49
ÿ HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 DECEMBER 1980
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
Advanced Courses
Specialist
Checksheet
ACS Auditors
ACS C/Ses
_NED for OTs Series 49_
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
_ACKNOWLEDGING THE "ME" ANSWER_
(Ref: NOTs Series 7, VALENCES
NOTs Series 47, VALENCE TECHNIQUE
ADDITION)
This HCOB gives an additional step to the NOTs Valence Technique,
and a further clarification of each of the steps of this technique.
_The_new_step_consists_of_"acknowledging_the_"me"_answer"._Doing_
_so_can_guarantee_a_blow._
A lot of the time there is nothing there to acknowledge because
it has already blown. Most of the time this isn't needed, but when
used it does prevent a hang-up when the BT hasn't gone. So its actual
value is the fact that it can guarantee a blow.
(By the way, you can call one back and acknowledge it, but don't
get into that. This is mentioned simply because it is possible to
call them back.)
_THE FULL STEPS OF THE VALENCE TECHNIQUE_
O. _Identifying what you are going to handle._
- 1 -
HCOB 1.12.80
Although this is strictly speaking not part of the Valence
Technique, one has to start off by finding a BT or cluster that you
are going to blow with the NOTs Valence Technique. This zero step
then consists of whatever action one is on, such as Rudiments, a NOTs
Program Step, Repair List or whatever, that uncovers a reading charge
that one identifies as a BT or cluster. Having found a reading charge
one has to identify what that charge is coming from, i.e. a BT or a
cluster (and less commonly, "a BT that thinks it's a cluster", or "a
cluster that thinks it's a BT").
This step varies depending on what Program step or category you
are working on. E.g. on Program Step #17, "Mass Mistaken For the Mass
of the Body", you ask the Pre-OT to "Look over the body and tell me if
there is any mass." or "...any massy body part or area?", or "...any
area of the body that is solid?". When you get a reading area of
mass, you then need to identify what this is, i.e. "Is it a BT?", "Is
it a cluster?".
On Step #18, "BTs Being Body Parts", you have the Pre-OT look
over the various parts of the body until you get a reading body part.
Or, you call off various parts, i.e. "Head?", "Face?", "Neck?",
"Inside?", "Outside?", etc. until you get a read. In this instance
you have the position or area of the body where the BT or cluster is,
but still need to identify it by asking: a BT?, a Cluster? (But note
that in this instance as in the paragraph above, you have also found
where the BT or Cluster is in relation to the body).
But if you are flying ruds, or handling a prepared list, to
start with all you have is a reading question. You then find _whose_
charge it is, (per HCOB 20 Deac 79 AUDITING SOMEBODY UNDER CONSTANT
AND CONTINUOUS PT STRESS and HCOB 22 Dec 79 FLYING RUDS AT OT III AND
ABOVE) by asking: "Is it yours?", "a BT's?, "a cluster's?" or , "Is
it also _________'s?". This action identifies what you have found
and are now going to handle.
This is really a preliminary step to the Valence Technique in
which you are (a) finding something to run, and (b) identifying what
you have found. You are establishing whether it is "a BT", "a
cluster", maybe "several BTs", or even "more than one cluster", (in
the case of a plural, the Pre-OT would need to be told to limit his
attention to one of these, so you can handle one at a time.)
Having found a charge and identified what it is, you now can move
into the Valence Technique to blow that BT or cluster (unless it has
already blown by this point, which is quite often so, many blow by
inspection, especially if the Pre-OT is running cleanly and rapidly).
1. _"Where is the BT (or cluster)?"_
The auditor has the Pre-OT locate where the BT or cluster is by
position in relation to the body. The auditor notes the area named by
the Pre-OT and whether it reads. When the Pre-OT names the correct
place it will read. Do not let the Pre-OT go on looking for
additional new areas until the reading area is fully handled.
- 2 -
HCOB 1.12.80
(As noted above under Step 0, you may have already located where
the BT is, in which case you wouldn't then ask the Pre-OT to find
where t is.)
The location of a BT or cluster is not always _in_ the body, they
can also be _on_ the body, _outside_ the body, even at some _distance_from_
the body.
Steps 0 and 1 are not rote. These steps are done to then enable
the Pre-OT to limit his attention span to the specific BT or cluster
while asking the auditing question. Otherwise you could jump from BT
to BT, restimulating other areas than that being worked on.
2. _"What are you?"_
(Note that any and all listing done follows the HCOB 1 Aug 68 THE
LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING. These have not changed just because they
are being used in a different process. An auditor who does not know
these should not attempt this step, and should master this HCOB before
attemtping this step.)
The auditor has the Pre-OT ask the BT or cluster the question,
and relay the answer to the auditor, who writes the answer down and
notes whether it read. _Only_if_the_first_item_does_not_read,_do_you_
_list_further_items._ Very often the first answer reads and that is
the item.
If the first item did not read, you've now got to ask him for
another answer, an you have got to make sure that it comes from that
exact spot or area. You have got to make sure that he isn't shifting
his attention all over his "left side", or you'd get the whole bank in
that area alive. You could say: "Now, from that same spot, is there
another answer? another? another?". _And_this_is_done_only_to_the_
_first_reading_item._ You might have to verify it: "Is that (answer)
from the same spot?".
This is why you establish where the BT or cluster is located in
Step 1, as you can then ensure that the Pre-OT limits his attention
to, and directs the auditing question to, that exact spot. E.g. "Put
your attention on the top of your left ear and ask "What are you?"
_The_auditor_indicates_the_first_ reading_item._ (Don't forget
that the PreOT can't see the meter, and the auditor must say what
read, and must not let the Pre-OT overlist.) You indicate the item by
saying "Pc wording of the first reading item") is the item". Don't
get sloppy and say "That's the item", as how does he know what you
mean by "that"? If "catfish" was the item say, "Catfish is the item",
Normally, but not always, you will get an F/N on finding and
indicating the item, but if you do not get an F/N here, you will on
the next step.
(Warning: On this step remember that you may have already
- 3 -
HCOB 1.12.80
received the answer in Step 0 or Step 1. BTs and clusters may not be
aware of the fact that they are living beings and may not release any
charge at all on "BT" or "cluster". But when you ask _where_ they are,
you may have gotten an answer to _what_ they are being, simply by asking
for body locations. This is not common, but not uncommon either: you
asked if the BT was on his foot and you got a big read. In this What
step you might have trouble getting a reading item and might miss the
fact that you already had the reading item for his What step in
"foot". The BT was being a foot and you discovered it by accident
without recognizing it, so if you have any trouble with the What step,
one of the first things to check is whether or not a "What" already
read on asking for the "Where" on Step 0 or Step 1. If you suspect
this, put the named body part that read on the list and check it out
as part of the list. You won't have to do this often, but you better
know about it.)
3. _Acknowledgement_
The auditor has the Pre-OT acknowledge the item. This is very
important (see NOTs Series 7).
Even if you got an F/N on the previous step, you still
acknowledge and you will broaden the F/N. And if you didn't get an
F/N previously, you will on acknowledging the item. And you'll quite
often get a blow on this step.
