View source for R2-12 Theory and Practice, Part I (SHSBC 621129)

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

'''Date:''' 29 November 1962

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_SHSBC|Back to Series]]

Well. I've got some notes tonight. And again they have nothing to do with the lecture, they just have to do with you.

All right, what is this? Audience: 29 November. Twenty‑nine Nov.

AD 12 , Saint Special Briefing Course, lecture one. All right. This is a talk about R2‑12.

Now, there's – the first thing you should know about R2‑12 is there are many indications and few stabilities so far as the condition of a list. And I only know of one absolute rule about lists. A list must be nullable.

It must be susceptible to being nulled. You must be able to be able to null a list. That isn't you the auditor, that's the list.

Some lists are not nullable. Now, right away we should make a differentiation here between an indication and a rule. An indication is something like tracking, and there's a bit of grass bent over and that's an indication, you see, and there's a stone disturbed in the middle of the sand pit and so you decide that something went across there and so forth.

Those are indications. They're not like signposts. And these are some indications.

If there's no R/S on the list, if there's no rock slam on the list, why, you're in trouble, that's just a dead horse and there's no particular reason to groom it up and gild the hooves and polish the harness and wash the teeth and all that sort of thing; it's – you just – it's just a dead horse. And if you suddenly look up as you go along and find out the ground is awfully close to you and – and the – it doesn't seem that it's moving any, why of course you'd unload off that dead horse. And sometimes you can save some of the harness, but that's about all.

And usually you don't even bother to pick up the harness, don't you see, you just skip it. Dead horse. And actually dead horses are what consume most of the time in R2‑12.

You will spend two and three times as much time on a dead horse as you will spend on an active list, so therefore these indications are of interest. They are not rules, you understand, they are just indications, and they're of interest. So, although you say that if you don't develop a rock slam in the first fifty items, although – that's an indication, you see – and the pc's still awfully interested in the list and so forth, well, go on up to seventy, eighty‑five items, see.

Go on up a ways. Go on further. The pc seems to be interested and engrossed and that sort of thing, why, go a little bit further, still no rock slam, why just unload.

Because a list that doesn't rock slam occasionally, here or there, sporadically, once in a blue moon – doesn't matter whether the slam is a dwindling slam or otherwise – won't produce an item. It just won't do it. So, although it is true that a non‑rock slamming list, a list without rock slams on it, will not produce an item, it is not true that because it produced a rock slam it will produce an item.

Got that? Just because a list rock slams is no guarantee of anything. It's just a better indication that there's an item on the list.

Look at it in reverse, if a list doesn't rock slam it won't produce an item. You've got to have an occasional rock slam on that list to get a rock slamming item off the list and of course you're only interested in rock slamming items. Now you go on and list, of course, and as you go on and list, so it produces a rock slam.

Well, that's a hopeful indication, that is not a rule that it will produce an item! That it produces no rock slam, it is very positive, very positive that it will not produce an item. But that the list rock slams simply is an indicator that it might produce an item.

You got that? If you just – if you get these indicators in their right focus, why all becomes easy. Now, what do we mean by a nullable list?

Well, it means one that you can go down without getting your mid ruds in every few items. Now, you'll want numbers, but unfortunately the number varies from pc to pc; but if you can't go on a list more than eight, nine or ten items without putting in your mid ruds and cleaning up a dirty needle, once more you have a very, very good indication that the ground is getting closer to you and it isn't going by at any speed at all. And what you do about that time is start loosening your feet in the stirrups.

Now, it's all right to go down a few. Now, let's talk about the sources of these non‑nullable lists. A list that cannot be nulled.

What are the sources of this? They are three in number: (1) That thing from which they are being listed – that thing from which the list is being listed – was improper. Well, oddly enough there is no establishing this on your early List One assessment.

If something kicks or activates, you of course, represent it and get a representing list. But there is no indication of any kind from that original indication, that original needle read, that will tell you at once whether this list is going to produce an item. In other words, sometimes you get the faintest trace in the world, it's a sporadic speeded rise or a sporadic speeded fall, and you list the thing down, it slams like mad and winds you up with a nice big juicy reliable item.

And the next time you have one that dirty reads and it's clicking and it even looks like it has an occasional spit!, you know, a sort of a reverse rocket read, or something like that, the beginnings of a slam, it looks hot, it looks tense and you go on and you list it and you list it and list it, it produces a slam, and you list it and list it and list it and list it and list it and list it and list it, and you go back to the beginning of it and the pc says that's it and you say that's it and it's a clean read and you start nulling and it goes out, out, dirty needle, dirty needle, dirty needle. So it's, well, we'll add to this list. So we get in our – we add to the list, you see, and we get in our mid ruds again and we test the question, bzzzzt, question goes, whatever the list question was, and you add to it and add to it and add to it and add to it and you go back, it's all – test the question again.

