View source for Seminar Q and A Period (SHSBC 610613)

'''Series:''' Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC)

'''Date:''' 13 June 1961

'''Speaker:''' L. Ron Hubbard

----

This is what? This is the 13th? Ah, you see?

See, unlucky for you, lucky for me. Born on Friday the 13th, you know. That was awful bad luck for the American Psychiatric and the British Medical Associations.

What questions do we have today? Now, I know how bright you are by the number of questions that you find out. Gee, that's pretty stupid, Suzie.

What are we going to do about this? Yes? Female voice: Ron, this is for very late in Routine 3.

Say a terminal has reached the point where it no longer reacts at all on the Primary Scale. Mm. Female voice: Is your next step then just to take it and methodically check off everything on the Secondary Scale before declaring that terminal flat, flat, flat and assessing for a new terminal?

Well, you've got now a very advanced case of something or other. There are several things that are conditional to this. The question is, “What do you do late in a case about a terminal who no longer reacts on the Primary Scale?” Well, we used to just find another terminal.

That was the first answer that was given to this thing-just find another terminal for that goal. And couldn't find another terminal for the goal, why, find another goal. Do another Goals Assessment.

And you're in trouble right about that point, because your Goals Assessments keep running out. And you'll go all the way-you'll find a goal, you'll find a terminal, and it is all dandy, and you've got it all assessed; and you find one level on the Prehav Scale, and that is the end of that whole package. It just took – just a look at the level, and said, “Well, what do you know about that?” and the fellow blows it.

It's quite interesting. SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 2  So your contest, actually, is not to go into the Secondary Scale, and try to flounder all over the Secondary Scale, and scrape this thing to the bone. The thing to do when you no longer can get-remember, you can also get a no-assessment because of the rudiments being out.

But your Primary Scale – no more reaction, your case well advancing, needle very loose, two-, three-dial drop on a can squeeze test with your sensitivity at zero-got the idea. It's banging against both pins of the can, you know. You just can't close it down.

Well then, what you'd have to do, is do a new Terminal Assessment for the goal you were running. All right. That's fine.

Terminal Assessment, all by itself, may very well wind up that goal. The goal'll still be live to some slight degree. Well, you go ahead, however, and try to assess and then – assess on the Prehav Scale and run these terminals for that same goal.

Well, eventually you can't get any reaction on the goal, you can't get any reaction on any more terminals, that's it. You've got to do another Goals Assessment, just like you did originally. And this Goals Assessment will usually go fairly rapidly, and now it is less critical getting a wrong one.

You can get a wrong one now and it isn't going to do anybody any harm. You get a wrong one in the beginning, you can really throw somebody in the soup. So that is the way you handle this.

And it's a very precise activity, actually. Once your first terminal that you're running can no longer assess on the Primary Prehav Scale, you do a new Terminal Assessment for the goal you were running. If you can assess, you carry on as before with the new terminal.

You finally get that goal totally out of the road, you do a new Goals Assessment, a new Terminals Assessment, a new Level Assessment, and now the fun begins. Because you will start doing a new Goals Assessment, a new Terminals Assessment and a new Level Assessment, and five commands and that's the end of that level, that's the end of all levels, that's the end of that terminal, that's the end of that goal – boom! All right.

Now it gets more rapid than this. You do a Goals Assessment, and you can find a terminal for it. And the second you've found the terminal, you don't any longer get to the Prehav Scale.

It's now evaporated. It's gone utterly. Now, you have to keep your rudiments in.

The only thing that'll fool you – if the rudiments go out on you, because, you see, you can null the whole meter because the person's got a PT problem, his attention is on everything else. All right. It eventually boils down to where you get the goal, and you get the terminal, and you can't get it over to the scale.

The first Clear that was made in South Africa, we were in stitches! Because the poor girl for two days had been trying to find goals and terminals and get them to the scale. She would find them all right and try to get them to the scale, or get them run, or get a command, and they'd just fold up.

And then she'd try this again, and then it'd fold up. And she would do it again, and it'd fold up. And thuuhh!

And she finally was in a panic, and she came to the Instructors and she said, “Oh, my goodness, I've just ruined this case!” Yes, she had, she sure had ruined that case! And then after she'd kept this up for just a few  SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 3  days, actually, all of a sudden the case no longer reacted in any way, shape or form on an E- Meter. There wasn't anything you could do to this case.

