I want to take up here with great rapidity the processes from bottom to top that we have so far found and that have been effective, and some additional data in running them.
And first is the process Dynamic Straightwire. The way to do a survey on Dynamic Straightwire is this: you ask the person to describe the dynamics from one to eight. We don’t care about them being sequitur — change them round if you wish.
Now, you ask a person to describe each one of these dynamics. You are watching an E-Meter for a change in pattern. Therefore you must carefully isolate the pattern, before you can tell whether or not the pattern has changed on the E-Meter needle reading. But, more important than that, you are looking for a dynamic the preclear makes mistakes about while he is trying to describe it, a dynamic he cannot describe, or a dynamic he won’t even approach and is very leary of, and his statement is confirmed by the E-Meter reading. In other words, you’ve got the statement of the preclear in this particular analysis being stacked up against the E-Meter reading all the way through in an analysis or diagnosis for Dynamic Straightwire.
All right. We go all the way through, asking for a terminal on these dynamics and we finally get a repeat. We will ask him for terminals on these dynamics, and we will get the same dynamic to read again. Now the basic rule which sorts this out is: Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run. Simple as that. Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run.
So, if you have two or three dynamics jammed up, you can hope that two of them will clear up, leaving you with the remaining dynamic.
But this is not the complete criteria of what you run. There is another stable datum. Don’t run a terminal that is totally unreal to the preclear. Another stable datum, which comes on top of it, is: never run a terminal that is sensible. Never. If a terminal belongs on the dynamic, you can almost say you’ll get nowhere running it. So you’re looking for terminals that the preclear gives you for a dynamic which don’t belong on the dynamic at all.
Now, if that terminal is real to the preclear, you will get a tremendous change in the case. If that terminal is totally unreal to the preclear and if it does belong on the dynamic, why, you’re not going to get any change on the case, so why run it? Might as well run some other process.
So, we have several conditions by which the diagnosis on Dynamic Straightwire works. I’ve done enough of these now and run enough of them, isolated enough of them and gotten conditions of change on enough of them, to realize that every time you changed a case you had (1) a person who couldn’t describe the dynamic accurately, or who made mistakes while trying to describe it, (2) a person who gave you a non sequitur or erroneous terminal for that dynamic — the terminal was fairly real to the preclear, although it didn’t belong there — and (3) you ran that, and it opened up track like mad.
What have you got here? You have a terrific identification. You are trying to undo identification that is lying right on the top. Well, this tells you, then, that it is neither a long process nor an invariable process. Given enough skill, you could undoubtedly find one of these on every case — given enough skill. But it is limited by auditor skill. Furthermore, it gives auditors a chance to “chop up” preclears and it gives auditors a chance to write some script, so this one has liability. And auditors have been writing script like mad. We had one particular case where the preclear couldn’t say any terminal on the seventh dynamic, so promptly the auditor jumps in and takes the nearest related thing to the seventh dynamic, the thetan, he could get. This was A Head, and he ran A Head, and the preclear had nothing to do with it, and they wondered why the case didn’t advance.
Now, you have auditors who are letting the preclear choose. In other words, there are auditors who actually believe that a preclear is permitted power of choice in an auditing session. And this is the biggest bug I have found existing at this instant on this ACC. That one’s a blinker. They are probably not telling you this, that they think a preclear has power of choice. They don’t know this: that it has to be nutty if you are going to run it — if it makes sense, why run it? They are looking for a wrongness in the preclear and they believe that the preclear knows all about his own case and could straighten it out all by himself. And that the auditor is an unnecessary adjunct. Now there are several people on this ACC who believe this and this is a great compliment to their faith in human nature, but it’s certainly of no value in an auditor. The preclear has no power of choice at all. The one the preclear would never choose is the one you run.
An example: We had a preclear here who gave three terminals on the fifth dynamic. One of these was a mountain. So the preclear was given the power of choice as to which one to run and, of course, came up with a cat. So they sat there running cats. Well, a cat happens to be right for the fifth dynamic, so why straighten it out? The process is aimed at straightening out something. Obviously, the mountain was wrong. The preclear was totally stuck on the idea that there was a mountain in on this.
We found a mountain on the eighth dynamic in another case that hasn’t been running. This case had been running metal on the sixth dynamic. So what? Metal belongs on the sixth dynamic — why run it? Get the idea? But this auditor had found a mountain on the eighth dynamic and ignored it. Of course, everybody knows God is a mountain — that’s obvious ....
Now, this was the one to hit. And where you find these people out of session it is because nobody has trailed down a nutty dynamic. When they’re out of session on Dynamic Straightwire, they’re not interested in it at all, they are just not running an identification. They’re running something reasonable, and at once the biggest liability of auditors is that they are reasonable and that they write script and write in reasonable reasons for it all. And they’re trying to audit unreasonability out of people-and these two things just don’t go together at all.
The next process up the line is Selected Person Overts. Select a terminal who is real to the preclear and, as you undercut the process, it comes closer and closer to present time. The person chosen has to be closer and closer to present time the more you try to go downscale on the process. But the person must be real, that’s a criteria in there. And the next thing about it is, you must flatten off several of these people. And the basic reason for this is to prepare an individual to own up to some responsibility for his own actions. Unless he can assume some responsibility for his own actions, he won’t do anything in an auditing session, so this is the one that cures.
The auditing command for Selected Person Overts is “Recall a time you did something to (the selected person’s name).” But that is undercut by the auditing command “Think of something you did to“ or “Think of something you have done to .” Now, the reason you say “Think” is because these people are very chary of owning up to anything or accepting any responsibility out in broad daylight in front of God and everybody, so you run “Think” and you’ve got a lot of people who are having a rougher time who won’t own up to their own lives and who can’t take responsibility for them on the third dynamic, but can take responsibility for them on the first dynamic. And this is the dynamic selection. So “Think” undercuts “Recall. “
The next one — General Overts — is much less effective when it has not already been undercut by Selected Person Overts. The individual just goes on and on with sweetness and light. The auditing command for General Overts is “Recall a time when you did something to somebody.” Now there are other phrases and so forth which could be used for this sort of process, but here we are interested mainly in people. We are not very interested in MEST and the remaining four dynamics. They’d splatter all over the place. That’s why it’s “to somebody.” If you said “something,” you would get the remaining four, so there is an alternate command in here if you wanted to run the other four dynamics. You would say, “Recall a time when you did something to something.”
Now, the next one up the line from this is Not-Is Straightwire: “Recall a time when you implied something was unimportant.” And this, we find, is best run on an alternate basis with the next auditing command, “Recall a time when somebody else thought something was important.” These two commands are alternated, one after the other, and you get these cases that are in a jam.
This is the direct cure of notisness; and where you have a case that is running a bad not-is, a process can evidently be invalidated or not-ised when the individual is out of session, or overnight. This is what Not-Is Straightwire cures. These are the people on whom a process works once, and never works again. These people are not-ising so badly that they can’t duplicate — and not-is, of course, is a mechanism to prevent duplication. So you cure, not duplicate. And the cure for it is Not-Is Straightwire.