Flat. Not a whisper. And you go back and you start in at the beginning of the list, you're all set to go and it goes item null, item null, item null, dirty read, dirty needle.

Now the unwise auditor at this point begins to hound the pc for missed withholds. Now the missed withhold is, is there isn't going to ever be anything on this list, you see. The item which you are listing from is not really going into the GPM.

It's just paralleling it. And it's going to go on forever. Well, you've already got this list out to 585 items and the question is still bzzzzt.

There were slams on the list, everything else, but you can't list more than a handful before you get another charged up dirty needle, as opposed and different than the dirty read, see. Just dirty read, dirty needle, dirty needle. That ground has now greeted the soles of your shoes.

That horse will not go any place else. It doesn't matter what you do to this horse, you can feed him full of phenobarbital, calm his nerves, Dexedrine to speed him up, hormones, and not a thing is going to happen. That list would probably go to 1,595 items and still be producing the same confounded manifestations, driving you stark, staring mad.

Now, that's wrong source. That's wrong source. See?

That – there was no telling whether or not that thing you were going to represent, off an assessment, was going to produce a good list or not. There was no indicator in that, it just didn't produce a decent list. All right, now there's another type of wrong source.

There is the – what you're opposing is wrong. That can be a wrong source. Well, let's say you've wound up with the item "waterbuck" and you saw it slam and it faded away and it isn't there any more, and you can't get a single click, tick or snick out of "waterbuck." Yet because it slammed you're hopeful.

So you say, "Who or what would oppose a waterbuck?" You've tested it out and you found out that it did turn on some sen, actually it's still turning on some sen, and you say, "Well, it's still turning on some sen so therefore, of course, there's still something there, and maybe the rock slam has just been eaten up in the middle of it all." So you say, "Who or what would oppose a waterbuck?" And this list of 300 is apparently ended as far as the pc is concerned, the question is clean, everything appears to be going along fine, it produced a slam, it looks wonderful and you start in at the beginning of it and it goes, item null, item null, item in, item null, item, item null, item, dirty needle. So you continue the list, to be safe for another hundred, which is perfectly legitimate. The question's clean again, everything is fine, everything's marvelous so you go up to where you ended off and it goes, item null, item null, item null, item null, item in, item null, item null, dirty needle.

Dirty needle? Put in the mid ruds in a hurry, say, "What are you thinking about?" The pc says, "Well, I thought of an extra item. A goon." You say, "All right.

We'll put a goon on the list." About this time you should be getting nervous, you know, because you can get your leg caught underneath a horse, you know, and... [laughter] So you put this on the list and you go a little bit further and you test the question and it's fine and you go back and you start to do this and it's item null, item, dirty needle, dirty needle, dirty needle. Let me tell you, that can produce a dwindling slam three, four and five times as you list, and that list will never be nullable. I cannot give you any other characteristics than just that, it's just not nullable.

What in actual fact is occurring? Well, as you see, a rock slam requires something to lean on to finally wind up with something. Now, you've got this wall here, see, that was the reliable item and you're listing against this wall.

Man, those rock slams are discharging, those rock slams are doing interesting things, you finally wind up and you're going to find the item that is pressing against that wall. That's because it had something to lean on, but this other thing, it was a clean read you were getting on the thing finally, although it did slam; and it was an item and it looked like an item but it's a clean read now, you can't get anything off of it, and you just adventurously go on and oppose it. Of course, it's just going out into thin air.

There's nothing for that list to lean on, you get the idea? Nothing for it to come up against and so it's never going to end. It's just going to constantly miss on the GPM.

What you're doing, kind of, is cutting out paper dolls that are hanging on the concrete lampposts in the GPM, don't you see? And every once in a while they come on close enough to the GPM to make something slam. And actually what you're doing is just walking round and round the GPM picking locks off of it and you can go on and do it forever.

Now, sometimes the pc turns on sen, very, very heavy sen, while you're doing such a list and you would be very, very unwise not to list the list till the sen turned off. Don't stop listing because the pc has a bad stomach or something. You'll find out that these lists, even when they're going no place and will result in no reliable item, hold the pc's interest, are producing cognitions, everything is dandy except they're never going to be nullable.