Now, that's a complete difference from your bottom-scale case. bottom-scale case – you can hit a guy over the head and you get no reaction on the E-Meter. But the needle is not a floating needle, and the sensitivity knob is very high, and this case cannot answer questions regarding help or control. So know them by these marks.

Now you get it up at the other end, and it's just a floating situation, and it goes on and on, and there's nothing you can do and you can't get the E-Meter influenced. And that person is Clear. Now, you go ahead and stabilize a Clear by going on and trying to do this.

You understand, it's not good enough just to get a floating needle at the end of the run, you go on trying to find a goal, trying to find a terminal. Your effort to do so blows up the remaining stuck goals and terminals on the track. It isn't that you're conducting a fruitless search, just 'cause you can't find it on the E-Meter.

And you have to do this for quite a while. And all of a sudden, why, you're now approaching up to a level of Theta Clear, and you get a stable MEST Clear. This person won't fall downhill.

We've got a Clear right now that is just ruining a whole Central Organization. It's disgraceful. She went down to HASI Joburg to help teach a course and didn't find any people for it.

And she found everybody sitting around at their desks not doing very much. So she wound up and started giving a PE Course as well as giving the day course, and found out they weren't writing anybody any letters – that she considered this. And so she started – after her PE Course, apparently in the evening or some such thing, however it goes – she started catching up on their mail for them.

Here's the thing: You've got stuck-valence serenity mixed up with the state of Clear. And you do have, practically until you get to be Clear. And you say, now, a Clear would always be serene and would never be the effect of anything.

You get the idea? You've got the Buddhist definition here. And man, that was wrong-end-to.

That was an absolute guarantee of plowing somebody in. Well now, a Clear doesn't act that way. They are rather responsive.

Not reactively responsive in that you say good morning to them and they fly through the roof like aberrated people do, but they have another type of response. You say, “Well, it can't be done, and it's all too sad, and isn't this terrible?” And you're liable to get almost anything! It's a grim thing to be around one.

Because they are volatile. They react to life, in other words. They are alive.

And of course, as everybody knows, that's very dangerous. They also, however, don't get into irrational arguments with you. That is what's devastating, is that when they say something's wrong, it normally is!

It isn't that they think it is wrong. It normally is. That's it.

SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 4  So what you're looking at is somebody who is alive, and who can react, and so forth. Remember the biggest invalidation that the poor Board of Directors of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation – they had me all mocked up as Clear as near beer – and I got mad at 'em one day for telling me that everybody ought to be run upside down at the end of the corridor, or some perfectly valid thing. And I got mad.

And they all went white. Could hardly see them – the walls were white too. They all rushed out, and went back to their offices and sat there gloomily, and “Well, we thought you must be Clear,” you see.

So this had invalidated the whole thing. Ah, brother! That's not true.

It wasn't that I was Clear, but been my experience on the thing: A person, when he approaches sanity, reacts very sanely, and they react volatilely on the emotional scale. They're not unpredictable. They're very predictable.

You come in and drag an old dead dog that's been rolled in carrion and throw it in the middle of the rug in the living room, you're going to hear about it, man! They're not repressed concerning what they think about this activity. So you're not making a bunch of serene beings, you see.

You're not trying to put somebody at ninety thousand feet up, flat on his back, looking at the clouds for the rest of his existence! And I think probably the reason Joburg got allergic to developing Clears in the HGC is the Clears kept saying – they got this kind of a notion: When a person gets Clear they tell you, “Let's get the show on the road! Let's get something going!

Let's get something doing around here, and let's do this and that. And that big stack of papers you've got there; they're probably not very important. Let's get on to something else here, now, and so on.” And the money starts coming in, and things start happening, and people start getting well and everybody starts getting happy and enjoying life, and you just can't have that kind of thing.

So the way to keep from having that kind of thing, of course, is to cut back clearing. That's the normal answer. Yes, I know I'm branding an organization on tape that'll go to other organizations, but this one needs branding I left it in perfectly marvelous condition ten weeks ago.

It only took them ten weeks to pull the rug out; to get it in a State of Emergency. Only they're unlucky right at the present moment, because they've got a Clear in their midst. Horrible.

So clearing them up, don't leave them just because the needle only floats. Clear them up all the way. You audit them as far as you can audit them, and after a while it'll even look foolish to you to audit them.

They're exterior. They blow by inspection. Everything is blowing by inspection.

Everything rationalizes by inspection. You could keep up this process, but after a while it is senseless to have the person on a meter, because the meter hasn't reacted for about ten or fifteen hours of processing, don't you see? So you'd run them without a meter.

