in your auditor's reports, because you've hit an
A=A=A computation that leads in toward a service fac, don't you see? It's a completely
unreasonable assumption.

You know why the person is having a bad time in this particular zone. He's just said so.
Doesn't resolve, but the person just said so. And you'll find out that's a cousin to the service
facsimile, or dead on it, see? And you keep fooling around, and all of a sudden, why, the PC
will come up with it, and you'll come up with it, and you'll come up with it and the PC will
come up with it, and ughh, all hell will break loose, see? Confusion starts running off and
knocking the PC's head off. And the PC can't sleep at night and has to have the light on until
you get back and process it again.

But that's all expected randomity. This is what's keeping everything in restimulation for the
PC, and in, taking it out you get a certain amount restimulation going. But there is the way
you find it. And the formula I gave you, of do a parts-of-existence list and then do a list of
safe assumptions or solutions for the item found, and then using that as a service facsimile
directly, you will find, will find most of the service facsimiles; or if it doesn't the first time
you do it, will find the next time you do it, you see, because you can move in on it-or
maybe the third time you do it. So you can do this on a crude basis, you understand?

Now, that-there will probably be other methods of doing this released. There will probably
be other material developed on this. But let me invite your own lookingness on this subject,
and not at any time get over the idea that a certain amount of genius must be invested in it.

Okay? Thank you very much.

Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
auditor
 
Сообщений: 672
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: 2

cron