And if you stop listing them at the moment the pc has a sick stomach or he feels all caved in, or you've made a mistake, actually if you keep on listing the pc will pass out of it to a light case of sen. That's the time to unload. And then unload from that horse, push the horse in the ditch, or do anything you please with the horse, but go and find another horse.

And of course you have to go back to your – a first list again to continue on. Do you understand? As you have been seeing here then, that a list rock slams is not a guarantee that it's going to hand you an item.

That a list produces cognitions is only an indicator, like the rock slam is. So the pc's cogniting, fine. But that's only an indicator; it doesn't guarantee a thing.

But if the pc doesn't cognite at all while listing the list or seem interested in it, that's an indi... that's more than an indicator, that becomes a rule. You see? So again you have, no rock slam on the list and no cognitions from the pc.

Well, this amounts to a rule: That's going to be a dead horse for sure. But again, that the pc does get cognitions is not a guarantee of anything; it's just an indicator. You understand?

All right. Now, wrong assessment, that is to say a wrong assessment divides into auditor mistake, which winds up with a wrong assessment – the auditor just didn't assess right – and also unfortunateness. The failure to get out of bed and make the magic sign in the air before you start the day.

That's just unfortunate, because you can make a right assessment and wind up with a non‑nullable list. So, proceeding from the wrong point includes, for either reason, a wrong assessment or a nonreliable item. Using a nonreliable item, you see, to oppose – and that's going to wind you up in the soup.

Then of course, there is this one. There is auditing the case in the presence of tremendous missed withholds. And that's going to louse you up, but believe me, that is the rarer thing.

That is a rarer thing than you would at first think. You start in a session, you pull "nearly found outs" on the pc, that's enough, man, just like you'd handle it in ruds. Don't go using missed withholds to comb the pc apart in the body of the session, because the missed withhold is the fact that the item isn't there.

Now, you could drive him round the bend. He'll feel like he has missed withholds! He'll be certain he has got a missed withhold.

You'll be certain of it, too! But the missed withhold is the missing item and that missing item may never arrive on the list. You understand then that missing your missed withhold does play a role in this, but it actually plays no further a role than getting your rudiments in.

That is getting in your beginning rudiments. Make sure your pc doesn't... isn't being audited with missed withholds and you won't run into this one at all, because you don't suddenly wind up in the middle of the session. In one case out of a thousand the pc may suddenly say, "Oh my God, I'd forgotten it myself, you nearly found out I'd robbed the bank." But the funny part of it is he'd just remembered it and he told you.

It isn't something you have to dredge for. Now, your third source of travail, trouble, upset, is the incomplete list. Now, you see this incomplete list.

I do wish and I must get hold of some of the old 3D Criss Cross folders to show you a real incomplete list. Man, they are championship lists; they are just marvelous. You've ju...

I've looked at them and I've laughed to myself since – at it and so on because they'll have something like twelve items, you see, and about every third time over the list one of them would go out, which resulted in every item on the list having tremendous strings of slant marks, tremendous strings of slant marks, long things and of course, they wind up with exactly nothing. Now, your incomplete list is in contest, however, with the non‑nullable list, which introduces an interesting point of confusion for you. Now, it is a rule that a list must be nullable.

That is the rule. And that is a stable datum. The list you get must be nullable, or you unload.

What you do with a non-nullable list, which is eventually proven to be non‑nullable, is you just unload off that list. You go back then and do a new first step. You don't do anything else that's fancy or try to patch this up, you just throw your blowout patches, and all of that kind of thing, throw them in the garbage can, you've got no use for them.

You can spend the rest of your life trying to figure out why something is, why the thing didn't null out to that. You can drive yourself batty. You get down to the end of a list, you didn't find any item on the list and the pc all of a sudden in a frantic state of spurt thinks they're guilty for not having put the reliable item on the list, so they start giving you spates of reliable items.

Well, go ahead, put them down – well, go ahead and put all of them. They'll give you five, six, eight, ten variations on the last item that was in on the list and they just keep fading and folding up, and – oh, you can do this forever. You can come down to the last item on the list, it doesn't have any action on it to amount to anything, but you decide that you'd better represent it, and get yourself some place, don't you see?

You decide your assessment might have been wrong and you missed the boat in doing your nulling, that something was in and you missed the read, something like that, so you decide you're going to do the whole list again, oh, that's just currying dead horses, man. The proper action on Routine 2‑12 is when you wind up at the crossroads of nowhere, the only map you have left is the step one of 2‑12, whatever you're using for the first list, whatever should now come up as the first list, don't you see. That is always your guiding post.