But you could keep up the same process and probably arrive at much higher states. You'd probably arrive at Theta Clear with this same thing I've just given you, see. You'd probably arrive at OT with the same thing I've just given you.

There isn't any reason why you  SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 5  really have to shift gears into something else. Only trouble is after a while they cease to have answers to these things, because they think of them and they evaporate. Now, there are other processes that you can do.

Now on the final thing – I'm just thinking just off the club, here, what I'd finally do to somebody before I actually released them: I would read to them, probably, the whole of the Secondary Scale, from one end to the other, still on a meter, you see, and ask them to look over their consideration about these things. And you'd probably blow the latent and remaining reactive locks. All right, that's how it is done, okay?

By the way, there's something on – pertinent to Clears, I must make a remark. Every once in a while when the little red brothers are amongst us, they have a ball waving their hand over somebody and getting them Clear. And you get rumors all over the place about how this is occurring now.

This is occurring. All you have to do is spit in somebody's direction or something like that and they're Clear. And they have this marvelous new technique.

What they actually do: They have this marvelous new technique that kills somebody, or something like that, you see. Hasn't anything to do with the price of fish. It's very, very interesting that this always gets afloat any time the organization is successful and is clearing people.

You always pick up these “Instantaneous Clear” rumors. And they are not true, and don't fall for them. Because I'm telling you, I have had cases over the jumps now for, man and boy now, these fourteen year or better, and there is no thought process – no thought, single- button process – I tell you this advisedly – that will produce a Clear.

There is no single button. Nor is there any shot in the arm that'll produce a Clear. The fellow has got to get out of the trap the same way he came in.

He's got to walk out the labyrinth the same way he walked into the labyrinth, which was overwhelming and getting overwhelmed. And if you don't over and under – if you don't underwhelm him in reverse to all of the overwhelms, you've got a guy who simply goes into one of these superserene valences and sits on Buddha's navel or something and regards his cloud nine. You got the idea?

That's just a bunch of balderdash. When you think of the amount of overwhumping that has been going on in the last two hundred trillion years, it is no wonder a few people get in the wrong valences. Particularly since we continue to overwhump valences that are not desirable valences.

And then we have no mechanism – had no mechanism – to un-overwhelm having overwhelmed. Got the idea? Scientology is the first mechanism which does both.

And that is why it is good and valid. And if it didn't do both it wouldn't be valid. In other words, after you've overwhelmed something, the penalty for having overwhelmed or eradicated this badness, you see, can itself be erased.

You see how this is? So it's the first thing that ever did it both ways. And when you hear about somebody picking up  SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 6  the magic needle and by giving somebody a shot in the arm concerning this, and the person went Clear as near beer, why, yawn for me, will you?

If there had been such a thing, I'm pretty sure I would have found it. This is a very odd remark for me to make, but I would have found it in the last fourteen years. Because there isn't any thought combination or direction of combinations that we haven't been into.

There isn't one left. I've even calculated it – calculated it totally out: How many possible potentials of thought combinations are there? The mere fact that flows exist defeats at once a single button.

Just the fact that flows exist. Immediately you've got two buttons – you've got them doing it to you and you doing it to them. There's some kind of a wild rumor going on that the phrase – this single phrase – is clearing people like mad around in England, and it runs like this – let me see, what is it now – ”What would you be pleased to accept?” Oh, that's a wonderful way to plow somebody in!

Just look at it. And the flow's gonna stick. And I'll tell you something: It was run to its ragged bottom in 1954.

Look it up in the records if you don't believe me. That subject has been covered and covered and re-covered, and there wasn't anybody Clear, and as a matter of fact, one poor little girl from Canada was walking around – she couldn't enter a room without walking around and hitting each wall on the process, on practically that exact process. You have in this case, by the way, somebody who has picked up an old record list.

They're picking up all these old processes that produce a rapid result for a few minutes. And I can give you lists of them. If you want to prove Scientology works to somebody by spinning him, I can give you a long list of how to do this.

Exact phrases. One of them is: “Look around here and find something you can go out of ARC with.” This is what the fellow's trying to do! And all he's got to do is spot this a few times.

And if he just spots it just a very few times, this is okay. He'll feel fine. He feels marvelous.

And then, of course, he walks out and falls on the sidewalk flat on his face. Because you've said, “What in the physical universe could you go out of communication with?” with the connotation of, “What could you go out of affinity with?” and “What in the physical universe could you consider unreal?” These old-time cults like psychiatry university-ism, any one of these old cults, has its button. And they are formed up, normally, on a single button – a monomania on a single button.