4. _"Who are you?"_
Now we have to remember that it is the same spot again and we
ask, "Who are you?", and we don't feed them the answer. They
sometimes comm lag (don't get impatient with the comm lag), sometimes
it's a few seconds comm lag, and then you get the answer. You may
have to repeat he question. The "Me" answer will normally LFBD, and
if that LFBD isn't very marked, you make sure you do the next step of
acknowledging the "Me" answer. In any event you could still
acknowledge, but if the LFBD was pronounced the probability is that
he's gone.
Now there is a special condition you can run into on the "Who are
you?" question if the BT answers with a significance or identity
answer. This is covered in NOTs Series 7. But if this continues,
suspect that you may have gotten a wrong item on the "What are you?"
question, or that the Pre-OT has used too broad an attention span or
let his attention wander to other areas and he is getting answers from
other BTs or Clusters.
5. _Acknowledgement_
The auditor has the PreOT acknowledge the BT's "Me"answer. This
action can guarantee a blow.
Now if this acknowledgement produces another read then we know it
guaranteed a blow. Sometimes you get _another_ LFBD on the
acknowledgment step, and sometimes you get a broadening of the F/N.
- 4 -
HCOB 1.12.80
And that completes the steps of the NOTs Valence Technique.
_CAUTION_
Sometimes, quite often in fact, this short-circuits. You ask:
"What are you?" and the guy says "Me" and blows. And Sometimes you
are patiently trying to go through all these steps and you get a
series of blows. A blow or a series of blows can occur at any time
during NOTs. You don't then continue the steps of this Technique, as
that BT or cluster has gone! Sometimes a series of blows or an
automatic blow will go into a Persistent F/N or a Floating Tone Arm
and in either instance you would end off the session.
Also you can get repetitive blows if a case is running pretty
clean, and you can get blows without BDs. There isn't much left on
the charge and it isn't registering on the meter to amount to
anything.
There is also the case of a "partial blow" and the description
and handling for this is given in NOTs Series 45, HCOB 10 Feb 79
PARTIALLY BLOWN BTS.
On "Hello and OK" you sometimes get a blow. The BT or cluster
doesn't answer up and you run "Hellos and OKs" repetitively to get it
into comm. Rarely, it will suddenly blow, and it would then be
senseless to go on trying to run "Hello and OK" or anything else, as
that one has gone.
Some auditors have been known to ask a pc if it blew, during the
Valence Technique steps. Even nag the PreOT, "Did it blow?", "Has it
gone?", "Still around?". This could be due to the auditor's
unfamiliarity with his meter, and not recognizing a blow when he sees
it occur on the meter. Or, possibly some may have confused another
technique, Date/Locate, with this technique. You of course always
Date to blow, and Locate to blow, and the auditor could get the idea
that he should carry over Date/Locate technique into the Valence
Technique.
It is very poor practice to ask the PreOT if it blew during NOTs
Valence Technique. You could cause the BT or cluster to submerge or
be suppressed, or you could invalidate a blow that did occur.
This doesn't mean that you can't _ever_ ask if it blew. You could
ask if it is "still around?" and a read would confirm that it is. But
this type of question is asking for a _missingness._ It's no longer
there. There's a large number of pcs that never see the blow, and it
isn't something to see, because it's a missingness. This type of
question can be difficult for the PreOT to answer, as there is now
nothing there for him to perceive as it has gone. If the meter BD'd
and F/Ned on the "Me" step, it would be idiocy to then ask if it blew,
of course it did! But if your meter didn't tell you it blew, you
could be in a quandary and have to solve that problem. But you
- 5 -
HCOB 1.12.80
wouldn't interrupt the Valence Technique to ask if it blew, and you
wouldn't get into nagging the PreOT. You just follow on through your
steps, and particularly if you had the PreOT ack the "Me" answer, then
you got your blow alright. So this concern about whether the BT blew
is misplaced.
These points are stated so that the auditor will understand what
he is doing, why he is doing it, and what manifestation he can expect
to occur, because these manifestations will occur. This technique is
a very positive series of steps, and they go in that sequence. If
these steps are done as given, you will get the result, and if
departed from or if there is an error, you can definitely expect to
get that manifestation too, i.e. too broad an attention span and you
will get restim.
It is necessary that the auditor and C/S understand these points
as this is not a technique that can be done rotely or robotically.
_OT III TECHNIQUES_
Sometimes you will need to use OT III techniques, especially when
you run into a cluster. And it is effective, just like it always was.
You sometimes get into a situation where you have an inert mass. You
run some "Hellos and OKs" and it actually becomes less inert, but it
is still a cluster. That condition can exist but it usually isn't
untied with "Hello & OK". It's a cluster and it reads on cluster.
Then it's your assessment for mutual incident, "Accident?, Illness?,
Impact?, Injury?, etc.", you do the assessment of what is this thing.
You get your mutual incident. Sometimes the cluster will explode
apart or break up on the assessment alone. You found what was holding
it together. Then you wouldn't try to Date/Locate it. You'd have the
PreOT pick off individuals and run them on the Valence Technique. But
if there was no disintegration of the cluster on finding the mutual
incident, you'd carry right on and Date/Locate, Inc II and Inc Is (or
NOTs Valence Technique).
Now there's a variation on mutual incidents. You can get a
mutual incident that is current, contemporary, like he went PTS or
something. Had a big ARC break or something. But it isn't as
strenuous as a cluster-making incident. It's a sort of a lock. It
isn't a mutual incident like an impact, injury, illness, accident,
shock, etc. But a guy can run into a recent heavy upset or general
charge of some kind, heavy stress, and you get the reaction described
in HCOB 20 Dec 79 NOTs Series 48, under "Routine A". There you had a
general total restim - it is actually a mutual incident as it happened
to all of them - it's near PT though and they all copy it, and when
you hit it you get a sudden BD and a relief. But you are not going to
blow any BTs to amount to anything as it isn't a cluster-making
incident. So you have to be able to differentiate between these two
types of mutual incidents, the recent this life lock, and the heavy
impact, injury, explosion type of mutual incident that forms a
cluster. The cluster will resolve with the OT III, mutual incident,
Date/Locate, Inc II and Inc Is routine. And that's why you start off
on the NOTs course with a re-study and clear up any MUs on the OT III
[missing line or page]
- 6 -
HCOB 1.12.80 _SOMATICS_
The original research on somatics was done in the late '50's in
Washington, and I found how a somatic comes about. It's based on the
fact that one being by himself couldn't have a somatic. You have to
have two beings to have a somatic. A cluster can have a somatic. You
wouldn't ask a question for a BT with a somatic, that would be a wrong
question and is based on a false datum, and is an out-tech question.
You could have two or more BTs smashed together somehow producing a
somatic, but you would have to take up each of these BTs individually
to blow them.
But usually about the only time you will run into a somatic in
NOTs is when there has been an error. A wrong item, or something of
that sort. It may be that a somatic in NOTs is always an indicator of
an error. It seems to be so. And the wise auditor on NOTs should be
alerted to the probability of an error of some kind if the Pre-OT does
turn on a somatic. You can easily and quickly check for an error in
what you have just been running in the session, or use a NOTs Repair
List to locate and handle the BPC.
_UNDERSTANDING_
It is very essential that NOTs auditors and C/Ses understand the
NOTs materials, and don't try to insist on a rote set of questions or
steps, as NOTs doesn't run well as a rote or robotic rundown. That
are very exact steps and manifestations and sequences and you will get
these everytime. Anytime there have been flubbed cases on NOTs these
have traced to MU's on the part of the auditor and/or C/S. The NOTs
course checksheet was specificially designed to prevent this with
Supervisor meter checks for MU words frequently throughout the
checksheet. But there was an instance of a student who "skipped" the
MU word check by the Supervisor, which is a sure route to catastrophe.
