Now the goofs start coming in as how to not do Clearing.
If you don’t get a word asked for in Step III in HCO Bulletin Aug 18, ‘64 that expresses the “didn’t understand” in Step II you don’t get anywhere in Clay Table Clearing.
Example of a wrong one: Step I, pc says, “I want to improve my mind.” Step II (what pc hasn’t understood), “What the hell it is.” So far so good. Now the goof. Auditor gets Step III (word to represent the difficulty in II) as “Mind” and then does Step IV (modelling in Clay) using Mind. Of course the session goes nowhere. Pc has not answered question in Step III. “What the hell it is,” is not answered by “Mind”. “Mind” does not mean “What the hell it is.”
The original Aug 18 HCO Bulletin covers this. It says don’t let the pc solve II in the answer in III.
Pc in the “Mind” example is just answering his own question “What the hell is it” and there’s just one more solution on the case.
The auditor here could not possibly have grasped the overt-motivator cycle of 1. word — 2. misunderstood idea — 3. overt — 4. motivator.
The correct answer for III here would never be Mind as that doesn’t package the thought “What the hell is it?” It answers the question “What the hell is it?” and so could never be accepted in III.
III in this example would be “Bafflement” or “Curiosity” or “Mystery” and that would be used in IV. Only these words mean “What the hell is it?”
Now don’t anybody hereafter avoid the word “Mind” in Clay Table because it’s used in this wrong example or they’ll destroy my faith in students.
Clay Table done right works. So when pcs don’t get better it hasn’t been done right. That’s the complete reason.
The word accepted by the auditor in Step III must mean the thought or difficulty given by the pc in Step II.