FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

LEVEL 2 ACADEMY LECTURES 14/15

**************************************************

LEVEL 2 TAPES

CONTENTS:

01 SHSBC-62 ren 66 4 Oct 61 Moral Codes: What is a Withhold? 
02 SHSBC-63 ren 67 5 Oct 61 Sec Checking: Types of Withholds 
03 SHSBC-72 ren 76 26 Oct 61 Security Checking: Auditing Errors
04 SHSBC-75 ren 79 2 Nov 61 How to Security Check 
05 SHSBC-100 ren 104 16 Jan 62 Nature of Withholds 
06 SHSBC-117 ren 117 14 Feb 62 Directing Attention
07 SHSBC-113 ren 119 20 Feb 62 What Is a Withhold?
08 SHSBC-131 ren 135 3 Apr 62 The Overt-Motivator Sequence
09 TVD-4A ren 149 2 May 62 TV Demo: Prepchecking, Part I
10 TVD-4B ren 150 2 May 62 TV Demo: Prepchecking, Part II
11 SHSBC-142 ren 151 3 May 62 Craftsmanship: Fundamentals 
12 SHSBC-151 ren 159 22 May 62 Missed Withholds 
13 TVD-7 ren 161 23 May 62 TV Demo:Fish & Fumble-Checking Dirty Needles
14 SHSBC-206 ren 235 1 Nov 62 The Missed Missed Withhold 
15 SHSpec-26 ren 389 2 Jul 64 O/W Modernized and Reviewed 

Like most levels tapes, these are SHSBC (St. Hill Special Briefing
Course) lectures. The original numbering has the TV demos (TVD)
numbered independently and restarts the numbering from 1 again
in 1964 (designated SH Special instead of SHSBC). The clearsound
renumbering combines these (SHSBC + TVD + SHSpec) into one
continuous set of numbers shown as "ren" above.

These are based on clearsound and were checked against the
old reels in most cases (as noted). Omissions are marked ">".
Most omissions are of introducing new students etc. but there
were significant omissions of technical material in item 07
"What is a Withhold". Also, item 13 (TVD-7) had significant
omissions in the old reels, marked "#", which were restored in
the clearsound version.


**************************************************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists. It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heritics. By their standards, all Christians, 
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. 

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight. Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************


SHSBC-206 renumbered 235 1 Nov 62 The Missed Missed Withhold


THE MISSED MISSED WITHHOLD

A lecture given on

1 November 1962

[Clearsound, checked against the old reels.]

(60 min)


Thank you. When you were building this country, why didn't
you fix up the weather? You know, really, I have my opinion
of planet builders that go around designing weather like
this, and that sort of thing. There's a great deal to be
said for rain, but it quickly becomes hyperbolical.

Well now, tonight, I've made notes for lectures, so I
probably won't talk about that. And this is the 1st of
November, isn't it? What year is it?

Audience: A.D. 12.

AD. 12. All right. Lecture number one.

> Jim Skelton isn't here tonight, is he?
>
> Voice from audience: No... (hard to make out)
>
> He isn't, huh? Oh it's too bad. I have a cup for him, it's
> right there, and he just never has turned up for it. A very 
> beautiful cup, I'll show it to you. I don't know whether we 
> ought to give it to him or not, to tell you the truth. 
> (audience laughter)
> 
> You know, men get hanged in abstentia every now and then -
> you know, condemed to death in abstentia and all this sort of 
> thing. We might give him his cup in abstentia. (sounds of 
> unwrapping) A beautiful cup. That was for finding that congress 
> goal. The goal we found here on the course through doubt.
> He was the first one finding goals for this particular lineup.
> A lot of you rate more than this, but this is front page
> stuff, you know? (audience laughter)
> 
> But I - the question before the house is "Should we give him 
> this cup?"
> 
> Audience: Yes. Yeah.
> 
> All right, all right, on your say-so we will. And Frank, you
> suppose you can convey this to him?
> 
> Audience voice: (unintelligible)
> 
> Come up and get it. We give it by proxy - Frank [?] Lehr will
> take it for him [?]
> 
> Okay, this is lecture one. (noises) Oh I can't cover all
> that.

This is a brand-new subject to you. It's an entirely new
subject to you. You have never heard of this subject
before. In fact, you have never run it or handled it or had
it done. I want to recommend, then, this lecture to you
very, very seriously. There have been several bulletins out
on it, but you apparently haven't read those.

Now, therefore, this is new material here. And I want you
to take to heart what I tell you in this lecture.

And the subject of the lecture is missed withholds.

Now, it may surprise you that the first bulletin out on
this particular subject of missed withholds is February the
8th, HCOB February 8, 1962, and it's marked, as a bulletin,
"Urgent." And it says, "The one item Scientologists
everywhere must get an even greater reality on is missed
withholds and the upsets they cause." That's the first
paragraph of this. It says, "Every upset with Central Orgs,
field auditors, PC's, the lot, is traceable to one or more
missed withholds." That's what it says.