Now you can waste more time and do less for the pc, in all cases, by trying to patch up something you believe must be pursuing from an error, and the more time you use patching that up the more trouble you're going to get into. The thing to do, if you get nowhere, straighten out the pc, straighten out the pc, put in your mid ruds for the list that you did, you see and so on, explain the situation to the pc, go back and take off again. You see.

No crash will find – wind up fatal. That's quite interesting. The only time you can get the pc into serious trouble is you're listing a list and the pc is kind of sick and you don't go on and list the sen out of the thing, or the pc is terrified or something like this, and you don't list that sen out.

Then you're in trouble. And then the only remedy is just keep listing when the pc feels horrible, just keep listing till he doesn't and then if you can't null that list even yet, and so forth, just unload and go back to your first step. I'd say that's the only thing that I would do if I found I was on an un-nullable list, so I'd ask the pc, "How do you feel?" and the pc says, "Oh, my God, ohhhhhhhh." You say, "All right, who or what would oppose a waterbuck?" see.

And after a while, "How do you feel?" "Oh, I feel much better." "All right, you got some sen, anything like that?" "Yeah, I feel a little bit dizzy." Oh, I'll settle for that, to hell with it. Unload. Realize you're carrying a dead horse that whole length of time.

You got hold of his bridle and you're dragging him down the road with one hand, you see. Recognize what you're doing; you're not about to get an item. It is not that... a pc can turn on sen and you can get an item, but this list is already proving un-nullable, non‑nullable; the list is not going to be nulled.

It can't be nulled. Every time you try to null it, dirty needle, bzzzz, bzzzzzz, bzzzzz, bzzzzzz, bzzzzz, bzzzzz. Oh, to hell with it.

See what I mean? Now, when you run into that ask the pc how the pc feels, and if the pc feels ill, sick, dizzy, terrified, furious, misemotional, any of these connotations, or if the pc has pain, why, just list it till the pc feels better and then get off of that dead horse – you're not even on him, see – and go on back to your first step. See, that's a very simple adjudication you can make.

So what you should do is keep fully in mind that a list must be nullable. A list must be nullable. And now a nullable list is one where items just go out very easily, and the needle doesn't dirty up to amount to anything and usually can be put back in by just saying to the pc offhandedly, "Is there something there you wanted to give me or something you want to tell me?" You understand?

Just that, just that. And it cleans up, and once in a blue moon there's been a jam‑up. You yourself should recognize these jam‑ups and what they do to rudiments.

You've said – this thing has got "a helper" see, that's the item you're reading – and you've gotten cross‑eyed in the thing somehow or another and you've put "a scalper" and the pc dimly remembers that this is wrong, and you say, "a helper" – you should have said, "a helper," you say, "a scalper," and a scalper has nothing to do with this list. It's "Who or what would be pleasing to mother," or something like that, you know. And "scalper," the pc says.

And if you happen to look up and see a pc looking dazed or upset and your needle has gone dirty and so forth, there's always a chance that you made a mistake on the list somehow or another in reading it, and you've muddied it up, well, you go and get your mid ruds in and get your protest off of it or your mistake off the thing and keep on going, you'll find the thing will keep on nulling. You can go on nulling this thing, you get on down to about four items and they're all giving a dirty read, and you don't have a rock slam on anything. Well, that didn't mean you got skunked, not on these light, surface readings which we're taking here on 2‑12.

You can't do anything with these. Well, just ask the pc, "Does the first one" – that's on an opposition list – "does the first one oppose a mother, does the second one oppose a mother and the third one oppose a mother?" And the pc finally says, "Ah, ah, oh yes, the second one, ha, ha." And you go and you look at this mother, and it's evaporated, there's no read on "mother," there's no read on any of it. That's the packaging step which we are not particularly covering at this time.

You'll find out that blew up. Well, you've finished, that's it. That's how to get rid of the read off the last three or four when they've all evaporated; that all comes under packaging.

So that is not part of the nullability of a list. When I'm talking about the nullability of a list I'm talking about being able to proceed down this list, pocketa‑pocketa‑pocketa‑pocketa‑ pocketa‑pocketa, one call you see, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, in, out, out, out, out, in. Whenever I strike a "in" and then an "in" and then a "in," and then a "in," I get in my mid ruds.

Imagine my embarrassment occasionally to find out that those three in a line were all hot. But there'd be no telling. Now, its very, very good practice to occasionally, and I'd say once a – once a page or something like this, ask "Suppress." You see, a complete list is going out just skit, skit, skit, skit, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, you see?

