Technical Bulletin of 30 April 2000

FreeZone America <fza@fza.org> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Robert's write-up of Routine 3 Expanded by Dynamics can be found at:
>
>http://fza.org/r3xd.htm
>
>Mike

Thanks to Robert for writing it up. It looks pretty thorough.
I'd like to go into a bit of theory and then add comments.

The bridge up to Clear is a gradient of handling locks, secondaries
and engrams. There were earlier attempts to get a Clear on 8 dynamics
that just didn't get there. The gradient was too steep and the tech
at that time was too rough on the NOTs case. Quite a few of the
basics were missing - enough to give us a fairly high casualty list
in the early sixties.

After Clear we're looking at 2 phenomena - the entity case and the
upper banks. The route through the entity case has proven long.

The approach of Super Power and R3XD is to pull off enough locks from
the basic GPM matrices to give a much smoother ride to OT.

The intent is to pull off charge and concurrently up the reach and
causativeness of the Pre-OT.

>R3XD PROCEDURE
>Minimum prerequisites: Book-1 auditor course plus NED or HSDC
>(including the TRs course and student hat course) The auditor
>ideally should be a clear and class 4 or above. He should know the
>auditor's code cold and apply it. NOTE: IN THIS TEXT I WILL BE USING
>THE TERM "Pc" AS A SHORTENING OF
>"PROCESSEE", WHICH COULD MEAN EITHER A PRE-OT OR PRE-CLEAR.
>Two way comm with Pc (or do a formal assessment) to establish which
>item is to be run. Get the wording that most exactly fits the
>feeling.
>Give first command: "Locate an incident where you had the feeling of
>(item).

You might be hitting higher dynamics here so the wording might need
shifting for that.
Here's the point where you want to shift the person's space out to
include others and other dynamics involved in the incident - this
gets an aspect of their beingness in the session.

>When the Pc has located the incident, give the question: "When was
>it?" Next give the command: "Move to that incident."
>Ask: "What is the duration of that incident?"
>Give command: "Move to a point just before that began."
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Ask (if appropriate): "What do you see?"

You can add "What do others see?"

>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Give command: "Move through to the end of that incident."
>If the Pc says something during this time, this is acknowledged with
>"Okay, continue.".
>Ask: "What Happened?"
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Give command: "Move to the beginning of that incident." (still
>before the beginning, but I go with that command. The Pc knows where
>to start from.) Give command: "Move through to the end of that
>incident."
>Ask: "What happened?"
>Ask (when appropriate): "How does the incident seem now by
>comparison (with last time through)?"
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>See section entitled: "Moving on to the next incident." in the
>"additional notes" chapter.
>When the incident being run is flat or the Pc is ready to move on to
>another incident, ask: "Is there another (or "an earlier") incident
>where you had the feeling of (item)?" If another incident comes in
>to view first, then omit the above command and ask "When was it?"
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Ask: "When was it?"
>Give command: "Move to that incident"
>Repeat earlier steps from the "What is the duration of that
>incident?" question on forward.
>Keep tracing back incidents until nothing earlier shows up.
>See section entitled "Pre-MEST universe incidents"
>The way pre-MEST incidents are run is with the commands as follows:
>(The "When was it" command is omitted after entry is made into the
>pre-MEST area, i.e. when looking for earlier similar pre-MEST
>incidents)

Pre-MEST incidents may have duration and time as there are a few
universes before this one.

>"Move to that incident"
>(the "duration" question is omitted)
>"Move to a point just before that began"
>(the rest of the procedure is the same as before)
>If after running basic-basic on the chain to a "flat point" with
>nothing earlier on the chain, the Pc is still having some unreality
>problems with the incident, run "What part of that incident could
>you confront?" "What part of that incident would you rather not
>confront?" back and forth to a release point (Accompanied by BD F/N;
>usually no more than a few commands.)

I'd scout a bit for a postulate here.

