Additional R3X notes
April 20, 2003 on R3X Course
Grinding and Earlier Beginning
If an incident seems to be grinding, check for an earlier beginning. You could also ask him if the charge is coming from that incident or from elsewhere. If it's coming from that incident, then it's probably an earlier beginning, even if it's an earlier incident the Pc identifies as part of the incident being presently run. As a last resort, the alternate confront process can always be used. But it's always best to stick with procedure as much as possible rather than to go into unusual solutions.
Incident getting worse
When the Pc says that the incident got worse or stronger after the last pass through, you can ask him if he means that it got clearer or more real. If so, that should count as erasing, not more solid. An incident needs to be confronted before it's left for an earlier one.
Yes, that's important. One really wants to be running OTs with bright 3D perceptions of these incidents. One is erasing charge but the incidents don't disappear. At this level the Pre-OT is actually restoring communication and reach into the locations and times of the incidents. - Revenius
The whole idea is to disconnect the incident from the charge. Every incident can and should be run in the manner the narrative incident is run in the R-3R materials.
Acknowledgments (e.g. good, fine, alright, okay, thank you) need to be given after every command has been carried out and every question answered by the Pc. The reason is basically because it makes the Pc feel like he has been heard and smoothly completes the cycle of communication. The only exception to this rule is when having the person doing a mockup during a havingness process. To acknowledge the mockup would tend to as-is it prematurely.
A Pc must fully understand each command before running it. If there is any doubt about any word, it should be defined. Any good dictionary can used for this. Before defining the term, I will ask the Pc what he thinks the definition is. This will get him to compare his past concepts of it with the common meaning. It will also validate his knowledge about it if he is right. In any case, I have found doing that to be a more causative and interesting way of defining known words because of the active rather than passive role it promotes. It causes him to look and create rather than just passively think about and accept it. Previously unknown words are a different matter, and are handled without this step.
Erasing or going more solid
Incidents usually go through a bell curve pattern over a series of recountings where the incident may appear to get more solid, with TA rising, reach a peak, and then wane to erasure. The initial rise in TA is usually only the result of the Pc encountering more charge in the incident. When in doubt, the auditor can always ask something like "Is the charge coming from this incident, or elsewhere?" Each incident needs to be discharged before asking for an earlier similar, otherwise the earlier incidents can tend to run shallow or be blocked from view by the charge connected to the later incidents on the track, drawing the Pc's attention toward them and away from earlier track. Failure to consider this phenomenon has been one of the major weak points of the old R3R system.
Yes, that was covered in Class 8 but never really exported from there. - Revenius
Pre-MEST universe incidents
These incidents have far more charge to them because in that realm there is more free theta and more ability to create that charge. The pre-MEST area should be the minimum target for any auditor processing an advanced Pc. Physical universe incidents are minor by comparison. Clears and above normally have little trouble accessing this realm. When accessing pre-MEST incidents, Pcs will notice that time as we know it becomes nonexistent or irrelevant.
Also it should be really stressed that the PCs postulates on the early track are much stronger. So when you're getting up into the OT realms you could well get more charge off repeating the postulates than anything else. - Revenius
To ask for time or duration will often get a confused response from the Pc., which is why I have dropped those steps.
The incident that must not be unmocked
When the pc says that the as-isness of a particular incident will result in the destruction of the universe (or God, or oneself, or the auditor, etc.), you may rest assured that that's nothing but a postulate put into the incident to keep the pc from looking and thereby as-ising it, and that the universe will in fact not blow up or vanish. At least we've been lucky so far.
Auditor Zero Attitude
The secret to great auditing as opposed to good or average auditing lies in zero attitude - no attitude, full TR-0 - during the session. The auditor must be completely without emotional reaction for the period of the session lest his case get entwined with the Pc's, even if only on a telepathic level. This means that the auditor must be totally non-judgmental in words and thoughts.
Positive emotions can stick you as an ally and get a propitiative PC. - Revenius
Roteness of Commands and Clears
A fatal error in running Dianetics on Clears occurs when the Pc is fast while the auditor is rote. The auditor will say: "Move to that incident". Pc: "I'm there..." (itsas about it and blows it by inspection). Auditor: "What is the duration of the incident?" etc. etc. If the auditor is not tracking with the Pc, obnosing the situation, watching the meter for BDs and querying them, or running rote commands just to be following procedure blindly, he can cause the Pc to unwittingly dub in an incident, creating protest charge in the Pc and mess up the session. When dealing with advanced and fast Pcs, the auditor must follow the Pc's lead, not the other way around. The auditor must at the same time, however, remain in control of the session.