And a suppressed list will also go out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, you know. So it's good practice, it's good practice to ask the pc, "On this list is there anything you've suppressed?" And you just – you don't take him by sudden storm, you just – you’re running your meter and you say, "Well now, on – I'm going to ask the Suppress button." And you say, "On this list is there anything you've suppressed?" and you say, "That's clean," and you carry on. Got the idea?

Don't even bother to prepcheck it. See, you don't do anything with it, you just ask it, because if it's that lightly suppressed the button will read and if it's suppressed then you clean that suppress off of it. And then you'll find out that you're fairly safe.

Now do you go back and go over anything because you found the Suppress button out? I haven't been and I haven't gotten in trouble. Usually carry on.

A nullable list, that becomes a stable datum with you. And therefore a study of what makes lists non‑nullable gives you a point of orientation from which to study assessment. You're trying to achieve a nullable list.

Well, if the pc's got beaucoup missed withholds, you're not going to get a nullable list. In fact, you're not going to be getting an assessable anything. That's going to produce lots of dirty needles.

If the list proceeds from a wrong source whether it was by the first assessment or because what you're opposing has no charge on it, you're going to get a dirty needle list. And that's going to be not nullable. And your incompleteness of the list is going to produce a non-nullability.

Your judgment is only invited at this one point, is how long does the list have to be to be complete? And that's a question like how long is a piece of string? How high is the sky?

Now the more jammed up the pc is, which we'll go into in a moment, the more jammed up and messed up is the pc, the longer the pc's going to go with the list. The list is directly proportional to the difficulties the pc has. Therefore to lay down a rule that you must produce a rock slam in exactly so many items is a little bit adventurous.

That is again only an indicator. After a while even on the pc you're doing, you say after a while, "There should have been a rock slam here someplace. I'll carry it on a little bit further." Well, how much is a little bit further?

We know this pc is not really producing very much of anything. You know, I mean, identification is fantastic on this case. Ahh, I don't know you might list 150, 175 on some very strange, peculiar case; this would be the odd case, you see.

And all of a sudden there's a rock slam, wow, wow, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, see? And this other case is not so superidentified in the bank and you soon learn that if this case doesn't produce a rock slam in the first fifteen or twenty you've had it. So you see, cases vary.

It's actually case density, and that density isn't even tone arm density, unfortunately; I wish it were. Just because a case is a high tone arm case is no particular reason why they're a totally identified case, you see. Mass is simply mass and although mass is also produced by identification, that isn't the only source of mass, so therefore we don't have a reliable indicator in the tone arm.

You get that? This fellow has an item called "solid steel" and that's a reliable item. Man, that's really reliable.

And when you get anywhere in the vicinity of this item, or if you're sitting on this item for several lists before you finally arrive at the thing, you're going to get one of the staggerest highest tone arms you ever wanted to consult. And all of a su... there isn't anything wrong with the case. And all of a sudden you're getting items, everything's going along fine, the pc's feeling better and then one day you're saying, "Who or what would oppose the government?" And he says, "Solid steel." And actually at the moment he says this you'll see this arm start to come down; then it will come down and down and down and finally when you get the item out and pair it up and so on, it goes, phoof!

Clear read. Got the idea? It happens to be a very massive item.

So the tone arm is not an indicator of how dug in a case is, which is unfortunate. Now, we have a case that starts out in a total apathy of Clear read; this is the dead thetan case spoke of in E‑Meter Essentials. Now, this character will require – and let's get into the rest of this thing – this case is going to require represent list after represent list, assessment after assessment, represent list after represent list!

There are no slams anyplace, you're just listing, listing, listing, listing! The case is feeling a little bit better and case is feeling a little bit better and you finally decide that's a dead horse and you go on to the next one and you list that one all the way down, the case is feeling a little bit better, and you couldn't get anyplace with that one. You go on to the next one and so forth and you'll see all of a sudden the thing you're assessing from is beginning to go live.

In other words your Scientology List One is getting hotter and hotter and hotter. You've actually done list after list after list and you didn't get anything on any of them. Now, all of that is very interesting, but what are the mechanics involved with all this, and why?

Well frankly, it's the invention of a new therapy. Although we've had it for a long time we haven't recognized it as a therapy, and I finally spotted this thing for what it was. And, I didn't recognize it completely even when I gave it the definition the first time, which is: listing is auditing.

Listing is auditing. Well, I knew that listing on a goal was auditing, and that was for sure auditing, but how about the rest of this, how about the rest of this? Just listing is auditing.

Simple. Listing is auditing. And let's not worry about goals or anything else.