>Running the shift should resolve the balance of the unreality.
>This process is good for ANY point on the track that bogs or grinds.
>(see section entitled "through the 'no earlier incident' block")
>HANDLING THE SHIFT MOMENT
>(See sections entitled "Shift"; "Shift/shock moment")
>Ask Pc for the moment of shift.
>Give command: "Move through that moment of shift (or maybe "shock",
>depending on what's more real to the Pc, but "shift" is better) from
>beginning to end." (Repeat to E.P.)
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Ask Pc for any other relevant terminals involved in the shock
>moment. There may or may not be relevant viewpoints outside of
>himself. For each viewpoint to be run, ask Pc to take that viewpoint
>first. Then run with command: "From the viewpoint of _ _ _ _ _ move
>through that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to
>E.P.) He may choose to run the other participants as a group. If so,
>just have him take their viewpoints as a group.

I'd include upper dynamics and go with what the Pre-OT can handle.
Early on they might be taking one terminal at a time. Later they
could just encompass all the dynamics involved.

>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Ask Pc how he felt after the shift. Note down his responses for
>later reference. Then have Pc take that viewpoint. Then give
>command: "From the viewpoint you had after the shift, move through
>that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to E.P.)
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Ask Pc how he felt before the shock. Then have Pc take that
>viewpoint. Then give command: "From the viewpoint you had before the
>shock, move through that moment of shift from beginning to end."
>(Repeat to E.P.)
>(see section on "Command Notes")

The valence shifts and postulates in the incident are the link into
the GPM. These need an emphasis.

>Have Pc take a pan-determined viewpoint. Then give command: "From a
>pan-determined viewpoint, observe that moment of shift from
>beginning to end" (Repeat to E.P.)
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Give command: "From the viewpoint of aesthetics observe that moment
>of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to E.P.)
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Give command: "From the viewpoint of ethics, observe that moment of
>shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to E.P.)
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Give command: "From the viewpoint of games observe that moment of
>shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to E.P.)
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Give command: "From the viewpoint of just being observe that moment
>of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to E.P.)
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Give command: "From the viewpoint of all-being observe that moment
>of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to E.P.)
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Ask Pc: "In or around that moment of shift is there any feeling of
>loss of self or some aspect of self?" (Handle feelings with repeater
>technique. Repeat question. Continue until clean.)
>(see section on "Command Notes" in regards to all these questions
>covering buttons.)
>Ask Pc: "In or around that moment of shock is there any other
>feeling or emotion?" (Handle feelings with repeater. Repeat
>question. Continue until clean.)
>(See section on "handling of feelings".
>Ask Pc: "In or around that moment of shift is there any goal?"
>(Handle feelings with repeater. Repeat question. Continue until
>clean.)
>Ask Pc about any feelings or postulates he mentioned earlier in
>running this incident. Run them out with repeater as necessary.

Postulates as all dynamics should pull a lot off here.

>Get the service facsimile computation (that computation designed to
>make one right and make another wrong and aid one's survival). It
>can be arrived at from several different angles. The following is be
>the best way I've found so far to get the Pc to recognize a
>computation.
>Ask Pc: "Is there any parallel between this incident and the events
>of this lifetime?" After the Pc itsas on that and makes the
>connection, ask him if he can find a pro-survival computation that
>has made this item appear useful to him. There is usually one, but
>there could always be more than one. It will be a computation he has
>been basing his actions on this whole lifetime.

A ser fac is a solution. You could just ask for what postulate
enabled him to still be right or various wordings - its what solved
and explains the overwhelm of the incident so as not to need further
inspection.

>Have Pc repeat the computation until it goes flat (releases). The
>computation should be worded in such a way that it relates to the
>basic incident as well as to the present lifetime.
>Run process repetitively: "What part of that incident could you be
>responsible for" and "What part of that incident would you rather
>not be responsible for". This is done 1,2,1,2,1,2 etc. to e.p. This
>is done to BD F/N. If the person answers "All of it" to the first
>question, then I will pose the second question as "Is there any part
>of that incident you would rather not be responsible for?". They
>will normally say no to that, followed by a BD F/N.
>Give commands for 4 flows of scanning:
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>"From this incident forward to present time scan thru all the
>incidents where you had the feeling of (item)."
>"From this incident forward to present time scan thru all the
>incidents where you caused another or others to have the feeling of
>(item)."
>"From this incident forward to present time scan thru all the
>incidents where others caused others to have the feeling of (item)."
>"From this incident forward to present time scan thru all the
>incidents where you caused yourself to have the feeling of (item)."
>Ask Pc how the item seems now.
>Ask Pc: "If you wanted to have (the item in question) again, would
>you be able to?". The answer should be yes.
>Give commands: "Move to the beginning of the session." and "Move
>thru to the end of the session." Repeat to E.P.
>(see section on "Command Notes")
>Havingness: I will usually run two havingness processes - one aimed
>at replenishing the mental mass, and another aimed at reorientation
>to the present time environment. Each is done to BD F/N. This is
>fairly brief step. If the Pc balks at running havingness, let him
>know that it's not so much for the being as to keep the body from
>experiencing unwanted feelings.