Well anyhow, on February the 12th, because nobody got it
then, I issued another one, rote formulas for missed
withholds, and so forth. That's HCOB February 12th. It's
"How to Clear Withholds and Missed Withholds."

Well, they didn't get it then, so we issued another one on
February 22nd. And on February 22nd, 1962, we had
"Withholds, Missed and Partial - see? And it has a lot to
say on that particular subject. And it says, "I don't know
exactly how to get this across to you except to ask you to
be brave, squint up your eyes and plunge. I don't appeal to
reason, only to faith at the moment. When you have a
reality on this, nothing will shake it and you'll no longer
fail cases or fail in life. But at the moment, it may not
seem reasonable, so just try it and do it well, and day
will dawn at last."

Well, day didn't dawn. Well ...

So, on May the 3rd, 1962, you have the HCOB "ARC Breaks and
Missed Withholds" and it says, "How to use this bulletin.
When an auditor or student has trouble with an 'ARC-breaky
PC' or no gain, or when an auditor is found to be using
freak control methods or processes to keep 'a PC in session,' 
the HCO Sec. D of T or D of P should just hand a copy of this 
bulletin to the auditor and make him or her study it and take 
an HCO Exam on it.

"After some months of careful observation and tests, I can
state conclusively that: All ARC breaks stem from missed
withholds".

"This is vital technology," and so forth.

It says also, "There are no ARC breaks when missed
withholds have been cleared up." And it goes on, technically.

Well, on May the 21st, we have one: "Missed Withholds,
Asking About," and so forth, but that's just a little more
data.

And on June the 28th, 1962, we have "Dirty Needles, How to
Smooth Out Needles." There it is, and it talks all about
missed withholds and so forth. It's not obviously and
directly on the point, but it does mention withholds,
missed withholds, overts and secrets and so forth.

And on July the 4th we have "Bulletin Changes" which
include missed withholds, and then on July the 12th, 1962,
we have "Motivatorish Cases" and so forth, and that goes on
talking about how to get missed withholds out of people.

And then on August the 13th, we talk about "Rock Slams and
Dirty Needles." And there's some more about missed
withholds then.

And then on August the 30th, while I was stateside, why,
Mary Sue got desperate and issued some bulletins. And of
course the first subject that she picked up was
missed-withhold handling. Well now, that is a lot of
bulletins. Let me call to your attention, there's weight
here, man. It has weight. There's been a lot said on this
subject, see?

And it's just about the most important subject in an
auditing session and keeping the show on the road. Short of
actually clearing and helping people, you see, it's just
about the most important subject there is. And there isn't
one here got it. None of you. You haven't got it. So I'm
going to give you a lecture on it.

And I might as well start this lecture with "the one item
Scientologists everywhere must get an even greater reality
on is missed withholds and the upsets they cause." Do you
see? That's out of the February 8th bulletin. And "I don't
know exactly how to get this across to you, except to ask
you to be brave, squint up your eyes and plunge," on
February the 22nd.

Listen: All you're doing, and all you go on doing, and all
you keep on doing, and all you do, endlessly, every time
you're told to pick up a missed withhold, all you do is
pick up a withhold. Honest. You're picking up withholds. I
don't think you have ever picked up a missed withhold off
of a PC in any session you've ever run. You've only picked
up withholds.

You ask the auditor to pick up the missed withholds and the
auditor promptly picks up all the withholds. You got the
idea? Everybody says this, and I guess it's because of the
semantics of the word missed. It says they're missed
withholds, and by God, they are! Everybody misses them! See?

You see, it is so pat and is so plain to the naked eye that
this is what happens: PC has a withhold and you haven't
picked it up - so therefore it's a missed withhold. No!
That is wrong.

So when I tell you to pick up the missed withholds, all
you're doing is picking up withholds.

You say, "Well, he wants us to pick up the missed
withholds, so therefore I better pick up the withholds I've
missed. So therefore, 'Do you have a withhold?'" And
sometimes you even say, "Have I ever missed a withhold on
you?" "Has anybody missed a withhold on you?" and the PC
gratuitously gives you withholds. Gives you more withholds
and more withholds and more withholds.

No PC has ever given you a missed withhold. I'll bet you
you've never picked one up. Now, I may be very harsh on
this line, but let's get down to tacks here, man - brass,
iron and otherwise!

A missed withhold is a withhold that people nearly found
out about, but didn't. And you're only looking for the
nearly-found-outs. You don't give a damn what the guy did.
You don't care what the person did. You only want to know
what people almost found out! Honest! I've been talking
since February, you know? I'm getting hoarse.

You see, a withhold is something the PC did. That is
something the PC did - do you understand? - that he isn't
talking about. See? He did it and he isn't talking about
it. Now, that is a withhold, and that is all a withhold is.
And please don't keep saving also it is a missed withhold
just because you didn't get it in a session.