Any trouble on NOTs has traced back to failure to clear words
misunderstood in either the OT III materials or in the NOTs materials.
This gives the solution to any auditor or C/S troubles with NOTs.
Clear the MU words, and re-study the materials so that you do
understand and can apply them. It will certainly make your life as an
auditor or C/S much easier, and will enable you to get the rave
results that NOTs is known for routinely.
_SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT_
Have you considered the sociological impact that you are having
by auditing NOTs? You are turning free beings loose in torrents.
This is bound to have an effect on society, especially when these
start picking up bodies and turn up to join the team at their local
org! You are not just auditing one pc at this level, you are churning
out cleared beings in volume, and we will start seeing the results
sooner or later on society in general. Maybe you have thought about
this too, it's nice to recognize the good effects you are creating!
[7]
HCOB 1.12.80
L. RON HUBBARD,
FOUNDER
LRH:dm:kjm
Copyright (c) 1980
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [8]
50
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JANUARY 1980
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
NOTs Auditors &
C/Ses ONLY
_NED for OTs Series 50_
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
_NOTs OT DRUG RUNDOWN_
(Ref: HCOB 29 Jan 80 THE OT DRUG RUNDOWN
WHICH MUST BE STUDIED PRIOR TO STUDYING
THIS HCOB.)
This issue adds to the OT III HCOB referenced above, and gives
additional data and handlings which are limited to NOTs auditors and
C/Ses, and which are for use on cases being audited on NOTs. (The OT
III handlings of drugs can also be used on NOTs cases.)
As you know from NOTs data, BTs can be being anything. They
can be being a particular drug, or being a drug picture or incident,
or even an "acid trip" for example.
The way you would handle a NOTs case on drugs is similar in
that you would first of all get the person through the Purification
Rundown. A case already started on NOTs can be put onto the
Purification RD without having been completed on NOTs, in fact, you
may not be able to complete some cases without it. You do not have to
take the case to a Rest Point. Just ensure that the case is not left
incomplete (or messed up) on a specific action or category before
starting the Purification RD. Then do not attempt to combine NOTs
auditing with the Purification RD until it is completed.
Do not attempt to run Objective processes on a case during
NOTs.
_The_caution_of_not_asking_for_Drugs_or_Drug_incidents_
_generally_ also applies to NOTs auditing as such a question would
result in a total restim.
- 1 -
HCOB 30.1.80
What you can do is to add "Drugs" and "a BT being a drug", "a
BT affected by drugs", "a BT being a drug trip", "a BT being a drug
picture", into a prepared assessment or list.
You can check for a read on drugs on a specific BT or cluster,
and then handle that BT or cluster to a blow.
All of the data published on the subject of drugs and their
effect in preventing case gain applies to BTs and cluster's cases.
Most commonly drugs have shown up on NOTs cases as _either_
_cluster-making_incidents_ , or on individual _BTs_being_the_drug_ or
affected by the drug, or copying other BT or cluster pictures of
drugs.
Several cases who were stalled on NOTs or who were making
minimal gain on NOTs have been resolved by handling drugs as described
in this issue.
_CASE HISTORIES_
The following case histories (reported by FSO C/Ses), of case
handling done on NOTs Pre-OTs on drugs are limited to this issue as
they contain NOTs techniques and data. These are additional case
histories to those given in HCOB 29 Jan 80, THE OT DRUG RUNDOWN,
(those cases were also piloted by NOTs auditors and C/Ses, but do not
contain confidential NOTs data).
_Case 1_ :
"Institutional case who had Sodium Pentathol as an anaethetic
just prior to 'gong nuts' and then being put in an institution".
"Running NOTs techniques on this drug, BTs stuck in this drug,
BTs being this drug, BTs affected by this drug, _turned_the_case_ sane._"
_Case 2_ :
"LSD some 200 times. Had so far refused any standard Sweat
Out program. Case gain totally hung fire on his attempts to get the
perception he had when he took LSD."
"From a GF 40 Expanded, drugs read heavily and his first gains
from NOTs were acheived in handling cluster-making incidents from LSD
trips, BTs/clusters stuck in LSD, being LSD, etc. This was run for
approximately one intensive with Pre-OT interest. It didn't crack the
case but some headway was made."
(The next action for this case is to get him onto and through
the Purification RD, then the full NOTs OT Drug RD.)
_Case 3_ :
"LSD 220 to 250 times, and alcohol and other heavy street
- 2 -
HCOB 30.1.80
drugs. He was a point where he could hardly walk or articulate".
"Many cluster-making incidents on drugs, LSD, alcohol, were
handled through the Rundown. Many were Reviv'd in past locations and
some stuck there (i.e. physically)".
"He cognited and BD'd on disturbing a pocket of acid held down
by a BT. BTs/clusters restimulated by that were handled, then
BTs/clusters stuck in drug trips and copies of drug trips".
"He started recovering physically. Articulation handled and
walking improved".
"On NOTs Series 34 handling of illness, alcohol was the item.
His speech went back to normal after this - Pre-OT felt tremendous".
"Lots of charge blown on BTs/clusters stuck in hospital drug
(ACTH).
Result of less numb, more sensation".
"Later a NOTs Series 43 handling was done on alcohol, plus
Date/Locate of a cumulative cluster on drugs. His responsibility
increased and he was off on a persistent win for almost 2 weeks
experiencing automatic/continuous blow phenomena in life".
"Lots of 'stuckness' on the case was tied up in drugs and
alcohol. Case is currently doing very well on the Purification RD".
(Although the Purification RD would normally precede such drug
handling in NOTs, this case was unable to walk or to talk due to
paralysis and was considered incurable by the medicos.)
----------------
"There are also a number of Pre-OTs who have had NOTs Series
12 handlings on Drug RDs and some on drugs."
----------------
_NOTs OT DRUG RD PGM_
THe NOTs or Drug RD Program is the same program as the OT Drug
RD (HCOB 29 Jan 80 THE OT DRUG RUNDOWN). It begins with the
Purification RD, it has the same Steps #1 - 5. But the method of
handling is by NOTs Valence Technique, rather than Inc II, Inc I.
Assessment for mutal incident is the same, but individuals from a
broken up cluster would be handled with NOTs Valence Technique.
The categories of: "a BT or cluster being _(reading drug)_ ",
"a BT or cluster affected by _(reading drug)_ ", "a BT being a drug
trip", "a BT being a drug picture", "a BT or cluster being
_(mis-emotion)_ ", "a BT or cluster being _(negative item)_ ", should
also be checked for on each reading drug taken up, and these
categories may be assessed as part of a prepared list, and should be
- 3 -
HCOB 30.1.80
so assessed at the end of Step 5.
Step 6 is different and would consist of a NOTs Series 24
Repair List assessed and handled, to clean up any loose ends and
polish off the case, before returning to the NOTs Advance Program.
_ADMINISTRATION AND DELIVERY_
The OT Drug Rd may not be audited on Pre-OTs who have had any
NOTs auditing, these may only be run on the NOTs OT Drug RD.
Although the NOTs OT Drug RD is done by a NOTs auditor and
NOTs C/S, these must be specially trained on the NOTs OT Drug RD and
only interested, graduated NOTs auditors and C/Ses may be so trained.