Just listing is auditing. And listing an opposition list to anything that rock slams, anything that rock slams, that continues to rock slam, it's a reliable item definition, listing an opposition list to that, is auditing. That's auditing.

Well, how much listing is auditing and what is this new process that's called listing? Well, you just sit there and list. Well, how is it circumscribed?

You've got an E‑Meter, the pc can get a reality on something that will read on the E‑Meter. All right, he can get his highest reality on that which rock slams on the E‑Meter. The more read on the E‑Meter, the more capable of reality on that he is.

If for these purposes you call it a reality meter, you've got it made. All right. The more magnitudinous the read, the more reality the pc will have on it.

Now, recognizing that, then you could do any kind of an assessment that produced any read on the E‑Meter – the read of course must not be one produced by protest and you know, tiger buttons and so forth – but anything that you could get to read, is safe to list. It's no guarantee that it'll produce a reliable item at the other end of it, but it is safe to list. So let's – let's just take this now, straight out of the blue, and let's just develop a process – it has nothing to do with 2‑12, has nothing to do with anything – let's just develop a process, see.

Let's put the pc on the E‑Me... the pc is sick – let's put the pc on the E‑Meter. We say, "What's bothering you?" And the pc says, "Well, actually my liver," and you say, "Your liver." It reads. This is how crude this can be, see?

You've got no pencil and paper in front of you, nothing, see? You've just got a meter. And you say, "All right, what represents your liver to you?" And he says, so‑and‑so and so‑and‑so and so‑and‑so and so‑and‑so and so‑and‑so, and your tone arm wobbles around, and so‑and‑so and so‑and‑so and so‑and‑so and pretty soon he doesn't have liver trouble.

This is a fellow that's been to Mayo brothers and has just got through spending 8,965 pounds, you see. The only condition is, is would it read on the meter. That shows he's susceptible of a reality on it.

You see that is no assessment; this is crude as crude as crude could be. You say, "What's wrong with you?" "Well, my head's been hurting and my liver's been hurting, I've had a lot of trouble with my stomach." You're just watching the meter, see? And you say, "Stomach, what's this about your stomach?" Crash, see. "Well, all right, who or what represents your stomach?" See? "What's your stomach represent to you?" And he'll go – bowwow, and bowwow, and bowwow and bowwow and on and on and on and on and on and one of two things would happen.

Now you see, now we're moving into assessment. Not a written assessment but just the – just the watching the needle to see which is the biggest read. That's pretty crude, but that would be establishing the fastest way to do something for this character.

Well, I think you'd find out if you haunted a hospital that you would be doing better with your meter than they were doing with their scalpels. It's taking a lot less time and you didn't get – nobody's getting their hands bloody. Now, that's a great deal of benefit, of course, to some parts of the society – laundries and that sort of thing, but it doesn't do anybody else any good.

Now, let's do it without a meter – let's do it without a meter. Let's take it at its earliest gradient. We say to this individual, "What's bothering you?" "Cough, well," he says, "cough, cough, got lung trouble, cough, cough." You say, "Well, anybody say you had lung trouble you were talking to?" "Well yeah, the doctors all say so." "Well, what trouble do you think you have?" "Oh well, it, ahhhh, it's my back actually." That's interest.

You find out he'll go on and on and talk about his back. So you could assess it without a meter by interest. And you say, "Who or what represents a back to you?" And you'll find out he'll spew out items down the chute man, they just avalanche out of him.

And you'd make him well. And there's with no meter. Now, the thing that combines interest and reality is the rock slam.

So that if we really did a searching one, searching for the pc's interest and where it lay, and we had him on the meter, when we finally hit that point you're going to get a rock slam. Now he not only has a high reality on this, he also has a great deal of interest in this and along with these two things it is jammed up like a Sherman tank hitting a concrete bulkhead. It is cram‑jam packed.

You're looking at a ridge. Now everything is identified with this. He will tell you, "Actually if people in the world took better care of their backs." What's this tell you?

This tells you the fourth dynamic is collapsed on his back! Gayelord Hauser, you could run him for a day or two on the subject of food because he's got everything identified with food, don't you see? He's very interested in it, selling it like mad, attributes everything to food.

Well, what's food represent to you? Oh man, he wouldn't even be able to not answer your question! [laughter] Now, the second that you hit this button you get an automatic release, and you think the pc's thinking something when he's releasing this, but he is not thinking anything when he is releasing this; he's just shoveling it out, man. Now, I can give you an indicator for a nullable list.

It comes out with interest and positiveness. So we find another rule – this is a rule: That a list must not be continued that is being invalidated by the pc. Now that is overlisting.