And if you smoke out what this button is and run a reverse process on it, you will make that kind of a person out of the pc. Find out what the button is that would bring about a soldier. Just figure it out: What would a soldier be most monomanic about?

Probably wanting to get out. Probably wanting to get out of the army, or trying to get people out of the army, or not destroying anything, or whatever it is that you work out, finally. Work it out.

You get a few dozen soldiers and just  SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 7  run each one of them – professionals, you see – and run each one of these things, a bunch of tests; you'd finally find a common denominator that'd make a soldier. Now, all right. Now, fix that up so it's nontherapeutic, you see, so it busts him out of communication with things, sticks the flow as a single button, and run that process; and the guy will all of a sudden look at you very fixedly and says, “I think I will go join the army.” And don't think this hasn't been known on the whole track.

This is how they got recruits for space opera, for the State Department, for all kinds of places. Got the idea? Actually, universities run these single buttons on people.

One of the ways they do it in engineering schools is to continue to tell people that engineers are not wanted anymore. That is usually stabilized and standard. And the fellow comes up and tries to be a better engineer so that he'll be one of the few select that are wanted, and all these little mechanisms.

See? In the Christian church they get you stuck in God by running the line “blasphemy.” “Thou must not talk to God.” See? You mustn't say anything bad about God.

You mustn't be in communication with God. You mustn't – God isn't there. You can't talk to him.

You mustn't communicate with God. All right, if you set somebody down, and say, “All right. Get the idea of not communicating Wit]1 God.

Good. Get the idea of not communicating with God. Good.

Get the idea of not communicating with God. Good. Get the idea. . .” and ARC broke him while you were running it, and get your rudiments out, and have somebody ring him on the phone in the middle of the session and tell him his wife has just left him, or something like this.

In other words, get ARC breaks and present time problems good and restimulated, and go on and run this, “Go out of communication with God. Go out of communication with God.” All of a sudden the fellow gets a starry-eyed look on his face; he actually could be walked right straight out and join a nunnery, or whatever it is they join. You got the idea?

In other words, you can take the whole track fixations of a person and restimulate them selectively and bring about momentary resurgences in certain goals directions. And you can do it. It can be done.

So any time we start cleaning people up, always somebody's going to step forward and remember one of these old – you know, reactively, they get the way they got trapped, see. And then they decide that if they run that on everybody, then they'll all be all right. You see, just that one thing.

In other words, they're auditing their own case on somebody else. You hear these rumors every time. I had to put that in, by the way, as a footnote because it's rather unusual to have two continents go crazy at once.

But it is also equally unusual to not have any continent crazy at one time. Wing, you had a question. SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 8  Male voice: Oh yes, pertaining to what you said about Jane's question.

You remember that list of Ultimate Processes? Hm? Male voice: Remember that list of Ultimate Processes?

Yeah. Outlawed processes, right. Male voice: Fit them in for me, please.

Huh? Male voice: Fit them in for me, please. Well, now do I remember the same list?

These processes are the reverse processes that are nontherapeutic? Is that . . . ? Male voice: No, no, no, no, please!

Uh . . .! Female voice: The Ultimate Processes. Male voice: Ultimate Processes.

Oh, the Ultimate Processes! Male voice: The Ultimate Processes. Uh . . .

Those are OT processes. Male voice: Right. Now . . .

You flatten them. Way after you've done everything I've just talked to you about. Male voice: That's all I wanted to know.

Yeah. Then you'd flatten those. Make sure you however, you had a free-floating needle, that you'd exhausted every ramification of SOP Goals, there was nothing left, because only then will those other processes function.

Male voice: Thank you. Good. Okay, any more questions?

Yes? Female voice: Yeah. Uh, I've been kind of surprised that on SOP Goals, nobody that I know of has had a sixth dynamic terminal turn up and get audited on yet.

Certainly, Theory 67 we're sure is pretty correct because of all the good results running stuff like . . . That's right. Female voice: . . . motion and objects and . . .

Uh-huh. SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 9  Female voice: . . . things. It just is surprising.

What I was wondering is, are they likely to turn up – would there be any objection whatsoever if somebody's got a box or a sphere or something representing the goal and go ahead and run it? Oh well, you want to know why no sixth dynamic terminals are turning up on Goals Assessments. Well, that's just the peculiarities of the game.

They're totally allowed for in the assessment, nobody's steering them in it. But actually, you're talking to the person normally as a human being and this in itself tends to throw the assessment. Uh . . .