You may also have NOTs cross copying and restim to handle.

After that's handled I'd expect the PC to be blown out. If they've
extended their space and run the incident across the involved
dynamics then going further might well collapse their space and
havingness and act as an invalidation.

>The basic havingness commands I use are: "Put out eight anchor
>points in space" (or "...eight points...") and "Do what you like
>with them." Repeat to E.P. If Pc is new, instruct him to either
>collapse the anchor points into the body or to throw them away,
>either one that feels better for him at the moment. He can be
>started off by giving him alternating commands i.e. "Put out...."
>"collapse them into the body" "Put out..." "throw them away", and
>then shifting to the "do whichever you like with them" after the
>second command.. P.C.s, for better or worse, will often do strange
>things with these anchor points like twirl them around or make them
>into figures or whatever. That's why I use the word
>"...whichever..." in the command rather than "...whatever...". I'd
>rather they either disposed of them or collapsed them.
>An alternate command would be "mock up a pleasant scene" or "mock up
>an acceptable object" (the more large and massive the better)
>(auditor should not ack the Pc on this step) and "collapse it into
>the body" (I find "collapse" to be more neutral than "pull" or
>"shove" it in).
>A present time orientation process I use is: "Look around and tell
>me something you could have".
>Another alternative havingness command would be either "look at that
>(object pointed to)" or "spot an object".
>Different people respond differently to various havingness
>processes. Some do well on some, others do better on others. The
>trick is to find the havingness processes best suited to the
>individual Pc.
>Give command "End of session."
>The E.P. of this procedure is primarily "full responsibility for the
>item on all dynamics", and secondarily, "item completely erased" (I
>would add "forever, but that would be too presumptive of the Pc's
>will) and "able to mock up the item if one would choose to". This is
>normally accompanied by a sense of expanded space and a feeling of
>wellbeing.
>Sometimes it takes a few days or a few weeks before the person
>adjusts fully to the change from the process. He may have ongoing
>cognitions for quite some time, even months later, even after only
>one session. So how the sessions are spaced out is dependent on the
>Pc's ability to assimilate change. Too many sessions in too short a
>period of time can result in overlapping "denouments", to borrow a
>literary term. The person will be experiencing cognitions and
>changes from two, three, four or more sessions, all at one time. So
>it's best to space out the frequency of sessions accordingly.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Command Notes and Clarifications
>"Move to a point just before that began": The purpose of this is to
>make sure the person doesn't miss the original shock of the
>incident. This should be at a point where he was still feeling
>relatively normal or "himself". "What do you see": I will often omit
>this step when I know the processee is doing well and the duration
>is only a few minutes. The problem with a short duration comes when
>he tells you all about the incident before you run him through it,
>so you're not sure whether to give the "move through..." command or
>not. But it's no big deal either way.
>"What happened?": This question can be phrased in several ways, like
>"what occurred", "what did you get", "what did you notice as you
>went through", etc. I use whatever happens to seem most appropriate
>at the moment.
>"How is the incident now by comparison?": This is more of a
>two-way-comm question than a rote one. You might need to add
>something like "Is it lighter or flat?". Other terms besides
>"lighter" include: less charged, erasing; less serious, better, etc.
>Asking "Is it erasing or going more solid?" is geared toward moving
>the Pc on to another incident after a couple of passes through. The
>theory that command operates on is that the incident will not erase
>if the charge comes from an earlier incident.

It could also be missing viewpoints that need to be included in the
session space.