There are several symptoms of overlisting. In R2‑12 you run into the first one and skip it, which is comm lag. Who cares.

But it's the beginning of an overlist. We don't care about it, however. You would if you were listing goals, but not with R2‑12.

The second one is: He is groping for the exact name for it. You're now getting near the danger point, but once more we're not interested in this in R2‑12. This we can force and be all right.

The one we can't force is the one the manifestation which immediately follows those other two manifestations. See, it's the cycle of manifestations: You see the pc there, the pc first starts to comm lag, then he starts to get the exact word for it and he hasn't quite got it, and the next line that he goes into is invalidation. If your pc is invalidating items then you are not taking them off the front of the cash register, you're trying to pull them out of the back of the machine or something.

And it just tells you that there's no list, the items of which are being invalidated by the pc, will ever prove to be a nullable list. Now, what do we mean by invalidate? Well, it's as faint as this, "waterbuck, well I don't know whether that would do that or not – ah, tiger, no, I don't think a tiger should belong on the list, let's see.

It really doesn't seem too real to me that a waterbuck would belong on the list but you say go on listing, so all right, game warden, game warden, game warden, you can put it on the list... I guess." Any such manifestation as that is leading to a non‑nullable list. If the list is not nullable at the time you get there it might have been nullable and he's now just invalidating.

Now you can go back before he started invalidating and take that much of the list and see if it's nullable. But you've sure overlisted. Don't pay any attention to this grope around for the right word, don't pay any attention to the comm lags.

We are getting very esoteric. You can pay attention to those when listing goals but not in R2‑12, see, it's getting too esoteric. The pc is indifferently in‑session; this or that or the other thing's going wrong.

You can't be that nice. But for sure if the pc is invalidating and being unsure of what item is on, just recognize you're trying to pull them out of the back of the cash register and it's just not going to wind up in the GPM. The most uncertain person in the world when listing from a proper source will be the most certain person you ever saw on listing.

So you're looking for this old factor that we used to have over here in England, certainty. You're looking for this factor. Interest, certainty, rock slams – these things are beautiful indicators.

And a list then is not nullable if it does not produce a rock slam, and a list is also not nullable if it is being delivered with great uncertainty by the pc. So the big factors that you look for are no rock slam and uncertainty. And then if you're lucky and you got out of bed that morning and you've made your peace properly with the church and a lot of other things, why, you will get a list that will wind up in an item.

But we're actually not terribly fascinated with whether this thing on R2‑12 winds up with an item or not. I've just given you an example here of how you could cure somebody's back. Well, you get a lot of cases that are below rock slam; you have to audit them quite a while before they rock slam.

All you do with such a case is, you just keep assessing. Taking the most you've got, doing your best to get a complete list, you never make a list that is apparently going to result in anything, and they've got no rock slams, pc's interest is, well, it's good in session but out of session it might have collapsed, see. In session they're going, "Pow, pow, pow," and "Bang, bang, bang," and "I've just this," and "Pow and bang, bang," and "Yes, yes, and bowwow‑wow, yes, yes, bow, bow, bow, bow," they get out of session and, "I don't get any gains out of this; I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Totally unreal to me." See, you can expect some kind of a manifestation like that. You don't care what the manifestation was. You get what I mean?

You don't care what the out‑of‑session manifestation of the pc is ever on R2‑12. You're only interested in his in‑session manifestation. He's sailing, he's interested, he's this, man, you're sailing.

So he falls on his head and develops a cornea of the thrombosis and a lumbosis of the cornea and – after the session, who cares? I say you're not interested in out of sessionness, because if you're going on auditing him and you’ve had to quit in the middle of an opposition list, you can expect some of the fanciest somatics you ever heard of. All you want to do is complete each cycle to the best of your ability.

You understand this? Complete each cycle to the best of your ability. If you're satisfied, that's it.

Pc can turn on fantastic coldness. The room could be eighty‑five degrees and the pc is just shaking to pieces with chill, cold, and you had to end the session and they go around for the next twenty‑four hours shivering their nuts and bolts loose, and you give them a fancy goal the next day, bang, folds up, and the list is not a nullable list. I don't care; it ran out this cold.

You get what I mean? See, we care nothing about that. We care nothing about actually whether the list was a nullable list or not, we did it and it did something for the pc.

We did that and may have tried to the best of our ability to make it a nullable list. We tried to the best of our ability to get an item, but if we did not get an item at any time, this is not reason for auditor suicide, D of P criticism or anything else. You should get that fairly straight because you're going to find pcs that'll go fifteen lists off of List One, fifteen of them without producing a single R/S.