You see, it's all very neat. You got it all figured out
that if you didn't get the withhold in a session, why,
therefore, it's a missed withhold. And that's not what a
missed withhold is! A missed withhold has nothing to do
with what the PC said. Nothing! Not - not anything to do with
what the PC did and then withheld. It actually hasn't a
damn thing to do with what the PC is withholding.

The missed withhold is something people nearly found out.
It's an other person action! Look: It's not the PC's
action! It's nothing the PC did or is doing! You keep
trying to pick up missed withholds by asking the PC what
he's withholding, you never get anything but withholds, and
then you miss some more of these and you've got a PC even
further upset.

Look, here are absolute pearls on a silver platter. They're
actually beyond price. And I've never got it across to you.
A missed withhold has nothing to do with the PC - but
nothing! It is an other-person action and the PC's wonder
about it.

I just know right now I'm not making any sense to you even
this minute. I'll betcha I'm not making any sense to you.

It hasn't a thing to do with what the PC is withholding.
Let's just sever the end off of the "missed." Let's forget
that it is even a withhold.

You're looking for exact moments in the lifetime or
lifetimes of this PC when somebody almost found out, and
he's never been sure since whether they did or they didn't.
And we don't care what they almost found out! We only care
that they almost found out something! And that is the
address to a missed withhold. It's an other-person-than
the-PC's action. It's an other-person's action.

I really didn't realize that I hadn't gotten it across to
you in bulk and in gross form till not too long ago in a
catch-as-catch-can session I said to a PC ... This PC was
going natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, yak, yak,
yak, yak, yak, natter, natter, natter, natter, natter,
natter, natter, natter, natter, yap, yap, yap. So I just
routinely was running a little bit of - I said, "Well, what
have you done?" "What have you withheld?" "What have you
done?" "What have you withheld?" "What have you done?"
"What have you withheld?" "What have you done?" "What have
you withheld?" you know, that sort of thing. And got stuck
in this area of the track and started saying natter,
natter, natter, and natter, natter, natter, and natter,
natter, natter, and started giving me withholds and
withholds and withholds and withholds out of that area of
the track, and withholds and overts and withholds out of
that area of the track, and they would have been going yet
if I hadn't ...

That's one of the dangerous things, is instructors are
actually going to stop you sometimes practically right
here. Because once you shove this down the PC's throat, it
looks just like a Q and A. It's almost in the teeth of the
laws about Q and A. You understand? But the PC isn't
clearing this. You've got this thing called a recurring
withhold. You understand? You run into these things all the
time. You were auditing a PC, so they're going to run some
withholds, and they run the time that they locked their
husband out. And you say,

"Ha, ha. Thank you very much."

And you note down this fact, and a few sessions later, they
tell you they locked their husband out, see, and they
didn't tell him that they were the person that had locked
him out, you know? Never confessed to it since, and he got
pneumonia, and it was all pretty rough.

And so, a few sessions after this, you know, why, you're
running down the track, and they tell you they locked their
husband out.

A little while later some other auditor is auditing this
same PC, and they tell him they locked their husband out.

Look: Sometime or another, won't you get tired of hearing
the same withhold? Isn't it boring? It's like watching a C
movie that wasn't very good in the first place for the
tenth time. That is a missed withhold.

Look: it has a very special anatomy. It isn't the moment
they locked the husband out; it isn't when they withheld it
from the husband; it isn't when they withheld it from you.
These things have nothing to do with the reason this is
charged up! That it is an overt, that it is a withhold - 
ahhh, yes. But there's this special thing called a missed
withhold, and it hasn't got anything to do with either one
of them. It merely uses them for fodder to feed on. And the
overt and the withhold won't blow if a missed withhold occurs.

Now, what is the missed withhold? The only thing you have
to ask this recurring-withhold PC is "When did your husband
nearly find out about it?" Not "When did he find out?" see,
that would have blown - but "When did your husband nearly
find out about it?"

Now, here's the actual mechanics of it. A few days later
while he was lying there suffering with a fever of 118,
why, his eyes opened slittedly and suspiciously and looked
at her and glanced toward the lock on the door. Now, that
was his action, not hers, see? That was has action. And
ever afterwards she hasn't known whether he knew or didn't
know. Ever afterward! She doesn't know! And that's why the
recurring withhold hangs up.

I lowered the boom on this PC, and I said, "All right.
Fine. Thank you. Thank you. Good. Now, tell me the exact 
moment you suspected somebody knew what you are telling me." 

"Ohhhh." And that was dead easy. It was right there. The 
whole package blew, and that was that.

Somebody had made a comment which might or might not have
been interpreted as the fact that they knew about it. And
the PC goes off in this fantastic confusion. Now, how can
it be a confusion? Well, it's a confusion because there is
an overt and there is a withhold. And these are the primary
mechanisms which sit back of all this. But they actually
aren't very serious until they get a mystery on top of them.