The Shift is an interesting phenomenon. It evidently contains no time, and yet it contains all the postulates in the incident. It is the "prior cause" in the incident, and so is the important part of it. When the incident is run to a flat point, the shift will still be there. Rarely though, it will be blown along with the incident. But the shift still needs to be asked for. If the auditor asks for a shift and the Pc gives an at-effect experience, he should be wary of this and ask for the point where the Pc was feeling "like himself", and then have him move forward to find the shift moment. This is similar in many ways to finding the misunderstood word, i.e. going back to the point where one felt comfortable with the text and moving forward to the blank area. The transition point is the misunderstood word. That could also be called the moment of shift. The blank period following the M/U is comparable to the Dianetic incident. Blow the prior confusion and the blank period following blows with it.
Shock or Shift?
I have used both terms, and both work. However, the term "shift" is more cause than the term "shock". They usually occur pretty much simultaneously, but sometimes the shock occurs after the person creates the postulates and then shifts. The end result can still be erasure of the item, but the responsibility level tends to be higher when "shift" is used. The shift is what the Pc considers to be the single most significant part of the incident - at least by the end of the handling.
Alternate Confront Process, Use of
This process is extremely useful in unblocking stuck areas of track. The commands are: "What part of that (incident, shift, or whatever) would you be willing to confront?" and "What part of that...would you rather not confront?" This is done to an EP. Like everything else, don't overrun. The EP usually happens fast.
When the Pc "Blows the Shift" Along with the Incident
I have determined that EVERY basic incident contains a shift point. It may appear to be blown, but it should be found and run anyway. I would probably choose to cancel any future R3XD with someone who refused to run a shift after reaching basic-basic than to continue to process without handling shifts.
The Influence of Personal GPMs on Present Time
Normally the GPM will start out being "way back on the track", but then as it is run, it will tend to encompass the entire track including present time. The Pc will often say things like "This is the story of my life", or "This has been the story of all my existences along the track", or "this incident is still happening right now". This apparency will blow off as soon as the postulates are discharged and the shift cleaned up.
This term "personal GPM" could get confusing. We're dealing with an engram that's significant in the Actual GPM and could be a joining of several chains on several dynamics. It's a point of significant valence shift in the living of the GPM. - Revenius
I have since come to the conclusion that what one is dealing with in R3XD is nothing less than Actual GPMs, that is, self-created basic GPMs. The reason I refrain from using the term "Actual GPM" is because it has certain connotations from the old GPM tech from the 1960's which could be confusing. The term "GPM", however, I still maintain is a proper word for what R3XD deals with, despite what some "authorities" may maintain. The evidence of that is in comparing the definitions of the GPM from the Tech Dictionary and from some of the GPM lectures with what is being run with R3XD, and in the fact that no mental mass will stand up to the R3XD procedure properly run by the book.
Since I have been auditing this procedure almost exclusively by phone, I have cut out F/N indications entirely. I have found absolutely no liability to doing this. What I do instead is to thoroughly acknowledge the end of cycle. So instead of saying "Your needle is floating", I might say something like "Very good. Alright." or something similar to let the person know I completely agree with his end of cycle. Like everything else in auditing, it should be spontaneous and heartfelt, not rote, even if it's predictable.
Preclears tend to benefit from very standard session procedure but it will bog down a fast running OT. - Revenius
Through the "No Earlier Incident" Block
The R3R procedure is usually run in such a way that the auditor will accept almost any win as a basic incident. This leaves the Pc with a mere key-out instead of an erasure, no matter how significant the cognition or how early on in the MEST universe it happened. This must be balanced with the rule of not pushing the Pc past his capabilities.
It's even deeper than erasure really. I would go for restored ability to pervade the space and time of the incident. - Revenius
When the command "Is there an earlier incident where you had the feeling of...(item)...?" is used, and there is a read, you can ask "Did you think of something when I asked that?" and 2-way comm it. Steering is an option, but I'd rather keep the Pc from being meter dependent, so I use that method as last resort. If I get a "No" response but the meter did read, I will ask "Did you you have a thought flash by right when I asked that?" or something like that, and pursue that.
If nothing shows up, I will then ask (always with good TR-1) "Is there an earlier incident before the beginning of time where you had the feeling of ...(item)...?" If the Pc is well set up, this question should read big time. So then you run the pre-MEST universe bank back earlier similar, earlier similar, until there is nothing earlier. Then you ask for the flow zero incident with the command "Is there an earlier incident where you caused yourself to have the feeling of ...(item)...?" If it doesn't indicate to the PC, then you run the shift on the incident just run. If at any time there is a bog on running the shift of that incident, one place to look at is an earlier incident again. Sometimes it will surface when running the later shift triggers it. This phenomenon rarely occurs though.
If the incident already handled seems to the Pc like it might be the basic, the auditor can give the Pc the R-factor that the E/S question is routine and may not indicate.