And then all of a sudden produce one on the list itself. You find your reliable item was Scientology. You're all set to give up.

And the next time you assessed, you just said, "Scientology" and it began to rock slam and then it didn't stop rock slamming either. You see what you're heading for? In the first place you're doing a tremendously therapeutic action.

That's the first thing that you've got to drill into the heads of people who are doing R2‑12. No matter what you do, if you do it anywhere near right, you've got a therapeutic action which is marvelous. Going to make the pc feel fine.

You just keep it up and do it to the best of your ability. Now, that's what we expect of R2‑12, just what I just said, see. Now, if we also wind up on that represent list with a reliable item that just goes on slamming, and it slams like mad – marvelous, and we take off from that and we do an opposition list and that thing winds up in a...

You see, that's already good that we got a reliable item, that's pretty darn good, you see, that doesn't happen every time you do it but, there it is, see. Gorgeous. All right.

And then we take it out on the opposition list and so help me Pete, the exact reliable item shows up on the opposition list that should have been there, and it all packages up and it all goes bzzzzt, phump. And the pc says, "Wow!" you know, "Wowwww," see. That's pretty marvelous.

He'll feel like he's going Clear and he is, if you kept up that sort of thing. Now, how often should you expect to get both items? Well, this is a factor which is monitored by the accuracy of the auditor.

The accuracy of the auditor. An auditor who makes an inaccurate – inaccurate assessments, who doesn't have his pc in‑session, who is making mistakes – I mean, making mistakes in his session form, and he's Q‑and‑Aing and he's doing things, he's got the pc on protest. The pc thinks of a lot of items but doesn't put them on the list and the auditor never finds out that the pc was thinking of and suppressing items.

That's pretty corny. An auditor should be able to find out things like this without big Qs and As and upsetting the pc. An auditor who does those things is going to find far fewer reliable items and packages than an auditor who is sitting right there on the ball, bangity‑bangity‑bang.

Now, for an auditor who is definitely on the ball and doing everything right and using good judgment and being careful about the thing and doing his stuff accurately and easily and so forth, for that auditor how often – how often should you be dead on the beam? About fifty percent. This is your perfect auditor, because that fifty percent is the pc's bank.

And the pc's bank has been a crazy quilt for a long time, wadded up and thrown in a dark closet and the things that start to lead in from A to B actually go from A to Z, and it – everything looks exactly as though this course from C to D – you couldn't miss on this course, and you suddenly find yourself at R or G. Now why is that? That's the A = A = A = A factor which we'll talk about a little more later.

So if you're batting 50 percent, in other words, half of the represent lists you do wind up with a reliable item – and that means, that means you're a pretty doggone good auditor – and if 50 percent of the opposition lists which you do after you got the first thing wind up with a reliable item and therefore you wind up with a package, man, you're a gee‑whizzer from a way back. You're good. You're good.

But what should be your expectancy about that? Now what about what about the guy who's terrible? You know, he picks up the meter and you're there as the Instructor running the co‑audit or whatever it is being run in, you don't know whether you ought to let him pick it up or not, you know, because he's sort of picked it up like this, you know.

Well, about 10 percent of the time he will wind up with a reliable item. He had to make enough mistakes to equalize it out, about 10 percent of the time he'll wind up with a reliable item, and about 10 percent of the oppositions he does will wind up with a reliable item and somebody sooner or later will have to straighten out the case. But the odd part is – but the odd part of it all is, the case will feel better and be making gains.

That's why it's a safe process and that's why it's been released to the HCA/HPA level of auditing. Now, of course you guys who know your business and who can audit and that sort of thing, why I expect 50 percent. See, I expect 50 percent just like that.

I mean, you should be able to deal that out pretty good, without too much trouble. Except on pcs who are obviously so dug in that a tremendous amount of action of representing has to be done before they can tell the auditor from the pc. You'd be surprised, but these people don't even know they're in an auditing session.

And you do enough represent on them they eventually differentiate, and they say, "Ohhh, I'm over here and he's over there and ohhh, what do you know." On such a pc, well, I might forgive you and give you – let you drop to 45 percent. Now, that's about the way a nullable list goes. That's actually the key data of nullable lists.

Then when you look over the lecture, your notes, I think you will find there are not too many oddball variables along this line, that they're fairly easily assimilable. Now, if any more data turns up which are – which make rules out of anything, I'll sure be the first to let you know. Thank you.

R2-12 THEORY AND PRACTICE, PART I	 	 -

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures SHSBC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1962]]