Now, you take an overt, a withhold, plus a mystery, and
you've got a missed withhold. It's a mystery! Now, did her
husband know about it or didn't he? "Did - did - did he find
out? Did he know - and is he withholding? And uh - uh - is he - 
did he as he was lying there in a fever and so forth, did he
really mean that look toward her and toward the lock of the
door as an accusation for having accidentally locked him
out in the snowstorm? Or - or did he - did he ever know,
or - or - or wasn't that? Or did it or didn't it? Did he fi - 
no, he couldn't have known about it. No, he he did.... No. No.
He couldn't have. He - he did, but still he looked straight
at the lock of the door and he looked at me. He must ...
I - I - I don't know." Do you understand this? Now, that is a
missed withhold, see? Had nothing whatsoever to do ... 

You can say, "Now, what have you done?" And she says,
"I locked my husband out in the snow and he got sick with 
pneumonia, and he was sick for seventeen months and eighteen 
days. Lost his pension."

Few sessions later, you say, "All right,
rata-ta-tatta-ta-tatta. What have you done?" "Well. I
locked me husband out in the snow and - and he got ... he
got sick. and - and he was sick for eighteen months and
eighteen days and he lost his pension." You say "Good.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Good." (Maybe if I
acknowledge it this time, maybe the PC will find out that I
heard it, see?) "Good. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Good. Good. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. I've I got that. I heard exactly what you said there.
I heard exactly what you said. Thank you." Next morning in
session, you're running some General O/W, see? "I locked my
husband out in ..."

Now, of course, that isn't as comprehensible as some
offbeat - because this society is a bit offbeat on the
subject of the second dynamic, you get some juicy
second-dynamic withhold of some kind or another. Get this
girl, and she's making love to a dog, you know? You get
this, you know? And then you, the auditor, get pulled right
in on this. You say, "Well, of course this is heavily
charged! Of course the PC is having trouble getting this
off. Of course, of course, of course!"

Don't be so damn reasonable. There isn't any reason why the
magnitude of the overt has anything to do with the
readiness of its blowing. The magnitude of the overt has
nothing to do with the speed of its evaporation. I don't
care if you've blown up a husband or a planet. It's an
overt, and it - one doesn't blow any harder than another.

Well, therefore, we have to ask this question: "How come
this doesn't blow?" Don't sit there and say, "Well, because
the society is rigged the way it is and because ... so
forth, and it's on her terminal chain, and it probably is
something that rock slams. It's on the oppterm side. Dogs
are oppterms, and uh - and so forth, and I'll fix that.
Actually she is stuck on the se ... And that's why that
overt won't blow, see?" Figure, figure, figure, figure,
figure, figure, figure, see? That's why you get this
second-dynamic overt ten minutes deep in every session, or
every third session. Or every Prepcheck, it comes up.

Wouldn't you be a little bit curious why this thing keeps
recurring? Well, don't be so reasonable. It is not
recurring because it is badder than other overts, see? It's
not recurring because it weighs heavily on the PC's conscience.

I don't know where people keep their consciences - lunch
boxes or something like that.

Obviously, it's very dangerous to squash a conscience
because things shouldn't be kept on the conscience, and so
forth. It's all a very interesting mechanical problem to
me, this whole problem of consciousness. Because you see,
everything that is on a conscience is unconscious.

It's all confusing. And you can just figure yourself into a
grave with this, if you don't know this mechanism.

One day they had this elderly man, and he came to the house
for dinner. And he had a rather false smile. He had false
teeth, see? And he had - and he had a false smile, and he
looked straight at this girl, and he says, "You like dogs,
don't you?" (audience laughter)

And that's the missed withhold, see? The PC that you're 
auditing didn't do it. And ever since then: "Did he know? 
Did he really know? No, he couldn't have known. Yes, he ..."

Now, you getting hold of the corner of this thing's tail, huh?

All right. Maybe I haven't been as articulate as I could be.

> As long as I've handed out Skelton's cup tonight, I might
> as well use his goal and try to impress you.
> 
> I'm sure Skelton wouldn't mind, he's been trying to get
> rid of it.

Actually, I figured and I figured and I figured and I
thought and I looked at it and so forth. And on this
demonstration the other night, I actually couldn't believe
it when the PC said, "I never thought you had to remember a
specific moment in time to get off a withhold." Even the PC
had missed it, but the thing had evaporated. There was no
more natter in that area.

There were a whole bunch of overts and a whole bunch of
withholds. But this was just pursuant with natter, until
the exact moment when somebody was standing there see, this
is the moment we had to find - and I said, "All right. Let's
look for it. This is the exact moment I want, see?" PC is
just going off answering questions, answering questions,
getting no place, see? I say, "This is the exact moment I
want. Who almost found out you were doing that?" 

"Oh, well..."