Female voice: We had a woman in South Africa, had a spacecraft. Thank you. Thank you.

I can tell you how this sixth dynamic thing works: When the person can no longer be a beingness, they, you might say, extrovert into and permanently permeate some object or housing or familiar thing around a beingness. And it's just like the fellow gets hanged and he goes and becomes the headsman's blocks or something, because that was less painful, you know. That's – he's been overwhelmed.

Or he's been a headsman for several lifetimes, and all of a sudden somebody makes the mistake of hanging him and this isn't right and it upsets him. It throws his beingness way out, and he ceases to become a person, and then he goes into an object. You could very well have a case that you would miss on because it couldn't be assessed with SOP Goals; apparently it just was having an awful time being assessed with SOP Goals.

And you go along happily trying to do something for this person and you just can't seem to find a terminal, well, you should inspect your interrogation for a terminal as to whether or not it is totally throwing the question into a live beingness. Such as, well, “Who would be a person who would want to create a mathematical scale? Now, what person would want to commit a mathematical scale, see?

What person? What person?” And your question might actually be putting nothing but beingness on the line, in terms of livingness. And it might totally exceed the needs and necessities of the case.

Whereas the case would respond very easily on “What would invent a mathematical scale?” you see? So you can throw an assessment off of the sixth when it should be on the sixth. And I'd say if nobody is doing that at all – nobody ever finds a sixth at all – I would say there's possibly something awry with the patter, which tends to sling it over onto the other dynamics and keep it off the sixth.

Because it's very true. People make terrific gains, terrific gains with sixth dynamic terminals. As a matter of fact, lots and lots of cases run most easily on sixth dynamic terminals.

For instance, I know I myself probably could do something about the beingness of a typewriter or something like that. When you've pounded – just thinking of it offhand, of a beingness: When you've knocked, oh, I don't know, twenty, thirty, forty million words through a machine, why, it's a cinch that now and then you begin to wonder if your ribbons  SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 10  aren't unwound! You get the idea.

But just the fact that I would know about it would probably preclude anything very desperate being there. You take – Well now, there was one case in an ACC one time. In the first fifteen minutes of play, this fellow was gonna leave and go back to Chicago.

And he was all very upset and so forth, and I grabbed hold of him for fifteen minutes. I traced back his last life, by the way. He'd been killed at the battle of Jutland on a British destroyer.

And this was over in Arizona. Shows you how far you'll run sometimes from a battle. Get to – a total water to no water, you know?

And this boy had been killed on the foredeck of a destroyer. And in this lifetime had been a machinist. And the bug of the factor – you know, the guy didn't know, and what he didn't know was that it wasn't machinery or that sort of thing that was upsetting him, it was a ship's metal.

And I picked this up, wham-bam, just investigating this kind of a havingness thing. Made him mock up a few destroyers and shove them into his body, and that was the end of the case. The case made terrific case progress afterwards.

The case was just totally stuck in that incident, in other words. All right, there was a case where the resolution of the case depended on the discovery of a sixth dynamic terminal, but rapidly, because he was busy being destroyed. Another case that was a total hang-up on the Third South African came back to battery fast – I remember Suzie telling me, with what disgust, that she had finally found this fellow's terminal.

She herself was having a little trouble with space opera at the time she was doing this. And she told me with enormous disgust that she'd found this fellow's terminal. And she said it so disgustedly that I said, “Well, all right.

What's the matter? Is it the right terminal?” “Oh, yes, it's the right terminal.” “Well, did he refuse to run it?” “Oh, no, no.” “Was he interested in it?” “Oh, yes, yes, he was very interested in it.” “Well, how did it go in the first little period of auditing?” “Well, it went fine, went fine. We found his level, just easy,” you know.

And I said, “Well, what's wrong with this terminal?” Well, she said, “It's a spacecraft. I can't imagine anybody having a terminal like that!” Auditor's response to the pc's terminal. Very amusing.

Anyway, that's the gist of it. Sixth dynamic terminals will turn up, and if you can't find any kind of a terminal to fit something or other, look – inspect your question. You know, you're saying, “Well, who would shoot kings?

Who would shoot kings? Who? Who?

Who? Who? Who?” That's maybe what you're using And you probably should ask the question,  SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 11  “What would shoot a king?” And somebody says, “A gun, of course!” Bang!

There it is! There's your terminal. Terminal is a gun.