These issues are not added to the ACS Courses, nor given to green
NOTs auditors or C/Ses.)
The NOTs OT drug Rundown is not mixed in with the NOTs Advance
Program, nor is it to be bit and pieced with NOTs, nor given as a blur
along with NOTs. It is its own special RD and must be delivered as its
own RD, and as its own package. This does not mean that you cannot
use the item "drugs" in an assessment for a mutual incident during
NOTs, nor that you couldn't handle a BT hung up in a drug during NOTs.
But if drugs or drug items are coming up during NOTs, then the case is
on the wrong program and should be shifted over to the Purification
RD, followed by the NOTs OT Drug RD. Then after these are done, you
would resume the NOTs Advance Program. (As well as not mixing the
hours on the NOTs OT Drug RD with NOTs hours, there is an important
Technical reason for only handling one subject at a time and
completing each action and program before starting another. (ref: C/S
Series 38, C/S Series 47, & NOTs Series 30.)
One would not interrupt a Pre-OT who is running well on NOTs
with good TA action and who is getting rapid blows, but would flatten
the action before making a change to the Purification RD and the NOTs
OT Drug RD. These Rundowns can be done at any point during the NOTs
Advance Program, but ideally they would be entered after the "Past
Auditing Repair" steps, or after step 14, after step 15, or at any
point thereafter. If drugs are heavily charged and getting in the
way, then you would have no choice but to shift programs to handle.
Ideally the NOTs OT Drug RD should be delivered by a
specialist team of NOTs auditors and C/S, operating as a unit, who
then feed completed cases back to regular and interning NOTs auditors.
The NOTs OT Drug Rundown should help you with cases who hung
fire or were resistive previously as well as speeding gains and
results on all cases.
The pilot results are excellent, and show what sort of gains
can be attained.
L. RON HUBBARD
- 4 -
HCOB 30.1.80
FOUNDER
As assisted by
Senior C/S Int
LRH:dm:kjm
Copyright (c) 1980
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [5]
51
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 31 JANUARY 1980
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
Advanced Courses
Specialist
Checksheet
ACS Auditors
ACS C/Ses
_NED for OTs Series 51_
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
_AUDIT BTs CONCEPTUALLY_
_(References:_
HCOB 26 Sep 78 I WORD CLEARING AND INFORMATION FOR
PRE-PTS ON NED FOR OTs
HCOB 12 Jan 80 ACKNOWLEDGING THE "ME" ANSWER
HCOB 27 Oct 79 VALENCE TECHNIQUE ADDITION
HCOB 17 Sep 78 I VALENCES.)
---------------
(This HCOB adds to HCOB 26 Sep 78, Issue I, WORD CLEARING AND
INFORMATION FOR PRE-OTs ON NED FOR OTS, and is to be used in the
indoctrination of Pre-OTs on NED for OTs.)
---------------
When a Pre-OT looks at a BT and gets too laggardly,the BT often
turns on a picture. The NOTs Pre-OT _could_ think this picture was the
_What._ It _never_ is. The _Whate_ BT is simpIy making a picture. Answers
come through as concepts, not pictures.
The rule is: THE PRE-OT IGNORES THE PICTURE AND DOES
THE ACTION IN CONCEPTS.
In NOTs one is not dealing with pictures, one is dealing with
the basic of pictures. Pctures are a red herring - wrong target.
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
LRH:dm:kjm
Copyright (c) 1980
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
52
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1980
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
ACS Auditors
ACS C/Ses
_NED for OTs Series 52_
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
URGENT - IMPORTANT
_NOTs WHAT/WHO L & N STEP_
(References:
HCOB 27 Oct 79, NOTs Series 47, VALENCE TECHNIQUE ADDITION
HCOB 12 Jan 80, NOTs Series 49, ACKNOWLEDGING THE ME ANSWER.)
(This HCOB contains important revisions
and additional instructions regarding the
NOTS What/Who L & N Step, and modifies
NOTs Series 47 and 49. It does not other-
wise cancel or change the rest of the NOTs
Valence Technique, nor does it change the
rest of the NOTs procedures or Rundown.
This issue must be thoroughly word cleared
and star-rated along with the referenced
issues by NOT auditors and C/Ses to
qualify them to use the NOTs What/Who
L & N Step.)
_THE RIGHT ITEM, ON THE WHAT L & N STEP_
In NOTs Series 47 and 49 it is stated that you take "the first
reading item" (regardless of its read). In experience I have found
this not always to be true. _One_can_get_some_small_falls_on_several_
_items_before_the_real_item_is_hit._ Sometimes it requires an ack to
get an F/N, but _the_real_item_always_F/Ns._
(E-meter Note: If one were to use other than an operational Mark
- 1 -
HCOB 24.5.80
VI, one could be mislead by the meter. I have noticed that what is a
small fall (sF) on an operational Mark VI, is a fall (F) on another
meter. This is not good, as the auditor seeing a fall F), could
think he has the item, when it is really a small fall. The
exaggerated read makes one think wrong items have read when these only
gave a small fall. Also, the Mark V tends to just F/N, and gives on
the problem of trying to read through an F/N. The Mark V is not
sensitive enough. Thus it is essential that an operational Mark VI is
used. The sizes of reads referred to here are at the correct
Sensitivity setting of one third dial drop on can squeeze per EM-5R.
The Sensitivity must not be higher than this during the What/Who L & N
Steps.)
The statements in NOTs Series 47 and 49 under Step 3
(Acknowledgement) are correct and the only change here is in the
statement that you take "the first reading item", plus a clarification
of size of read.
The right What? L & N Step reads are a lot of small falls
preceding the right item. THE REAL ITEM ALWAYS F/Ns (even if it
sometimes requires an ack to get it to F/N).
_THE "WHO" STEP_
(Early in the NOTs Rundown, and sometimes later in the Rundown,
the being blows easily. Often before all the Valence Technique steps
have been done, frequently blowing on inspection. There is the
phenomenon (described in earlier NOTs issues) of the cyclic aspect of
handling more difficult-to-blow BTs and clusters, followed by a series
of easy/rapid blows. Later in the Rundown, after the more available
and easier-to-blow BTs and clusters have gone, those remaining tend to
be in worse shape as beings. You are then more frequently going to
encounter the following phenomenon.)
The being seldom gets much of a read and seldom a blow on the
first right answer to the Who? question. It gives an answer, the
right answer ("Me"), in many cases and there's no real read. What one
does then is ack encouragingly and asks it to repeat the answer
("Me"). Thus encouraged, a BD F/N and blow on the repeated answer
occurs.
_PIN-POINTING ATTENTION_
It is essential that the NOTs PreOT limits his/her attention to
the BT/cluster being addressed. You can get a mish-mash if their
attention goes onto something else. I have developed TR 8-Q (HCOB 22
Apr 80) which is an exercise in pin-pointing attention as well as
asking a question. Requiring a NOTs PreOT to do TR 8-Q will remedy
this.
_REPAIR LISTS FOR L & N_
There are two repair lists for L & N errors that are shorter than
- 2 -
HCOB 24.5.80
the L4BRA, and both of these can be used in NOTs. They are: HCOB 23
Sep 68 "Violation of the Laws of Listing and Nulling", and HCOB 29 Sep
68 "List Correction" (Tech Vol XI, pages 44, 45), and either of these
may be used, resorting to the longer L4BRA when necessary. The usual
thing to do though would be to recognize what was wrong from the reads
noted in W/Ss (or lack of F/N on the What? item), and handle
accordingly and as given in earlier NOTs issues.