And we picked up this exact split instant in time, and it
was just somebody making a casual remark that it indicated
that they might know about these overts. You get the
idea? - they might know. But they didn't. But did they? See,
there's the mystery sandwich.

If you want to see what is sticking a PC to something,
always look for the mystery sandwich.

Mystery is the glue which sticks thetans to things. Mystery
is the glue. Even overts wind up in mystery. You shoot
somebody: Now you don't know whether you shot him or you
didn't shoot him, or if it was a lucky shot, or you should
have shot him, or if he was a bad man, or if, if, if, if,
if, if, if, or if you should have done it. So it's the
if-you-should-have-done-it which causes you to pull back
the withhold and sort of withhold a further action like that.

All things boil down to right conduct.

> I'll be talking about that later, in another lecture.

Here is the crux of this situation. If you go on asking the
PC, who doesn't understand what you're asking for, "Have I
missed a withhold on you?" or "Have we missed a withhold on
you?" and the PC is glibly giving you withholds, you ain't
gettin' no place. You is on the Arkansas Special with its
wheels locked, its brakes on and the rails torn up. You're
not going down any track anyplace.

Now, you can take the edge off of a case. I salute the
fantastic workability of General O/W, you see? See, it
is - it's the woof and warp of the GPM itself. And it's right
on down the line.

That's why it's totally unlimited in the amount of run it
can have. But I don't think you'd like to run out a GPM
with General O/W. You're perfectly welcome to try if you've
got a few centuries.

Numerically, to count up the number of withholds that the
person has, pursuant to the number of overts which they
have committed, gives us some figure that if we were to
write it up on the wall behind me in very tiny figures,
starting at that corner and then just keep on writing
across the whole top of the wall with groups of three
zeros, you see, and then without ending the number, come
just down below it and start right straight across the wall
again, and then come down another quarter of an inch and
start writing zeros there, you'd get some kind of an idea
what this guy has done and withheld.

Well, that many answers is not necessary to clear somebody.
So although the overt is very powerful in its ability to
aberrate the individual - the withhold which follows it is
locked up by the overt itself, of course and although this
mechanism is the mechanism underlying the gathering-up of
energies which results in solid-mass terminals and gives
you the game in the first place (see, the whole anatomy of
a game is O/W), in spite of all that, why, you don't have
time and the PC doesn't have enough body years to run out
all those overts, even if you could keep him in session
that long, even if he could spot them all that long. And
you don't even have time to run them out for one lifetime.
How do you like that? And you haven't got time to sit
around watching a PC's dirty needle go bZz, bZz, bZz, bZz,
bZz, bzz, bzz, and try to settle it with General O/W.
Recurring withholds will result.

General O/W, of course, is enough to straighten out the
thing, and get the session running, and all that sort of
thing - a very valuable process; don't think I'm running it
down. I'm just going to say it's too lengthy for that sort
of thing.

And when I tell you to pick up somebody's missed withholds,
I want you to pick up another person's action and not the
PC's action. And it's best characterized as "nearly found 
out."

Don't ask the PC for a missed withhold, because he
obviously, I have learned lately, he doesn't know any more
of what I've been talking about than you have. See, you'd
have to explain the whole anatomy to him. So there's got to
be a better thing, see? "What did we almost find out about
you?" It's got to be that "almost." It's got to be "might
have." It's got to be some conditional word. And then you
will see a case suddenly go sproing! on you, and pick up
the funniest series of disrelated incidents that case had
never looked at before, never had anything to do with it
before. You'll see the tone arm do peculiar things, and the
needle do peculiar things that you've never seen it do on
O/W, because you're running a different track. You're
running the "almost discovered" track.

Now let me give you an example: Once upon a time I was up
in the wilderness and wilds of Montana, and for some reason
or other, a wolf, gray timber wolf, showed up and I shot a
bullet over his head. I don't know just exactly why I shot
at him because I never have any trouble with animals. I was
very young at the time. And he heard this bullet go by over
his head, and be reached up and he snapped at the place
where the bullet had been. And he decided to come my way.
It upset him to be missed.

Honest, you never quite see anybody quite so upset as
somebody who has been just barely-missed.

Look at a pedestrian who was not hit. The examinations
flunks which you're most upset about were those which you
passed all except for the last half of the last question.
See? That's the nearness of the miss. In other words,
missing things upsets things. It's a misestimation of
effort or thought or something of the sort.

Now, a thetan's main attention is on estimation of effort,
estimation of thought, estimation of look. He wants to know
how much look is a look and so forth, and his certainties
are all based on proper estimation of how much look is a
look and all that sort of thing. See, just look at your
Know to Mystery Scale, you see? How much knowledge is
knowingness, see? That's an estimation. University is very
simple. University hands you an old school tie, and you now
know that you have the knowledge necessary, see? You can
wave a pennant with your right hand so many motions to the
left under the sisboom-bah, and you're all set in life.
That's how much knowledge, you see, is necessary to be
knowledge. So that's an estimation of knowledge.

