Presession Help — Two Way Comm.

Rudiments Help — 2 way Help, Auditor and pc.

PTP — Use ordinary overt-withhold not help on personnel involved with PTP.

Assessments — There are several Assessments. Dynamic Assessment (HCO Bulletin of May 30, 1960, “Dynamic Assessment on Help”, covered this) terminals found should be handled with Concept Help. Use lots of havingness when running such a terminal.

There is another new assessment, Know to Mystery Scale Assessment. This is done by using the E-Meter on the buttons of the Know to Mystery Scale. That level which most changes the pattern of the needle is the target. Use Concept Help on it.

The most profitable, fast way to get a case moving is to find out what the person was most trying to help when he or she came into Dianetics and Scientology.

This may be “an arm” or “my friends” or “myself”. But whatever it is run it on any help process until it is flat. Concept Help is a good starter for the terminal thus located. This gives the pc a big primary win.

We stalled on ACC Clearing Procedures because auditors did not flatten help before starting on Step 6. Let’s not lose this horrible lesson.

The technical reason for this is that when help is unflat, a pc is still in a valence. Running Step 6 in a valence is courting disaster as the pc is in a picture that increases in mass and gives him somatics.

We are not returning to Step 6. We have better processes. But we are returning to help with far more knowledge of it.

Flatten every terminal on which you run help. By flatten is meant no needle change when the terminal is mentioned. A way to test this is to depart by two way comm from the terminal and then ask about it again. If the needle reacts the terminal mentioned is not flat. Just talk about something else, like the weather, and then mention the terminal again. You’ll see.

It is better to use a general form of a terminal than a specific form. It is better to run “a young man” than “Joe”. If the E-Meter reacts to “Joe” it is best to find out what Joe is to the pc and find the general form that reacts most (“a friend”, “a young man”, “a bum”) and run that, not “Joe”. You will get a lot further than when you run a specific close to present time terminal.

When people become a valence, they do so for at least two reasons.

First and probably most powerful: The thetan takes a valence that he believes will help others or the universe.

Second and more mechanical: The thetan tries to help something or somebody and fails and the last stage of his effort is to mock up a picture of the thing and try to help it.

There are various aspects of all this, more and more complicated. The thetan becomes a man to help women. He fails and thinks men can’t help women. So he restrains men, or he becomes a woman.

A thetan can become very involved with his computations on the subject of help. One black case I know is seeking to help others by absorbing all the blackness in the universe !

There is a formula for handling 1. above. Find out what a thetan is being and find

out what that beingness helps and not helps by using the command, “What would ____help?” “What would not help?”

There is a general form which discovers beingnesses in a pc. Find out something, very general, that a pc is trying to help or has failed to help and run “What would help ____?” “What would not help?” on the discovered terminal. The pc will get cognitions on what he or she is being and what the pc is restraining himself or herself from being.

Any terminal that is being run on help that was unwisely chosen can be eased off by running old overt/withhold, alternate confront or responsibility. This is a crude way out but it will work.

In any event, any session should contain general alternate confront “What can you confront?” “What would you rather not confront?” and havingness. These take the edge off unwise choices, any rough auditing and make the case feel better.

If the pc can do it, responsibility can get a pc off a bad choice fastest. If a pc can run responsibility easily. The pc has to be running rather well in general before it can be attempted. The pcs who are suffering because of an auditor choice of-wrong terminal usually can’t run responsibility easily. Of course, successful auditing is “What you can get away with”.

The best and smoothest way to get off a bogged terminal is alternate confront. But when the case has afterwards been run on other terminals with help, it’s best to go back and clean up the ones that earlier bogged with help by running more help on them.

The general processes which assist help sessions are alternate confront — ”What can you confront?” “What would you rather not confront?” and Havingness, “Look around here and find something you could have.”

Any couple hours of help should be followed in the same session with fifteen minutes of alternate confront and fifteen minutes of havingness. These times are approximate and are given just to communicate some idea of ratio. A truly boggy case could do with a ratio of 1:1:1 such as 45 minutes of help, 45 minutes of alternate confront, 45 minutes of havingness. As the case gets out of long, long comm lags on help, increase help in the ratio to 1 :1/2:1/2 or one hour of help, a half hour of alternate confront, a half hour of havingness. All this is auditor judgment established by observation. As it is the help in any form that does it, remember to use help to advance the case, and alternate confront and havingness to make the pc feel good.

Alternate confront and havingness improve a case, of course, but are long, long hauls as processes if we think of clearing with them.

Help on near present time terminals is far less effective in clearing than help on general terminals that have a lot of track to them. As general terminals can get a pc into a lot of confusion on the back track, alternate confront and havingness keep the pc from getting too bogged to run. Alternate confront also takes the edge off invented answers by the pc. (Create — confront phenomena.)

There are lots of help processes and many ways to run them. They all win to some degree. It is the amount of help run rather than the number of terminals cleared that clears the case.

Help basically sheds valences. Therefore havingness is needed. But the valences are all “can’t- haves” so when the valence is off at last the havingness of the pc comes up.

Almost any brand of help run long enough by good auditing should clear a pc. Hence, the idea is to run help and run it flat.

[HCO B 30 May 1960, Dynamic Assessment on Help, referred to in the fourth paragraph on the previous page, was reissued on 23 July 1974 as BTB 30 May 1960.]