>In fact, each incident can be discharged and
>should be. To not do so can cause the Pc's attention to remain fixed
>on that incident when handling earlier incidents thus leading to
>shallow running and/or a blocked earlier track. So each incident
>along the way should be run to its own E.P as though it were a
>narrative incident as in the R-3R tech. Grinding and Earlier
>Beginning: If an incident seems to be grinding, check for an earlier
>beginning. You could also ask him if the charge is coming from the
>that incident or from elsewhere. If it's coming from that incident,
>then it's probably an earlier beginning, even if it's an earlier
>incident the Pc identifies as part of the incident being presently
>run. As a last resort, the alternate confront process can always be
>used. But it's always best to stick with procedure as much as
>possible rather than to go into unusual solutions.
>Incident getting worse: When the Pc says that the incident got worse
>or stronger after the last pass through, you can ask him if he means
>that it got clearer or more real. If so, that should count as
>erasing, not more solid. An incident needs to be confronted before
>it's left for an earlier one.

Yes, that's important. One really wants to be running OTs with bright
3D perceptions of these incidents.
One is erasing charge but the incidents don't disappear. At this
level the Pre-OT is actually restoring communication and reach into
the locations and times of the incidents.

>The whole idea is to disconnect the incident from the charge. Every
>incident can and should be run in the manner the narrative incident
>is run in the R-3R materials.
>"Is there another (or "an earlier") incident where you had the
>feeling of (item)?" Normally I use "another" for MEST universe
>lifetimes and "an earlier" for pre-MEST.

That seems the wrong way round. You could actually circumvent the
time aspect by asking for a more basic incident or an incident
restimulated in the current one.

>I have no fixed rule on this though. It's a judgment
>call. I get the best results by just letting the Pc handle whatever
>pictures or incidents that the commands trigger. Sometimes an
>earlier incident will be more prominent and get the Pc's first
>attention, then a later one may come to mind after the earlier has
>been handled. The Pc finds the incidents in the order that is real
>to his case. A Pc may find dozens and dozens of incidents from this
>lifetime before even going back to earlier lives. It's not time
>badly spent, and it's on the correct gradient for the Pc.
>If the Pc gets a group of incidents together, I will ask him for the
>time period that covers, and fashion the commands around that
>factor. For instance: "Move to the beginning of that series of
>incidents (or "...that period of time"); "Move through to the end of
>that series of incidents (or "...that period of time") instead of
>the usual commands. Good TRs and auditor presence keeps the Pc from
>wandering from the area being addressed. That is not to say that
>lock scanning this lifetime prematurely is
>advisable. It's better to take the incidents as the Pc hands them.
>If the Pc hands a group of them at once, I'll run it that way.
>"Move through that moment of shift from beginning to end." This and
>the other similar commands work regardless of the "timelessness" of
>the shift. The Pc can easily "inject time" into it to make it
>viewable. I toyed with the idea of incorporating the command "spot
>the shift" as a repetitive command. That did work, however one
>person commented that that wording didn't give her as clear and
>expanded a view of the shift as the other one did.
>"From the viewpoint of _ _ _ _ _ move through that moment of shift
>from beginning to end." When hitting the basic-basic incident, his
>viewpoint may be the only relevant one, and so this command would
>not be used. It is prudent to check for charge on hidden viewpoints,
>or viewpoint of a
>particular object or "theta trap" in question. It is also good to
>check if there is an intelligence behind any such object. Maybe that
>would need to be run.

I'd think that your going to get a higher dynamic involved even with
basic-basic but it'll vary from person to person.