Now, you can go right on down the scale and how much
emotion does it take to be emotional? How much emotion is
emotional? Well, you get lots of answers to that: enough to
create an effect on somebody. If you're a TV actress, it's
very simple: enough to please the sponsor.

You can go on down and take another one at random. What is
a proper symbol? How proper is a symbol when it is a
symbol, see?

Well, you can estimate everything, except how much mystery
is a mystery?" And of course that's a mystery. You're into
the no-estimation-of-effort band. No estimation of the
think, no estimation of anything; it's all mysterious. You
don't know. The not-knowingness of it all is what is upsetting.

But now you take a not-knowingness which is probably known,
and play it both ways. Now, they knew, but they didn't or
couldn't have known, and you knew that they knew, but you
know they didn't know.

Now, let's just get the four-way flows on a not-know, and
you've got a missed withhold. And it's very painful to a
thetan. So I really don't blame you for avoiding it like a
plague.

See, the fellow walks up to the girl and he smiles and he
looks at her in a sort of a false smile, and he says,
"Well, little girl, I understand you like dogs."

Well, right away, her concept of him is "Did he know?
Didn't he know? He couldn't have known," she thinks to
herself. "He must know." But then complicated into this is
the fact that he looks like he knows, but he hasn't said 
enough to indicate that he did know, so he doesn't know. 
It's strictly ding-dingding, here comes the wagon, you know?
Strictly. This is the stuff out of which insanity gets
made, see?

It's a can't-reach, not-reach, must-reach situation, and so
forth, in the effort band. When you get insanity in the
mystery band, it's a did-know-but-didn't-know-but-mustn't-know, 
you see? But he must know, but he mustn't know, you see, and 
it's the sort of reach and withdraw, only it's not a mechanical 
thing. And there it is and it's just pure mystery mucilage. And 
a thetan will stick right to it, man.

Now, in trying to pull off the overt and the withhold in
the presence of something that has a missed withhold on it
does not accomplish an as-isness of the section of track in
which the PC is stuck. Because the PC is not stuck with the
overt and is not stuck with the withhold; the PC is stuck
with the "almost found out." So, of course, nothing as-ises
and you get a recurring withhold, see, became he isn't
looking at that section of track where he did it or where
he's withholding it. He's only looking at that section of
track where it was almost found out.

And you ask him for what he did and what he withheld, you
don't as-is the section of track he's stuck in. So
therefore, it just perpetuates itself and goes on forever.

And if you want to see something very remarkable in a PC,
just very remarkable in a PC, just sit down in apropos of
nothing, after you've got the PC in session and so forth,
just start running, in any command sequence, "Well, just 
get the idea of nearly being found out." See, it has to 
be nearly being found out, see? "Get the idea of somebody
nearly finding out about you." "Get the idea of you nearly
finding out about another" - that's an unnecessary leg to the
thing, but you could make it up - and the next thing, more
track would be going by that this person had never heard of
before. Didn't matter what else you'd run. That's got a
brand-new track area. They've never seen this track before,
and it's been with them all the time. It's what's stuck out
in front of their noses. Directly in front of their noses.

I could ask you at this exact instant to "recall a time you
were nearly found out." Now go ahead, think of a time you
were nearly found out.

Having any trouble finding this time you were nearly found 
out?

Well, I shouldn't think so, because that's the bulk of the
stuff in front of your schnozzola.

Most people can't even find an engram, merely because there
are so many missed withholds in front of their faces. They
can't get any clear view of anything, because they got
missed withholds in front of their faces.

"Did they really know or didn't they? Was I actually
discovered at that time or wasn't I?" See, that is the
question.

"Who has nearly known about you?" Think that over for a
while, you'll come up with people you have been leery of or
felt nervous around.

And when I tell you to pick up somebody's missed withholds
on Scientology, I don't want you to pick up the overts that
they have been withholding. See? I couldn't care less about
these overts, don't you see, that they have been withholding. 
That they have been withholding them, oh, all right, so they 
have been withholding them. You can get TA action by finding 
all the things the fellow has been withholding. That's good. 
That's fine. But this is a junior action.

That would be asking you to run General O/W on a PC. That'd
have nothing to do with missed withholds.

Now, when I ask you to find out something about missed
withholds, get this PC's missed withholds. Don't you dare
come up with any withholds. Just don't you dare. I want the
name, rank and serial number of the person who missed it.
Ah, I couldn't care less what was missed.

You understand? I don't want the PC's actions, I want the
PC's guesses about the other guy, see? That's what I'm asking 
you to find out.

Now, this is very arduous to run, because sometimes you
actually have to bear down on it if your command has not
been sufficiently explicit. You have too direct the PC's
attention rather heavily. Let's sat you've run a lot of O/W
and so forth. Well now, you think you've got this all
licked, you see? This person has been taking things from
their company, you see? And you've run this; and they're
taking things from their company and - stealing them,
actually - and you think you got it all licked. You've got
the number of fountain pens and the number of
stenographers, and all these things they've stolen from
their company, you see? And you think you've got a
tabulated list now and you say, "Well, that cured it" and
so forth, and nest week, why, they take a typewriter.