_FES-ING_
FESers and C/Ses must know the materials given in NOTs Series 47,
49 and this issue and must inspect worksheets to see whether correct
(or wrong) items have been found, and whether the BT or cluster was
blown. C/Ses must do this on every session, and FESers when they are
looking for errors on a case. Any previous instances of failure to
get the right item, or failure to handle a being to a blow can then be
taken up in subsequent sessions and properly handled as described in
this issue. If the BT/cluster is still around it will read when the
PreOT's attention is directed to that position (area) and oriented to
the item given in that session. (Remember that it now may be
Suppressed or Invalidated, and that the being probably has a Wrong
Item and an Incomplete List.) If the error can be found and corrected
immediately, do so (such as simply completing the list to correct
item, and completing the steps on that being to blow), or, do one of
the L & N Repair assessments to find what is wrong and then correct it
and handle the being to blow.
_AUDITOR AND C/S QUALIFICATIONS_
The requirements for an auditor or C/S to use this NOTs L & N
technique as given in NOTs Series 47 and 49 are very important and it
is a High Crime to violate these. ONLY auditors and C/Ses who can L &
N successfully may be permitted to use this technique, and then only
after they have completed the stated requirements in NOTs 47, 49, the
referenced materials and this issue. Until then, they may only use the
other NOTs techniques, but not the L & N Step.
_PROGRAMMING THE WHAT/WHO L & N STEP_
Note that in NOTs SerieS 47, page 3, under "Warning" it is
stated: "...it will be necessary to use this technique of listing for
the item, at some point on any case being audited on NED for OTs,...".
PreOTs being started on NOTs should not be put onto this technique at
the beginning of the NOTs Advance Program, no until the PreOT is well
advanced through the Program. The other NOTs techniques are fully
adequate and very successful and most of the NOTs 26R Program can be
done before resorting to the NOTs L & N technique.
Only shift to the L & N procedure when the PreOT is well advanced
through the Program and encounters the phenomenon described in NOTs
47, page 1. Early in the NOTs Program the case is fat with charge
- 3 -
HCOB 24.5.80
that will slough off easily and with the use of NOTs techniques other
than the listing technique given in NOTs Series 47. On a case that
has been prematurely started on the L & N Step, prefer to use the
earlier NOTs techniques and do not overwork the L & N Step until the
case is ready for it, (this doesn't mean that one would stop the L & N
technique altogether on such a case).
When the case is ready for the NOTs What/Who L & N Step, and
provided the auditor and C/S are qualified to run it, then the case is
indoctrinated on the procedure and begun (per NOTs 47, 49 and this
issue). If all the NOTs auditors and C/Ses are not fully qualified,
then the PreOT could be reassigned when ready for the L & N Step.
In general most cases will follow the steps as laid out on NOTs
26R and 27, as this is the research/developmental sequence of NOTs and
most cases will follow the same sequence and pattern and phenomena.
NOTs trainees should also follow this same sequence and only
train on the later techniques after they have had experience and wins
on auditing the earlier NOTs Program steps with the earlier
techniques. Those are very easy to do, very rewarding and will enable
the new NOTs auditor to gain familiarity and confidence.
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
as assisted by
Senior C/S Int
LRH:dm:kjm
Copyright (c) 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
54
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 FEBRUARY 1981
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
Advanced Courses
Specialist
Checksheet
ACS Auditors
ACS C/Ses
_NED for OTs Series 54_
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
_CLARIFICATION ON ACKNOWLEDGING IN THE_
_VALENCE TECHNIQUE_
(Ref: NOTs Series 7, VALENCES)
It is very important that you have the Pre-OT acknowledge the
answer the BT or cluster gives to the "What are you?" question (see
NOTs Series 7). Even if you got an F/N on the answer, you still
acknowledge and you will broaden the F/N.
We ask "Who are you?" to he same spot and we don't feed them
the answer. They sometimes comm lag, (don't get impatient with the
comm lag), sometimes it's a few seconds comm lag, and then you get the
answer. You may have to repeat the question (see NOTs Series 7). The
"Me" answer will normally LFBD, and if that LFBD isn't very marked,
you make _sure_ you do the next step of acknowledging the "Me" answer.
In any event you could still acknowledge, but if the LFBD was
pronounced the probability is that he's gone. The auditor having the
Pre-OT acknowledge the "Me" answer can guarantee a blow. Now is this
acknowledgement produces another read then we know it guaranteed a
blow. Sometimes you get _another_ LFBD on the acknowledgement step, and
sometimes you get a broadening of the F/N.
_CAUTIONS_
Sometimes, quite often in fact, this short-circuits. You ask:
"What are you?" and the guy says "Me" and blows. And sometimes you
are patiently trying to go through all these steps and you get a
series of blows. A blow or a series of blows can occur at any ime
during NOTs. You don't then continue the steps of this Technique, as
that BT or cluster has gone! Sometimes a series of
HCOB 14.2.81
Confidential - 2 -
blows or an automatic blow will go into a Persistant F/N or a Floating
Tone Arm and in either instance you would end off the session.
Also you can get repetitive blows if a case is running pretty
clean, and you can get blows without BDs. There isn't much left on the
charge and it isn't registering on the meter to amount to anything.
On "Hello and OK" you sometimes get a blow. The BT or cluster
doesn't answer up and run "Hellos and OKs" repetitively to get it into
comm. Rarely, it will suddenly blow, and it would then be senseless
to go on trying to run "Hello and OK", or anything else, as that one
has gone.
Some auditors have been known to ask a pc if it blew, during
the Valence Technique steps. Even nag the Pre-OT, "Did it blow?",
"Has it gone?", "Still around?". This could be due to the auditor's
unfamiliarity with his meter, and not recognizing a blow when he sees
it occur on the meter. Or, possibly some may have confused another
technique, Date/Locate, with this technique. You of course always
Date to blow, and Locate to blow, and the auditor could get the idea
that he should carry over Date/Locate technique into Valence
Technique.
It is very poor practice to ask the Pre-OT if it blew during
NOTs Valence Technique. You could cause the BT or cluster to submerge
or be suppressed, or you could invalidate a blow that did occur.
This doesn't mean that you can't _ever_ ask if it blew. You
could ask if it is "still around?" and a read would confirm that it
is. But this type of question is asking for a _missingness_ . It is no
longer there. There's a large percentage of pcs that never see the
blow, and it isn't something to see, because it's a missingness. This
type of question can be difficult for the Pre-OT to answer as there
is now nothing there for him to perceive as it has gone. If the meter
BD'd and F/Ned on the "Me" step, it would be idiocy to then ask if it
blew, of course it did! But if your meter didn't tell you it blew,
you could be in a quandary and have to solve that problem. But you
wouldn't interrupt the Valence Technique to ask if it blew, and you
wouldn't get into nagging the Pre-OT. You just follow on through with
your steps, and particularly if you had the Pre-OT ack the "Me"
answer, then you got your blow alright. So this concern about whether
the BT blew is misplaced.