Yes? Male voice: Ron, when you have exhausted a great number of terminals and – I mean goals, rather – and run terminals flat for that – for a particular goal on a whole big list, we'll say . . . Hm.

Male voice: . . . now, what happens when you have to assess for a new goal, let's say? Do they go back over those same goals . . . Oh, no, no.

I don't – I wouldn't waste time on the original list, you know, most of them, but some of them are going to come back. Male voice: Well, that's what I mean. You're going to get some of those goals back.

Male voice: Mm. But I'd say the fastest way to do it is to go make a new goals list. I'd say that was the fastest way to do it, rather than to plow through a bunch of other stuff.

But if I was unable to find a goals list, only then would I go back and dig up the fellow's first goals lists. And now I would go over this goals list again and see if anything is live now, you see? I'd try to do it the easy way, and get away with it often enough to have saved time, you see, which is just make a new goals list, and so on.

You realize of course that if, at the end of clearing, a person is blowing by inspection or blowing by repeater technique, which is constant repetitive inspection – if a fellow is blowing at that end of it – don't be so surprised, or don't be amazed, that it takes a long while to do Goals Assessment. What you're doing is running SOP Goals. And a comment came the other day from the area that's under a curse just now – they'll probably have plagues there any minute – was that the Assoc Sec told the D of P, “Well, this pc isn't getting many gains!” (or vice versa) and the Assoc Sec says, “Well, what's happening with the case?” and so on.

And the D of P said, “Well, he's just had twelve hours of assessment. That's why there's no change.” And the Assoc Sec said, “Well, all right, that – then that explains it.” Please tell me what this explains? I don't get this.

You see it just would not explain anything. You mean, you can assess somebody for twelve hours and get no gain on the case at all? Well, that's silly.

You're actually running the end process of SOP Goals at the beginning! And you're cleaning this case up in all directions, so obviously the case is being run in an auditing room he can't tolerate, with a PT problem, with a big ARC break, in an improper assessment with an auditor who is invalidating him and who is doing the other remaining  SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 12  clauses of the Auditor's Code backwards. And I would say offhand, that would probably account for no gain whatsoever in twelve hours of Goals Assessment.

But only that would account for it, see. So they said, “Well, that explains it.” Yeah, well, the devil it does! I was talking to you yesterday about – watch it now, if you're getting no gain then the error is gross, not little.

The error is big. So it wasn't the Goals Assessment at all that was the trouble with the case, there was something very wild about this case. You do get gains along this line.

If you do a Goals Assessment right, every hour of it is auditing. If you do a Joburg right, every hour of it is auditing. And man, you should see those needles loosen up!

What are you trying to do in the last run? You're trying to loosen up the needle, bring down the sensitivity knob and straighten up the reading of the tone arm, right? Well, the Goals Assessment does all those things, so it must be getting somewhere.

Furthermore, it improves profiles and does other things. Otherwise, there is no advantage in an assessment. But you shouldn't develop the notion that it's because it's taking you so long to assess that you're not getting anyplace, or you shouldn't feel disappointed because your assessment is not getting anyplace.

Yes, your assessment is getting someplace, all the way. If your rudiments are in and if you're doing it by the Auditor's Code in Model Session, you are doing more for the case for every hour of assessment than was done in twenty-five hours just two years ago. See, that's hour for hour, we're speeding it up, speeding it up, speeding it up.

And it's damn good auditing. One of the reasons it might prove to be untherapeutic is the person didn't think it was auditing, and didn't think it should improve the case, and therefore became very careless on how he did it or how he handled the pc. I've seen a case of that.

I have a case of that, yeah, where the auditor finally said, “Well, it isn't as if we're running a session!” and having invalidated a lot of the pc's goals, and so forth. Of course, the pc practically folded up. Right in the middle of session he's told that they're not having a session.

That was when all Goals Assessment went instantly into Model Session-the history of that. Okay, any other questions? All right.

Well, I understand that you're making progress, I trust. I trust. Now, let me ask this.

Let me ask a couple of questions here before we wind up this lecture. Is there anything you don't know? And the other question is: Any of you think you're totally hung up and making no progress of any kind whatsoever?

Any case think it's in that kind of condition? All right. Okay.

Good enough. We do have some equipment to be installed down the hall here in the old wine vat. You look down the hallway, you'll find the old wine vat, and it actually already has its lead door.

We've had the lead door installed and so forth. So if your cases don't make any progress, why, it isn't the last resort. SEMINAR; Q AND A PERIOD 13  Okay.

Thank you very much.

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures SHSBC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1961]]