There's something missing here, something - something went
wrong. You got all of the overts, and you got the fact they
were withholding it. They're not now withholding because
they told you see, there's the rationale. And so therefore
it's now all hunky-dory. And so they go back and steal a
typewriter, and the week after steal the boss's secretary,
see? They're still nervous about the company. The person is
not in a forgive-or-forget mood about the company. See,
just because they've gotten off these overts, why, you have
a feeling, and your feeling is quite right by the way - 
you're not totally stupid - your feeling is quite right when
you suppose that when they've gotten this straightened out
in their mind they'll feel all right about the company. And
they very often don't. They feel propitiative, or they feel
sort of guilty, or they feel some other weird misemotional
way about the target of these overts and withholds, and you
don't feel this is right.

And so you keep plunging and asking for something else they
did. And if there's anything guaranteed to drive the PC
round the bend, it's after he has told you everything be
has did, you insist there must be something else the PC has
did-did. You're in essence cleaning a clean, see? Now
actually, because you sense that this PC is still a little
bit "nyah" about the company, why, then you assume there
must have been some other overt. Well, he can always dig up
another one or two, or something like this, and the basic
on the chain, and ... And the trouble is you so often
have a near win on this that you really never get your win.
You sort of quit eating just before dessert.

And there was a lot of people that were with us in '50,
'51, that sort of thing, are starting to write me now and
they're starting to get in contact again and that sort of
thing.

I just sort of laugh rather raucously, by the way. The last
one that did, I said he quit before dessert, you know? I
realized after I had mailed the letter that I had missed a
wonderful sort of an epigrammatic sort of thing that he
deserted before the dessert, you know, but it ...

> sounded too much like Jim Pinkam.

Well, that's what you're denying yourself. You're denying
yourself a forkful of strawberries and cream, see? You quit
with the gravy and mashed potatoes, you know? There's still
more of course.

So, he stole a typewriter, and he stole an eraser, and be
did this, and be withheld it from this person, he withheld
it from that person, and he stole the boss's secretary,
and - yes, all fine. Yea. And he's withheld it all these 
years, and now you know about it, and that's fine.

And he's sort of still kind of blowy and sort of nattery
about the company a little bit. A week or so later, you see
him; he really doesn't feel good about the company, and so
forth. Well, you just quit before the desert was served,
that's all.

You've got to find out who nearly discovered this, when and
how often? And he'll give you exact split instants Now.
Now. Now. Now. All of a sudden he goes "Uu-huugh-coooo. I
should say so. Ohhhh."

See, the idea is you've gotten off all the overts, you've
gotten off all the withholds and he still doesn't like the
Materiel Executive. Got the idea? He still feels a little
peculiar in some parts of the organization.

You see, you really didn't clean it up. Became the
key-in - the bullet that passed almost into his ear, but not
quite, you know, just fanned air - was one day the Materiel
Executive stepped out of the back door putting an inventory
sheet in his pocket and looked at him rather frowningly and
went on by into his office.

Like somebody who has been in a hotel that had thin rooms
and floors, you know, and the guy upstairs drops one shoe,
you see? Five o'clock in the morning, he's still waiting
there for the other shoe, you see?

Next action, you see, never proceeds from this point. We
have started a piece of time track here which doesn't go
anyplace. Next action is, he's - you see, he's doing all this
quite reactively, and it's down underneath the surface of
analysis, you know? I mean, at the surface of his
analytical processes. And he saw the fellow do this, and 
he knew it made him nervous, and he goes back in, and he
doesn't want to have the phone ring. Because he knows
what's now going to happen, you see?

If the fellow did know, this is what's going to happen: You
see, the phone is going to ring, and he's going to be sent
for by one of the directors of the company. And then one of
two things will happen: They will either hand him the pink
slip, or there will be a policeman standing there, see? And
then there's two choices that come out of that. And if it's
the policeman, that's got one choice, you see? And you get
a big dramatic sequence about the trial, you see, and he
has to have all of the bad things the company did to him,
and how it's actually one of the junior directors trying to
cover up. See, he's got to have ad the whole story
manufactured for this, but is there any reason to
manufacture the story? Did the Materiel Executive really
know? See? Here we've got the track that goes nowhere,
don't you see? And it could develop into track, but is it
going to develop into. track or isn't it going to develop
into track? Here's where this thing... Just as far as time 
is concerned, it becomes a mystery sandwich, and there's no 
time in it because those events don't take place.