>"From the viewpoint you had after the shift, move through that
>moment of shift from beginning to end." and "From the viewpoint you
>had before the shift, move through that moment of shift from
>beginning to end." I've found that order to be most workable, but
>that doesn't preclude the Pc doing better at running them vice-versa
>if the later viewpoint is too
>unconfrontable
>The idea behind these two commands is to get the Pc to confront the
>moment of shift from both points of view - from the point of view of
>his original and expansive identity, and from the point of view of
>his new and limited identity. The commands may appear to defy logic,
>but they run quite as well as all the other commands.
>"From a pan-determined viewpoint, observe that moment of shift from
>beginning to end: This encompasses all the viewpoints taken so far,
>from an independent point of view. Another way of stating it is "all
>viewpoints at once". I use "observe" instead of "move through" just
>to be precise in my words. I surmise that a higher viewpoint would
>be more widely encompassing of the incident with regards to
>time/space. Both versions may work, I just chose to do it this way
>when running the higher (more widely encompassing) viewpoints.
>The following commands may seem abstract and hard to comprehend, but
>they run quite well on everyone.
>"From the viewpoint of aesthetics observe that moment of shift from
>beginning to end.": This is the 9th dynamic, according to LRH. It
>can be roughly defined as "the considerations of beauty and
>ugliness. These concepts do run quite readily, even on beginners,
>and even given the strange appearance of the command. I felt that
>aesthetics are an important factor in an incident, which is why I
>included it here. Ethics seemed like an
>important factor too.
>"From the viewpoint of ethics, observe that moment of shift from
>beginning to end.": This is the 10th dynamic, according to LRH. It
>can be roughly defined as "the considerations of right/wrong,
>goodness/badness.
>"From the viewpoint of games observe that moment of shift from
>beginning to end.": This was taken from the Pilot's (Ken Ogger) tech
>as a dynamic. I can't verify if it actually qualifies as a dynamic,
>but it is a point of view that is fundamental and worth inspecting.
>I define games basically as dealing with opponents and contests.
>"From the viewpoint of just being observe that moment of shift from
>beginning to end.": This command can be given with the proviso that
>the person should interpret it in whatever way he chooses. The
>command does impinge on the being and gets a valid response. I first
>encountered this from one highly evolved Pc who told me that she
>could see a higher viewpoint than "pan-determined". I've been
>incorporating it ever since. Pcs seem to all be able to make it run,
>and will even tell you when it's not flat for them yet.
>"From the viewpoint of all-being observe that moment of shock from
>beginning to end.": In this context, "all-being" can be variously
>translated as "allness", "the whole", "all that is", "infinite
>being". Since "God" is a debatable concept that has little common
>agreement as to definition, I've avoided that term. I've tried "the
>universe", but that didn't seem to run very well as it tended to be
>taken as MEST.
>"In or around that moment of shift is there any feeling of loss of
>self or some aspect of self?": This question was taken from another
>procedure that handles shifts. The feeling of loss seems to be the
>most prevalent one contained in shifts.
>"In or around that moment of shift is there any other feeling or
>emotion?" "In or around that moment of shift is there any goal?"
>"In or around that moment of shift is there any effort or
>compulsion?" All these questions are simply buttons to check for any
>thoughts, emotions, or efforts that might still be contained in the
>shift. Other possible buttons include: thoughts, ideas,
>considerations, postulates, intentions. When the chain is properly
>run to its basic-basic, these questions will rarely be needed.
>Scanning the track: This action usually takes only one or two times
>through to F/N, but sometimes a bit more. After the basic on flow 0
>is erased, everything stemming therefrom blows like minor locks.
>This is the same procedure as was written about in Book 1 auditing
>on a single flow except that it's taken wholesale instead of one
>incident at a time.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>ADDITIONAL NOTES
>Acknowledgements: Acknowledgements (e.g. good, fine, alright, okay,
>thank you) need to be given after EVERY command has been carried out
>and every question answered by the Pc. The reason is basically
>because it makes the Pc feel like he has been heard and smoothly
>completes the cycle of
>communication. The only exception to this rule is when having the
>person doing a mockup during a havingness process. To ack the mockup
>would tend to as-is it prematurely.
>Definitions: A Pc must fully understand each command before running
>it. If there is any doubt about any word, it should be defined. Any
>good dictionary can used for this.
>"Erasing or going more solid": Incidents usually go through a bell
>curve pattern over a series of recountings where the incident may
>appear to get more solid, with TA rising, reach a peak, and then
>wane to erasure. The initial rise in TA is usually only the result
>of the processee encountering more charge in the incident. When in
>doubt, the auditor can always ask something like "Is the charge
>coming from this incident, or elsewhere?" Each incident needs to be
>discharged before asking for an earlier similar, otherwise the
>earlier incidents can tend to run shallow or be blocked from view by
>the charge connected to the later incidents on the track, drawing
>the Pc's attention toward them and away from earlier track. Failure
>to consider this phenomenon has been one of the major weak points of
>the old R3R system.

Yes, that was covered in Class 8 but never really exported from
there.

>Moving on to the next incident: If after asking "How does the
>incident seem now by comparison", the Pc says "flat" or "released",
>then it's okay to ask the "earlier incident" question.
>If the Pc's attention goes to another incident, then that one should
>be taken up if the Pc feels ready to move on to it. Usually that's
>the case. One should never run an earlier incident unless the later
>incident is either flat or the Pc's attention is drawn to an earlier
>one. Even in the latter case, the earlier incident may act as an
>earlier beginning, so when in doubt it is prudent to ask if the
>later incident is okay to leave behind or if it should be run as a
>later ending to the earlier incident.
>Pre-MEST universe incidents: These incidents have far more charge to
>them because in that realm there is more free theta and more ability
>to create that charge. The pre-MEST area should be the minimum
>target for any auditor processing an advanced Pc. Physical universe
>incidents are minor by
>comparison. Clears and above normally have little trouble accessing
>this realm. When accessing pre-MEST incidents, Pcs will notice that
>time as we know it becomes nonexistent.

Also it should be really stressed that the PCs postulates on the
early track are much stronger. So when you're getting up into the OT
realms you could well get more charge off repeating the postulates
than anything else.

>The incident that must not be unmocked: When the pc says that the
>as-isness of a particular incident will result in the destruction of
>the universe (or God, or oneself, or the auditor, etc.), you may
>rest assured that that's nothing but a postulate put into the
>incident to keep the pc from looking, thereby as-ising it, and that
>the universe will in fact not blow up or vanish. At least we've been
>lucky so far.
>Auditor zero attitude: The secret to great auditing as opposed to
>good or average auditing lies in zero attitude - no attitude, full
>TR-0 - during the session. The auditor must be completely without
>emotional reaction for the period of the session lest his case get
>entwined with the Pc's, even if only on a telepathic level. This
>means that the auditor must be totally
>non-judgmental in words and thoughts. Positive emotions, however,
>are evidently harmless or even possibly beneficial.

Positive emotions can stick you as an ally and get a propitiative PC.

>Roteness of commands and clears: A fatal error in running dianetics
>on clears occurs when the Pc is fast while the auditor is rote. The
>auditor will say: "move to that incident". Pc: I'm there... (itsas
>about it and blows it by inspection). Auditor: What is the duration
>of the incident? etc. etc. If the auditor is not tracking with the
>Pc, obnosing the situation, watching the meter for BDs and querying
>them, or running rote commands just to be following procedure
>blindly, he can cause an auditor to unwittingly dub in an incident
>creating protest charge in the Pc, and mess up the session. When
>dealing with advanced and fast Pcs, the auditor MUST follow the Pc's
>lead, not the other way around. The auditor must at the same time,
>however, remain in control of the session.
>The shift: The shift is an interesting phenomenon. It evidently
>contains no time, and yet it contains all the postulates in the
>incident. It is the "prior cause" in the incident, and so is the
>important part of it. When the incident is run to a flat point, the
>shift will still be there. Rarely though, it will be blown along
>with the incident. But the shift still needs to be asked for. If the
>auditor asks for a shift and the Pc gives an at-effect experience,
>he should be wary of this and ask for the point where the Pc was
>feeling "like himself", and then have him move forward to find the
>shift moment. This is similar in many ways to finding the
>misunderstood word, i.e. going back to the point where one felt
>comfortable with the text and moving forward to the blank area. The
>transition point is the
>misunderstood word. That could also be called the moment of shift.
>The blank period following the M/U is comparable to the dianetic
>incident. Blow the prior confusion and the blank period following
>blows with it.
>Shock or shift?: I have used both terms, and both work. However, the
>term "shift" is more cause than the term "shock". They usually occur
>pretty much simultaneously, but sometimes the shock occurs after the
>person creates the postulates and then shifts. The end result can
>still be erasure of the item, but the responsibility level tends to
>be higher when "shift" is used. The shift is what the Pc considers
>to be the single most significant part of the incident - at least by
>the end of the handling.

I'd try and work with this at the level of beingness across the
dynamics.

>Alternate confront process, use of: This process is extremely useful
>in unblocking stuck areas of track. The commands are: "What part of
>that (incident, shift, or whatever) would you be willing to
>confront" and "What part of that .... would you rather not
>confront." This is done to an EP. Like everything else, don't
>overrun. The EP usually happens fast.
>When the Pc blows the shift along with the incident: It will happen
>on occasion that no shift can be found because it blew, and asking
>for it doesn't produce it, and no unwanted feelings exist. This
>normally happens only with very advanced Pcs and infrequently. If
>there is no shift to be found, then the shift can be considered
>cleaned up. The next action is to check for a ser fac computation.
>On new Pcs who are used to ending off after a chain is erased
>dianetically, the shift should be handled anyway if it is found. If
>the PC protests that the blown basic is an EP, you can inform him
>that there are multiple EPs on this procedure - in fact, one for
>each incident and each section run.

I don't think a preclear is going to have the reach for the upper
dynamic approaches - if they have that degree of perception then they
are probably Clear already and its been missed.

>The behavior of personal GPMs toward present time: Normally the GPM
>will start out being "way back on the track", but then as it is run,
>it will tend to encompass the entire track including present time.
>The Pc will often say things like "This is the story of my life", or
>"This has been the story of all my existences along the track", or
>"this incident is still happening right now". This apparency will
>blow off as soon as the postulates are discharged and the shift
>cleaned up.

This term "personal GPM" could get confusing. We're dealing with an
engram that's significant in the Actual GPM and could be a joining of
several chains on several dynamics. It's a point of significant
valence shift in the living of the GPM.

>Indicating F/Ns: Since I have been auditing this procedure almost
>exclusively by phone, I have cut out F/N indications entirely. I
>have found absolutely no liability to doing this. What I do instead
>is to thoroughly acknowledge the end of cycle. So instead of saying
>"Your needle is
>floating", I might say something like "Very good. Alright." or
>something similar to let the person know I completely agree with his
>end of cycle. Like everything else in auditing, it should be
>spontaneous and heartfelt, not rote, even if it's predictable.

Preclears tend to benefit from very standard session procedure but it
will bog down a fast running OT.

>Through the "no earlier incident" block: The R3R procedure is
>usually run in such a way that the auditor will accept almost any
>win as a basic incident. This leaves the Pc with a mere key-out
>instead of an erasure, no matter how significant the cognition or
>how early on in the MEST universe it happened. This must be balanced
>with the rule of not pushing the Pc past his
>capabilities.

Its even deeper than erasure really. I would go for restored ability
to pervade the space and time of the incident.

>When the command "is there an earlier incident where you had the
>feeling of......(item)..." is used, and there is a read, you can ask
>"Did you think of something when I asked that?" and 2-way comm it.
>Steering is an option, but I'd rather keep the Pc from being meter
>dependent, so I use that method as a last resort.
>If nothing shows up, I will then ask (always with good TR-1) "Is
>there an earlier incident before the beginning of time where you had
>the feeling of .....(item)....?" If the Pc is well set up, this
>question should read big time. So then you run the pre-MEST universe
>bank back earlier similar, earlier similar, until there is nothing
>earlier. Then you ask for the flow zero incident with the command
>"Is there an earlier incident where you caused yourself to have the
>feeling of .....(item)...?". If it doesn't indicate to the PC, then
>you run the shift on the incident just run. If at any time there is
>a bog on running the shift of that incident, one place to look at is
>an earlier incident again. Sometimes it will surface when running
>the later shift triggers it. This phenomenon rarely occurs though.
>If the incident already handled seems to the Pc like it might be the
>basic, the auditor can give the Pc the R-factor that the E/S
>question is routine and may not indicate.
>The earliest incident I've ever seen people run has been the
>"original separation from theta" incident as mentioned on the
>"Individual Track Map" in the tech bulletins, which evidently is on
>everybody's track. Each Pc seems to have a unique take on it, but
>the basic story is similar from Pc to Pc. Not every Pc is ready to
>run this incident. Some run it the first time they have a session.
>Through the past life barrier: If the pc has never run past lives
>but is willing to, you can get him started when he has no earlier
>incident this lifetime. You give him the E/S command and hope for
>the best.
>The following are some methods of approach when he does not respond
>favorably to the E/S command:
>You give him the "earlier similar" command, check the meter for an
>instant read, and then you can ask him if a picture, thought, or
>feeling flashed in his mind when you asked the e.s. question. Then
>you follow that up.
>You can ask him if he can still feel the somatic he started the
>session with. If so, you can ask him to use his imagination and tell
>you what sort of scenario might explain or accompany the picture,
>thought or feeling he has. The same means can be used to open up
>blank areas of track like operations or implants. Then you get the
>Pc to "make up a story" about what the incident would be like if he
>were to have happened. Then you run him through it again and again
>until his reality on it picks up and the incident eventually
>flattens. Pay special attention to areas he talks about that gets
>good reads and have him expand on those.
>Handling of feelings: From the point of asking for feelings in the
>shift on forward, all feelings are put into a statement (postulate)
>form by the preclear and then repeated until flat. The preclear can,
>and should, change the wording if it changes for him to something
>more appropriate while repeating. (Always preface the questions with
>"in or around that moment of shift...)
>For example, "fear" can become "I can't confront anything," or "This
>is more than I can bear," or "I have to avoid this situation at all
>costs". Fear could also be simply "I am afraid". The Pc should break
>down the feeling into its component parts if possible, but then he
>should not be forced into an unreality either.
>If possible, the Pc should repeat the postulate as though he were
>making it in present time: "I can't confront" rather than "I lost my
>ability to confront". But this a judgement call.

If he's not stating it as if its present time then he's looking back
on it and isn't as-ising it.

You can shift tenses for him. For example if he says "I lost my
confront" you could lead in with "Get the point where you are losing
your confront … what's the postulate you are making?"

>Also, qualifiers should be eliminated such as "I feel like" or "I
>guess". The idea is to get the preclear as close to duplicating the
>original postulate as possible. Again, if it's real to the Pc, he
>can run a statement like "I feel..." and see where it leads. Best to
>let the Pc be the final judge.
>After they have been repeated a few times, I will ask the Pc "How
>does the feeling of ... seem to you now?"
>If it is flat, I will go on to the next feeling. If it is not flat I
>will have the Pc look at the feeling as it is now (I ask "What does
>the feeling seem like now?") and have him turn that feeling into a
>statement form and repeat that until flat. Postulates often contain
>a pronoun such as "I" or "me" or "you".
>If the Pc doesn't know what to look for and needs help, the auditor
>can suggest possible phrases in question form like "I can't .... any
>more?" or I'm unable to..." or "I'll never....again".
>If Pc still cannot find wording for the feeling, then he can be
>started out by having him use the phrase "I have to ..." or "I have
>to avoid ..." along with the appropriate ending, and have him repeat
>that. Another way is to lightly suggest some possible phrases to
>him. The stable datum here is that all feelings are basically
>postulates.
>If it is a feeling of pain or physical sensation, there may be no
>words for that yet (this rarely occurs. Just have the preclear feel
>that feeling in the sense of accepting it and letting it follow its
>cycle to completion (as in Technique 80). After you ask, "How does
>it seem now?" it may be in a form which can be run as a postulate by
>repeater technique.
>You don't want to be handling present time somatics with the
>repeater technique, so if there is any question about that, ask if
>that somatic is part of the pre-MEST incident being handled or if
>it's only present time. Dichotomies: It doesn't hurt to ask if a
>feeling being run has an opposing side like "I hate you" and "I love
>you" or "I'll can't......" and "I must.........". If it does, the
>two sides are run by repeater technique 1,2,1,2,1,2 to a flat point.
>In fact, sometimes it's necessary to run the opposite side for it to
>blow.
>Op-term feelings: It's also good to check for any feelings any
>opposition terminals had and run those out too by getting the Pc to
>repeat the op-term phrase from the op-term's point of view.

Yes, plus the other dynamics. Let's say you start in with a feeling
of degradation about an RPF assignment. You'd want to pick up the
emotions and postulates throughout his group. These things are part
of the telepathic aspect of the incident that needs to be addressed
and would block an EP if left there.

Another point that needs to be thrown in is the old "Stuck pictures"
from '68 . Incidents can hang up on those points and earlier
Dianetics was a bit too rote to get them.

It looks like this is getting into shape.

Love,

Revenius