These points are stated so that the auditor will understand
what he is doing, why he is doing it, and what manifestations he can
expect to occur, because these manifestations will occur. This
technique is a very positive series of steps, and they go in that
sequence. If these steps are done as given, you will get the result,
and if departed from or if there is an error, you can definitely
HCOB 14.2.81
Confidential - 3 -
expect to get that manifestation too, i.e. too broad an attention span
and you will get restim.
It is necessary that the auditor and C/S understand these
points as this is not a technique that can be done rotely or
robotically.
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
Assisted by
Snr C/S Int Assistant
Accepted by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
OF CALIFORNIA
BDCS:LRH:MM:kjm
Copyright (c) 1981
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Correction
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JULY 1979
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
NED for OTs
Auditors
AO Review Auditors,
OT III
ACS Auditors
Class XII
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
_HANDLING CORRECTION LISTS ON OTs_
When you get a read on a correction list on an individual who is
on OT III or above, you should find out from what area it is reading;
i.e. find the position in relation to the body, of the BT or cluster
on whom that correction list question read.
Otherwise, the reading correction list line gets assigned to all
areas, when it only applied to one. This creates BPC as it gives the
rest a wrong item or wrong indication, and it makes the reading
queston appear to be a generality, when in fact it only applied to one
BT or cluster.
By finding the BT or cluster that the read applied to, the
auditor then clears the read on that BT or cluster. And then the
auditor takes any additional steps to get it to blow and blows it.
The above does not apply to cases below OT III and must never be
mentioned to such a case.
There is a tendency of an auditor trained on general correction
lists to simply clear the read without finding where it is coming
from, and as this omission can jam up a case who is on OT III or on
NOTs; such auditors when doing NOTs or actions on individuals OT III
or above must learn to handle correction lists in this way. It can
mean the difference between failure and success.
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
LRH:DM:kjm
Copyright (c) 1979
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
55
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JANUARY 1982
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
Advanced Courses
Specialist
Checksheet
ACS Auditors
ACS C/Ses
_NED for OTs Series 55_
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
_VARYING THE AREAS_
Session by session and item by item, when spotting something
to list, it is best to work a different area than the last item.
This is true when there still seem to be more in the last area
worked.
Example: one session, top of head; next session, even though
head is slightly massy although one has blown, work, let's say, an
area in the back where one is spotted. Then, that listed, handled and
blown, one can go back to the head.
The operating rule that seems best is not to work the same
area twice in succession.
One also must be sure to work behind as well as in front and
from different angles from in front and behind. By continuing to work
from the front only, on and on, builds up an imbalance that can
increase duress.
One also must remember to not always work close in: from time
to time check out areas that are as much as many feet from the body.
When one has worked one, two or three areas, one is likely to
get a persistent F/N, very wide, and that is the time to lay off for
now, end session and begin again later - in a few hours or next day.
If you keep plugging on after a good win, you are actually overrunning
a persistent F/N and it clears up by simply indicating that.
HCOB 15.1.82
Confidential - 2 -
Forcing forward past a good win can give you a temporary pack up; so
you actually make less progress than you would have if you
short-sessioned as you are supposed to.
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
LRH:rdk
Copyright (c) 1980
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Qual 3
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JANUARY 1980
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
OT III & above only
NED for OTs Auditors
AO Review Auditors
ACS Checksheet
Class XII
OT III Cramming
Officers
OT III C/Ses
_Qual Corrective Actions on OTs Series 3_
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
_QUAL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ON OTs_
(Ref: C/S Series 107 AUDITOR ASSIGNMENT POLICIES,
CRAMMING ASSIGNMENT POLICIES
HCOB 22 Dec 79 FLYING RUDS AT OT III AND
ABOVE)
The reason why it is necessary to have OT versions of the
various Qual corrective actions is that an OT's case can be messed up
if mis-audited or mis-crammed, and the purpose of Qual corrective
actions is to improve or correct the staff member.
The major cause of trouble in seeking to correct OTs has been
violations of the auditor assignment policy, whereby a person of lower
case level than the OT was trying to audit or cram the OT. Not only
does this put the OT on a withhold of confidential data, but a person
of lower case level has no reality on the materials of the case level
of the OT and can easily stir up aspects of the case that should have
been left alone, or, if taken up handled fully. Additionally if the
OT did get messed up, then he could only be repaired by using Repair
actions appropriate to his case level. A non-OT III Cramming Officer
or auditor could not possibly repair BPC on an OT III.
Where Cramming Officers have limited their actions to simply
word clearing the materials that the person had gone past
misunderstoods on, it has worked out OK. But if the action being done
led into the person's case then there is a liability of messed up case
and ineffective staff member.
HCOB 11.1.80
Confidential - 2 -
Some of the Qual corrective actions such as False Data
Stripping and some of the questions in the Product Debug Checklist are
not directed toward the person's post alone but are directed towards
the person's case by asking about intentions or reactions or
considerations or directing the person to recall past events. The
statement: "I'm not auditing you.", doesn't prevent a case action from
occurring if one then proceeds to ask auditing questions.
The worst repercussions of all have stemmed from offline case
actions done as some sort of squirrelly "2WC" which wasn't a valid
part of the cramming action anyway.
When subjective questions are asked one invariably is into a
case action. Definition of "Subjective": "Consultation with the
preclear's own universe, with his mock ups, and with his own thoughts
and considerations." (Book THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, p. 167.)
"Recall, think, remember or return on the time track processes are
subjective." (HCOB 2 Nov 57RA.)
Subjective actions, especially when metered, lead into the
person's case. If mis-done, particularly if mis-metered, these can
ball the case up.
OTs when correctly handled with the corrrect tech appropriate
to their case level, handle very quickly and easily. So it is
important to know what to do and what not to do.
The solution to this is in having specialized lists for OTs,
and forbidding the use of non-OT actions on OTs, and forbidding
non-OTs from seeking to audit or cram OTs.
_REPAIR OF OTs MESSED UP IN CRAMMING_
The most frequent cause of BPC encountered is:
(a) Misownership,
(b) Mismetering (false reads, missed reads and missed
F/Ns),
(c) Invalidation of state of case.
There are two types of action which are most likely to lead
into an OT's case and cause BPC:
(i) Asking subjective questions,
(ii) Asking "earlier similar?" (which sends the Pre-OT
down the track, or down different tracks.)
HCOB 11.1.80
Confidential - 3 -
There are ways to detect and isolate what happened in a
mis-done cramming:
-The person crammed has _any_ BIs about the cramming action;
-The person continues to goof in the same area or subject;
-The person Red Tags on the cramming or within three days
after the cramming action;
-The person gets sick, misemotional on the subject of the
cram, or turns on somatics, within three days after the
cramming action;
-The person is introverted on the subject of the cram;
-The person comes to next session after the cram with TA
or needle behavior worsened from what it was prior to the
cram, (such a TA used to be in normal range and now is
high or low, or Sens setting for 1/3rd dial drop on can
squeeze is now higher due to tighter needle, an unusual
needle patern has now appeared, etc.).
A sharp C/S can usually spot a mis-done cram from the
worksheets of the cramming action and must insist that these are
legible and accurate (ref: HCOB C/S Series 98 AUDITING FOLDERS,
OMISSIONS IN COMPLETENESS).
When encountering any of the above, the C/S should make up a
prepared assessment to cover points of possible error in the cramming
action. Here is a sample assessment which can be used or added to:
1. R Factor: "I'm going t assess a list of possible
errors which may have occurred in the _______________
(cramming action), to locate any BRC."