So therefore, there is no time track for it, so the thing
hangs it. it's not spotted in time. It doesn't fire off
right, don't you see? There's nothing goes right about it
at all because this isn't any estimation of it. You can't
figure out what you would do, because it didn't happen. You
can't figure out what you would have said, because nobody
said it. You can't figure out what explanation was the
right explanation, because you never had to explain it. You
see? But you should have explained it, but you didn't.

So there's just nothing known, and you just get this
terrific area of just total - it's not even hardly a
positive-negative. It's just blaah. And that's a missed
withhold.

And the missed withhold depends on the other guy - the
accidental action of another person.

Sometimes it'll be a piece of paper. or something like
that. He's sitting there. He's sitting there in conference,
and he suddenly notices that just showing in the boss's
in-basket is a memorandum with his own name just showing
above the covering pieces of paper. That conference is
ruined for him. You see, he never has another thing to say
during the whole conference. He sort of sits there and
sweats, you know? But he really doesn't quite realize what
he's sweating about. You see, there's his name on a
memorandum. He doesn't know what the memorandum is about,
except that it concerns him in some way, and he can't see
what the subject of it is. You see?

Now actually, three people are standing together in the
hall, you come by and they shut up.

There's a very good missed-withhold situation. If that was
preceded by an overt which the person wasn't telling
anybody about, if that was the morning after the
high-school girl's first raw escapade see, the truth of the 
matter is that they probably had their mouths full of candy 
and couldn't talk at that moment.

But then one never really knows what the truth is, you see?
No, there's no truth contained in any of it. It's just one
huge glob of mystery. And that is a missed withhold.

It's a should-have-known, as it has been described, but you
will pick it up and be able to relay it much more ably if
you call it a nearly-found-out. It's a nearly-known, see?
Nearly found out.

Now, if you wished to clear up somebody's missed withholds
on Scientology and you said, "What have we failed to find
out about you?" he would give you a whole string of withholds.

And this would then go no place, see?

No. You want another word, and this will clarify it to you
and this will clarify it to the PC and everybody will be
happy as clambakes. "Now, what have we nearly found out
about you and when did we nearly find it out?" comes much
closer in to what you want, see? See, you want to know
what. Well, he's not likely to give you the rest of it
until he has identified, to some degree, what. See, "Well,
my escapades with young boys," see, or something like this,
see, or wild women or something, see? "That's what you
failed to find out about me," you see? That's what he kind
of answers.

"What did we nearly find out about you?"

"My escapades with wild women," see?

Oddly enough, that doesn't clarify the situation at all.
That doesn't make him like you any better, or anybody else.
That doesn't keep him from getting ARC breaks. You've got
to follow it up with a second question. Now you've got the
missed withhold, see? You've merely identified what the
missed withhold was about. You haven't got the missed
withhold. Takes some additional step. All right.

"When did we nearly find out about it?" Now you could
follow that through a little bit further if it wasn't
blowing well with "who?" you see? "Who nearly found out
about it?" "When was that?" You get the concatenation of
questions, the series of questions, that would deliver all
of this data into your hands.

You're looking for moments in the HGC's - D of Ts office.
You're looking for the instant when the PE instructor all
of a sudden paused. Fellow realized that he'd better cut
this short because actually, he's going to miss his ride
home, see? This thought suddenly strikes the PE instructor,
you see? He's liable to miss his ride home, you know? So
he'd better cut this short.

So he's looking over the class and he fixes his beady eye on
one person. Seems to lose track of what he was saying,
don't you see?

Said, "Well, all right. Now you understand ARC and we're
going to have to conclude the talk this evening. Uh ....and
so, good night," and hurriedly walks out the door.

Now, the person his eye accidentally lit on in those pauses
goes "Eeenk," see? Nearly found out. "Did he know? Didn't
he know?" See? "Wa - wa - wa - was he on the ri - ri - ri - 
ub ... uohbhb. What did he guess at that moment? What did he
recognize about me at that moment? Which one of my various 
crimes?"

You see, here's something else; see? Now he doesn't even
know which one of his crimes have been identified. Maybe
the instructor has been talking about the fact that people
with big heads have more brains than people with little
heads or something, you know? And this person gets some
kind of a rationale about this thing.

He couldn't make up his mind whether he had lots of brains
or little brains, because he's always realized that he had 
a medium-sized head. See? Now, that's already got a little 
mystery connected with it, which is just nothing.

Then all of a sudden the instructor seems to completely
look down, seems to completely change pace and then
abruptly leaves. And you know there'll be some people leave
that PE class very, very nervous, because they realize when
they go out the front door that the police are going to be
waiting for them?

What did we nearly find out? Well, it isn't good enough to
find out just what was nearly found out. We've got to find
when it was nearly found out or might have been found out
but doesn't know if it was found out, don't you see? When
and by whom? We got to spot these point. And all of a
sudden, why, this person, tah! everything is marvelous.
Everything goes off beautifully, smoothly and there it is.

Now, you can give me a gold star tonight, at least, for 
trying.

Thank you.


============== TAPE END