The earliest incident I've ever seen people run has been the "Original Separation from Theta" incident as mentioned on the "Individual Track Map" in the Tech Bulletins, which evidently is on everybody's track. Each Pc seems to have a unique take on it, but the basic story is similar from Pc to Pc. Not every Pc is ready to run this incident. Some run it the first time they have a session. Once a Pc runs this incident, it will thereafter probably be "basic-basic" for all or most subsequent items run thereafter. This is good and will lead to accelerated positive case change for him. Apparently basic-basic can have many aspects, each of which may constitute a GPM incident in itself.
Through the Past Life Barrier
If the pc has never run past lives but is willing to, you can get him started when he has no earlier incident this lifetime. You give him the E/S command and hope for the best.
The following are some methods of approach when he does not respond favorably to the E/S command:
1. You give him the "earlier similar" command, check the meter for an instant read, and then you can ask him if a picture, thought, or feeling flashed in his mind when you asked the E/S question. Then you follow that up.
2. You can ask him if he can still feel the somatic he started the session with. If so, you can ask him to use his imagination and tell you what sort of scenario might explain or accompany the picture, thought or feeling he has. The same means can be used to open up blank areas of track like operations or implants. Then you get the Pc to "make up a story" about what the incident would be like if it were to have happened. Then you run him through it again and again until his reality on it picks up and the incident eventually flattens. Pay special attention to areas he talks about that gets good reads and have him expand on those.
Handling of Feelings
From the point of asking for feelings in the shift on forward, all feelings are put into a statement (postulate) form by the preclear and then repeated until flat. The preclear can, and should, change the wording if it changes for him to something more appropriate while repeating. (Always preface the questions with "in or around that moment of shift...) For example, "fear" can become "I can't confront anything," or "This is more than I can bear," or "I have to avoid this situation at all costs". Fear could also be simply "I am afraid". The Pc should break down the feeling into its component parts if possible, but he should not be forced into an unreality either. I always try to get the Pc to get the phrase down without using the name of the emotion (like "afraid") in that phrase.
If possible, the Pc should repeat the postulate as though he were making it in present time: "I can't confront" rather than "I lost my ability to confront". But this a judgment call.
If he's not stating it as if it's present time then he's looking back on it and isn't as-ising it. You can shift tenses for him. For example if he says "I lost my confront" you could lead in with "Get the point where you are losing your confront - what's the postulate you are making?" - Revenius
Also, qualifiers should be eliminated such as "I feel like" or "I guess". The idea is to get the Pc as close to duplicating the original postulate as possible. Again, if it's real to the Pc, he can run a statement like "I feel..." and see where it leads. Best to let the Pc be the final judge, or at least not force him into a direction that is unreal to him.
After they have been repeated a few times, I will ask the Pc "How does the feeling of _____ seem to you now?" If it is flat, I will go on to the next feeling. If it is not flat I will have the Pc look at the feeling as it is now (I ask "What does the feeling seem like now?") and have him turn that feeling into a statement form and repeat that until flat. Postulates often contain a pronoun such as "I" or "me" or "you".
If the Pc doesn't know what to look for and needs help, the auditor can suggest possible phrases in question form like "I can't _____ any more?" or I'm unable to _____?" or "I'll never _____ again?".
If Pc still cannot find wording for the feeling, then he can be started out by having him use the phrase "I have to _____" or "I have to avoid _____" along with the appropriate ending, and have him repeat that. Another way is to lightly suggest some possible phrases to him. The stable datum here is that all feelings are basically postulates.
If it is a feeling of pain or physical sensation, there may be no words for that yet (this rarely occurs. Just have the preclear feel that feeling in the sense of accepting it and letting it follow its cycle to completion). After you ask, "How does it seem now?" it may be in a form which can be run as a postulate by repeater technique.
You don't want to be handling present time somatics with the repeater technique, so if there is any question about that, ask if that somatic is part of the pre-MEST incident being handled or if it's only present time.
It doesn't hurt to ask if a feeling being run has an opposing side like "I hate you" and "I love you", or "I can't _____" and "I must _____". If it does, the two sides are run by repeater technique 1,2,1,2,1,2 to a flat point. In fact, sometimes it's necessary to run the opposite side for it to blow.
It's also good to check for any feelings any opposition terminals had and run those out too by getting the Pc to repeat the op-term phrase from the op-term's point of view.
Yes, plus the other dynamics. Let's say you start in with a feeling of degradation about an RPF assignment. You'd want to pick up the emotions and postulates throughout his group. These things are part of the telepathic aspect of the incident that needs to be addressed and would block an EP if left there. Another point that needs to be thrown in is the old "Stuck pictures" from '68 . Incidents can hang up on those points and earlier Dianetics was a bit too rote to get them.
Stuck pictures are normally handled by using the Before/After process.
Additional Notes Since the Writeup of 29 April 2000
The Primary Purpose of this Process
It must be kept in mind that the primary purpose of running R3XD is not to take away a person's items and restimulations. The purpose is to locate and discharge GPM masses at their source, thus bringing about maximum case gain per session hour. It may appear to be just a "negative gain" process at first glance, but it acts positively in restoring a being's full responsibility for his creations. The end result is a greater degree of OT ability.
Basic and Basic-Basic
Any incident can act as a "basic" as long as the charge is keyed out. I consider the "Original Separation from Theta" incident to be basic-basic. Any later incident, with no apparent earlier incident on the chain where the charge is at least keyed out, I call a basic.
If Pc complains of a "stuck picture", give him the commands, "Spot a moment before the picture", (ack); "Spot a moment after the picture", (ack) repetitively, done 1, 2; 1, 2; 1, 2; etc. until the picture frees up.
Entity Interference with Session
If the presence of an entity is found to be interrupting the session, find out if it's in present time or in the incident. If the entity is in the incident, ignore the entity and follow standard procedure. If the entity is in the present, use entity handling tech and return the Pc to the standard session as soon as possible. Entity handling, as relates to this procedure, is not a priority and so should not be done unless the standard session becomes stalled as a result.
No Auditor's Ego
For maximum results, the auditor must be completely egoless during the session, which means full attention on the Pc, and muzzled auditing with minimal communication, and no flippant remarks, jokes, or questions that are not pertinent to the sessions, i.e. no communications that take the Pc's attention away from his case. The auditor's curiosity is not important, his understanding is. Questions aimed at clarifying possible misunderstoods by the auditor are permissible in order to avert a break in reality in the session and to keep the auditor tracking with the Pc.
Pc Trying to Solve his Problem
Once in a while the Pc will attempt to offer a solution or try to justify the situation, as by looking at it philosophically rather than run through the incident or shock moment one more time. This should be viewed as an effort to alter-is rather than as-is and should not be countenanced. If this gets in the way of the session, the pc might well be given an R-factor on what is expected of him, and then the standard procedure continued.
Session Problems/No Correction Lists Needed
In all the time I've been auditing this process I've never needed a correction list for a session problem. At the first sign of trouble I simply ask the Pc what's going on, and I find that the Pc knows and will arrive at the answer if asked for it properly. The rule here is, "If you know the tech, you'll know which questions to ask".
The auditor should have faith in himself and in the process, and persist through any problems that might arise. Above all, the auditor should never panic, but always remain in control. Auditor's negative reaction can be sensed by the Pc. If the auditor is truly stumped - which should rarely - if ever, happen, he should end session, reassess the situation, and resume when ready, preferably within 24 hours.
Not Repeating Truthful Statements
The repeater technique for the shift moment is done on statements with charge on them. If they're compulsive or lies, such as "I have to avoid pain" or "I'll never be the same again", then it can be repeated. If they're truths and uncharged like "I'm at cause" or "I'm not a victim", they should not be repeated as they will not as-is (unless of course there's a compulsive element to it). Sometimes the Pc has to have it clarified as to what is expected when "postulates" and "feelings" are asked for.
Incomplete sessions can be emotionally troubling for the pc and should be handled as soon as possible, preferably within 24 hours. If, after hours of auditing a chain, the Pc becomes exhausted to where his ability to function is lowered, it may be best to call off the session and resume at a later time when the Pc can function more optimumly. But this should not be done if it can be avoided, and the Pc should be returned to session as soon as possible.
Blowing Charge by Inspection
Use of this ability should not replace the detailed knowledge of incidents, especially when dealing with the basic on the chain. If a Pc appears to be "glibbing" his way through, he may have to be hatted on the value of thoroughly reexperiencing the incident as it was when it was first created. Those who are used to running NOTs procedure eventually get to a point where they "spot and poof" charge on incidents without going into any detail. This may or may not achieve the deep level as-isness required for deep case change. It may be on the same order as blowing a lock on a chain, which is fine for removing present time restimulation, but is different from recovery of abilities, which is the goal of R3X. Ideally, the Pc should be able to reexperience incidents in 3D holographic detail. In pre-MEST incidents, the existence of things may be more conceptual than substantial, but the impact is greater because of the higher degree of responsibility for creation in that era. The more thoroughly and exactly that can be re-experienced the better, especially if it contains pain and other heavy sensations.
This is not to say that a Pc should be slowed down because things happen fast for him. The right speed is whatever speed works best for the Pc.
When running chains of incidents that end with a MEST universe basic, I prefer to run straight Dianetic R3X rather than go into shift handling. Either way will work, but I generally prefer to reserve shift handling for pre-MEST incidents where the Pc can take responsibility for the whole incident and all viewpoints in it. In the case of running chains to a basic that is this lifetime or some other MEST universe lifetime, all 4 flows should be run on the item just as is done in R3R.