2. Assess:
"Was there any misownership of charge?"
"Were significances or reads misowned?"
"Was there any mismetering?"
"Was a false read taken up?"
"Was there any cleaned clean?"
"Was a read missed?"
"Was an F/N missed?"
HCOB 11.1.80
Confidential - 4 -
"Was there any invalidation of state of case?"
"Were subjective questions asked?"
"Were earlier similars asked for when these
did not exist?"
"Were there any out-ruds?"
"Was there no help?"
(The above is a sample assessment which contains the most
common items you are likely to find on mis-done cramming actions,
especially on OTs, and the assessment above is designed for use on
cases who are OT III or above only as it contains "misownership", but
a similar prepared assessment could be made up for a lower level
case.)
3. Handle reads on the above assessment in accordance with HCOB 4
July 79 HANDLING CORRECTION LISTS ON OTs and HCOB 22 Dec 79 FLYING
RUDS AT OT III AND ABOVE. This action alone may completely handle all
the BPC, sometimes very rapidly and spectacularly.
4. If not fully handled with the above, assess and handle the
appropriate correction list for the action that was messed up (i.e.
WCCL - Word Clearing Correction List, for messed up word clearing, or
L4BRA, etc.), handling the reads in accordance with HCOB 4 Jul 79
HANDLING CORRECTION LISTS ON OTs and HCOB 22 Dec 79 FLYING RUDS AT OT
III Repair List (or if the person has been audited on NOTs, a NOTs
Repair List).
_ACTIONS THAT CAN BE DONE_
There are actions that are OK to do in Cramming and will not
get into the person's case. _These_relate_to_his_post_or_study_and_
_are_objective._
Definition of "Objective": "Of or having to do with a material
object as distinguished from a mental concept, idea or belief"
(Dictionary). "Means here and now objects in PT as opposed to
`subjective'." (HCOB 2 Nov 57A.)
Questions or actions by the Cramming Officer which are
objective and pertain to the person's post, the materials which cover
his post, the materials he is studying, clearing words misunderstood,
hatting actions and post or product debugs (provided subjective
questions are not asked on OTs) are all OK.
The most usual and successful cramming action is simply to
take the materials or text that covers the subject of the cramming
order and word clear and cram those materials. This is always safe
and OK to do. (The only other caution is not to give verbal data, nor
to evaluate or invalidate or throw the person's ruds out while doing
the cram!)
HCOB 11.1.80
Confidential - 5 -
Word Clearing Methods 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are OK to do
on OTs (but not Method One, which asks for "earlier similar?").
Finding and clearing Crashing Misunderstood Wrods is OK.
Demonstrating meanings or words and terms and principles
either with a demo kit or on Clay Table are OK.
Starrate checkouts on materials are OK.
Product Debug Tech is OK to do on OTs (provided the subjective
questions on the assessments are omitted).
All of the actions given in this section can and should be
used in Cramming, and these have no liability.
OTs when handled correctly in Cramming (or in auditing) are
very fast and easy to handle, and correct very readily.
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
As assisted by
Snr C/S Int
LRH:DM:kjm
Copyright 1980
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Attest 3
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 NOVEMBER 1981
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
OT III & above
ONLY
AO C/Ses
AO Solo C/Ses
NOTs C/Ses
AO Review
Auditors
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
_OT III AND OT III ATTEST_
This issue changes the current handling of OT III and OT III
attests and the next step after OT III. We want to end off"endless
IIIs". Starting now, AO C/Ses are to handle PreOTs on OT III as
follows.
Let the person audit on OT III as long as he wishes. But at
the first slackening or abandonment or EP or if he is just going on
and on into"endless III", look for a nice win and tell him that's it
and shunt him over to Audited NOTs.
An AO Review may be necessary before sending the person to
attest. On an"endless III"or some of these people who have been
incomplete on OT III or who have been on and off OT III for a long
time, a Review would be necessary. The Review could be as short as an
LDN OT III and Rehab their best win on OT III or as long as a C/S 53
to F/Ning list followed by an LDN OT III and then Rehab their best win
on OT III. On some you might only need to find a nice win they had on
OT III and indicate that that was it, or get it rehabbed in session
(this would mainly apply to persons currently on OT III).
Some of this termination of III would depend on auditor
availability for Audited NOTs , but if this is a situation the
solution is to train up more NOTs auditors.
The whole intention here is to take PreOTs who
have"completed"OT III per the above qualificcation and shunt them over
to Audited NOTs.
Let's start making OTs in VOLUME.
- 1 -
HCOB 10.11.81
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
LRH:dm:kjm
Copyright (c) 1981
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
45
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 FEBRUARY 1979
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
Advanced Courses
Specialist
Checksheet
ACS Auditors
ACS C/Ses
_NED for OTs Series 45_
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
_PARTIALLY BLOW BTs_
(Ref: NED for OTs Series 16)
In HCOB 17 Sep 78, Issue II, NED for OTs Series 16, the
phenomenon of partially blown BTs causing "Exterior visio" is
described and the handling is given.
In addition to sometimes causing an apparency of exterior
perception, partially blown BTs can cause a physical reaction of
discomfort. Not having fully blown they react back against the body
with energy or mass.
The reason why they only partially blow is because they are
still mixed up in a mass with untouched, unaudited BTs that stick
them. By having the Pre-OT reach out in front of the partially blown
BTs with a question "Who are you?", the uncleared BT or BTs get
handled. This may have to be repeated as the group of BTs may blow
further out and hang up again. Simply keep putting the question "Who
are you?" out in front of the BTs each time they hang up until they
blow apart and clear fully and completely.
It is interesting that the mass sometimes flies apart like
sparks way out there. It is at that moment the Pre-OT experiences a
feeling of relaxation.
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
LRH:dm:kjm
Copyright (c) 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - 1 -
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 FEBRUARY 1979
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
Advanced Courses
Specialist
Checksheet
ACS Auditors
ACS C/Ses
46
_NED for OTs Series 46_
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
_BTs WITH MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS_
I have discovered that BTs can have misunderstood words too!
The body's ear might hear one thing and the BT might hear
something else entirely, direct. This results in Mis-U sounds and
oral words. The BTs don't know what the person is saying, nor do they
know what is being said to the person, due to these Mis-Us. And the
person gets caught in the middle of this flow channel, experiencing
the reaction to the BT's Mis-U. The usual reaction of the BTs is just
to withdraw.
BTs can get Mis-Us from reading matter, foreign languages, and I
have found BTs that don't speak English. Where it really goes wild is
in auditing, where the BT has a Mis-U on the auditing command or
question. They would then answer the auditing question wrong to
themselves, causing a case hang up right there.
There is also a basic consideration that the Dead would not
understand anything anyway.
This phenomenon of BT's Mis-Us explains why some try to
communicate with pictures.
Since this can cause a case to hang fire in auditing you need to
know about this and to check for a Mis-U in the auditing command or
question, remembering that it could be a BT's Mis-U and not
necessarily the Pre-OT's Mis-U. So auditors and C/Ses are alerted to
this as a possible reason for a case to hang fire. The remedy is to
repair the situation, by checking for Mis-Us in the commands or
auditing questions, and handling BTs hung up in these.
- 1 -
HCOB 22.2.79
As a rundown you would take these up by categories and fully
handle them as follows. But this as a rundown comes later on in NED
for OTs.
1. Clear with the Pre-OT the idea of communicating with
BTs by concept, not with words. The Pre-OT may have
to learn this trick of communicating conceptually.
Clear the words "concept", "idea", "thought", "spoken
words", "written words", "picture". Then clear the
idea of communicating conceptually. You may have
to do a little drill with the person by getting him/
her to think a simple thought, such a "It's a nice
day", without verbalizing it or thinking in words or
pictures. You could have the person think the thought
conceptually, then think it with words, then concep-
tually, then with words. Or even think the thought
while saying different words or gobble-dy-gook. Don't
overdo this, it is just to get the Pre-OT to a point
where he can communicate to a BT conceptually.
2. Assess through these categories until you get a read:
"A BT with a Mis-U..........
in auditing commands?
in auditing questions?
in spoken words?
in reading matter?
in entertainment?
in study?
in English?
in foreign languages?
symbol?
sound?
3. Have the Pre-OT locate where the BT is in relationship
to the body.
4. Blow the BT by usual NED for OTs techniques (What?
Who?), remembering that the Pre-OT must ask these
questions (and receive the answers to them) concep-
tually, so as to avoid Mis-U words in this communi-
cation.
- 2 -
HCOB 22.2.79
5. Check for any other BT within this category and
handle as above, until there are no more BTs with
Mis-Us in this category.
6. Continue down the assessment in #2 above until you
get a read and handle as above, and so on.
7. When you have completed the categories given above,
make a final check for any other BT with a Mis-U,
and handle before leaving this Rundown.
This discovery shows the importance of clearing words used in
auditing questions and commands, and the importance of clearing Mis-U
words in general. And of course the fact that these Mis-Us may be a
BT's Mis-Us rather than the person's own Mis-Us, will dispel any
mystery about why one can run into Mis-U word phenomena when one knows
the word himself. But don't let this make you any less alert for
words the Pre-OT may have misunderstood in auditing questions or
commands, and be sure to clear these.
These BT with Mis-Us are easily handled by use of the trick of
communicating with them conceptually, rather than with words.
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
LRH:dm:kjm
Copyright (c) 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
3 III
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
_Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex_
_HCO BULLETIN OF 23 DECEMBER 1979_
_LIMITED_
_DISTRIBUTION_
OT III & above Only
NED for OTs Auditors
AO Review Auditors
OT III
ACS Checksheet
Class XII
OT III Cramming
Officers
OT III C/Ses
_Qual Corrective Actions on OTs Series 2_
_C O N F I D E N T I A L_
_FLYING RUDS AT OT III AND ABOVE_
_References:_
HCOB 4 Jul 79 HANDLING CORRECTION LISTS ON OTs
Scientology Axiom 29
_MISOWNERSHIP_
Scientology Axiom 29: "In order to cause an As-is-ness
to persist, one must assign other authorship to the creation
than his own. Otherwise his view of it would cause its van-
ishment." This axiom is especially relevant to auditing at
the level of OT III and above because at this level the Pre-
OT is handling other beings than himself (BTs and clusters).
It is necessary to establish correct ownership of charge in
order to get an As-is-ness. Furthermore, incorrectly assign-
ing charge to the wrong being can cause by-passed charge (BPC)
as it is now misowned. Hence the instruction in the OT III
materials that one must use a narrow attention span so as to
handle one BT or cluster at a time, and so as not to restim-
ulate or confuse other BTs with the one being audited.
Finding more than one charge without establishing whose
charge it is, and fully handling that being, can result in a
generality - the idea that the charge found belongs to all -
when it only belongs to one being. This can cause an ARC
break or BPC reaction as it acts as a wrong indication to the
others to whom it does not belong. By correctly establishing
ownership of charge, and handling the correct charge on the
being to whom it belongs, you get As-is-ness.
It is especially important that AO Review Auditors and
OT III Cramming Officers know this data and correctly handle
rudiments and prepared list reads in sessions and in Cramming.
HCOB 22.12.79
Confidential - 2 -
_HOW TO FLY THE RUDS_
The Rudiments questions which contain the word "you"
(i.e. "Do you have an ARC break?") are for use on lower level
pcs, but not at OT III or above. When the word "you" is used
in a ruds question on a Pre-OT who is OT III or above, it is
evaluative. It says whose charge it is.
The correct wording of ruds questions for use on Pre-OTs
who are OT III or above is:
"Is there an ARC break?"
"Is there a present time problem?"
"Is there a withhold?"
"Is there an overt?"
And where full ruds are being flown"
"Is there an invalidation?"
"Is there an evaluation?"
Sometimes the rudiments will run and F/N and blow just
that rudiment alone, and without differentiating whose charge it
is. It is possible that the Pre-OT isn't up to differentiating
whose it is. This is how rudiments run all the time on lower
level cases. It just runs generally as the rudiment, without
establishing whose it is. The trouble you can get into is with
misownership, whereby you are running a charge that belongs
to a BT as if it were the Pre-OT's charge. Or the charge of
one BT is misowned as belonging to some other BT or cluster.
Then misownership of charge occurs, it won't run or as-is or
blow, you can't F/N it, and it will start turning on more charge
or solidity. If you get into this sort of situation, realize
that the trouble is caused by misownership and handle accord-
ingly. But if when flying a rudiment, or other charge found
such as a reading line on a prepared list, if it just runs and
blows, realize you've had a lucky break. Don't interrupt it
to try to find out whose it is, or try to take it up again
after it has blown. This is obvious enough because as soon as
you get onto the reading rudiment or reading line the charge
starts coming off, and the whole thing F/Ns and blows. This
is a special condition and if this doesn't occur, you proceed
as follows.
By using "Is there an(a) . . .?" you are not evaluating
whose charge it is. Then the auditor can establish whose
charge it is by asking: "Is (charge found) yours? a BT's, a
HCOB 22.12.79
Confidential - 3 -
cluster's?" and indicate which of these read. (Sometimes you
may find that a charge can belong to and read on more that one
of the above, in which case you would handle both reads. It
is possible that an ARC break for example could be shared with
all present, and would simply run as the ARC break, generally
without establishing whose it is. And there is a condition
where you may find for example that it is the Pre-OT's own
rud, and _also_ a BT's or cluster's. The question: "Is it also
(yours?) (a BT's?) (a cluster's?)" would be used in this case.
Unless you get a discharge and blow of the rud as described
above, it is essential to find out if any charge found belongs
really to a BT or cluster, _when_ the charge is found. Don't F/N
all the ruds for example and then ask "Are all these . .?" is wrong
as that would generalize it. The rule is on ruds, or on a pre-
pared list, or when finding a charge on a case, _at_ _once_ find
if that charge belongs to a BT or cluster, and _find_where_the_
_BT_or_cluster_is_ and limit the Pre-OT's attention to that spe-
cific area while F/Ning the read. _And_then_take_any_added_
_steps_to_blow_that_BT_or_cluster,_and_blow_it._
Then the auditor continues on down the rudiments questions
to the next reading rudiment and handles it as above.
_CAUTION_
The ruds question: "Is there a(an) . . .?" can be asked
of any case, but the remainder of the above does not apply to
cases below OT III and must _never_ be mentioned to such a case.
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
LRH:dm:kjm
Copyright 1979
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED