David Mayo - AAV SERIES 2 VALENCES JANUARY 1984

[Timecops]

AAV SERIES 2

VALENCES

JANUARY 1984


The next thing that we need to cover is the subject of valences. Last time we went over the fact that a lot of these BTs and clusters are not up to running incidents I or II or they don't have any incident I or II to run and that there were other things wrong with them. One of the most common things that's wrong with this type of BT is that they are OUT OF VALENCE and don't respond to normal auditing techniques.

It's already been covered in a lot of tech materials that the pc who is out of valence doesn't respond to auditing procedures which don't shift his valence and get him back into valence and that processing directed at the pc who is out of valence is really directed at the valence rather than at the pc. So, it's necessary to shift an out of valence pc back into valence in order to audit him or in order to do him any good. And the majority of these AAV type BTs or clusters are out of valence and have been for a very long time. So, that's the most common thing that needs to be handled on AAV: their out of valence-ness.

Now, a BT or cluster can be in the valence of anything, absolutely anything. He can be in the valence of a person, a group, a name, a body part, in the valence of any material object of any kind, he can be in the valence of anything to do with matter or energy or space or time. In other words a BT can be being anything. Or, they can be in the valence of nothing. And a lot of them are, because they considered at some point that they didn't exist and they were nothing. So, they can be in the valence of anything or in the valence of some kind of a nothing or they can be in the valence of a significance. A BT could be being, for example, happiness or sadness or they could be in the valence of a word or a phrase or a cliche or anything.

Actual examples of valences BTs were found to be in were things like "a man of steel," or "a man of his word." Another example is a BT who was in the valence of "nobody" and the thought he was nobody. A BT was in the valence of "a busybody." And you also get a dramatization by the BT of the valence that he's in and all the homonymic dramatizations that are possible upon that, plus any kind of alter-is of that dramatization due to the BT not understanding the word or phrase that he's dramatizing, and, but especially literal interpretations. BTs tend to be very literal in their interpretations.


So, a BT that's in the valence of "a man of steel" would not necessarily be a strong character. He would be being something like steel. He would think he was a steel man. BTs can be in the valence of body parts or organs such as skin or a foot or a leg or a hand or a heart. One BT was being a broken heart. Another one was being a weak stomach. A BT can be a condition, like a stomach ache or a sore gut or anything. The whole point on the subject of valences is that one has to realize that a BT can be in the valence of anything in the broadest possible sense and that includes not only things but significances and nothingnesses and so on.

Now, when it was discovered that what was wrong with the majority of these BTs is that they were out of valence, this actually was quite a breakthrough that opened the door to handling them. The handling for BTs out of valence is simply to have the PreOT first of all locate a BT by whatever means and to fix his attention on that BT, including right down to naming the area of the body where it is, so you have the PreOT not only get in comm with or get in touch with the BT but also just to pinpoint down were it is, to sort of focus his attention on it and then the next action is to ask that BT a listing question, which is, "What are you?" and very often the first answer is the item. In fact, when you first start running this particular technique on AAV, it's almost always the first item on the list, the first answer to the "What are you?" question.

The question reads and when the PreOT states the answer it will read and it will usually give a small FN. Sometimes it's necessary for the PreOT to acknowledge the BT's answer in order to get an FN.

So, the steps are to ask to have the PreOT locate it, pinpoint where it is, put his attention on it and then ask it, "What are you?" The BT answers, the PreOT tells the auditor the answer or answers and then the auditor has the PreOT acknowledge the BT's answer or item. This item will read. It won't necessarily BD and very often doesn't BD. Usually it gives a fall and if there's no FN, the acknowledgement will usually produce an FN.

Now, at this point, the BT shifts back into valence or comes out of the valence that he was stuck in. Very often the BT will blow at this point. For example, say you ask "What are you?" and he says, "leather boots" (the statement of the valence that he's in), then the BT very often realizes, "But I'M NOT LEATHER BOOTS," or some version of that. It's a type of cog. He says what he is being and at the same time or right after, realizes he's not that after all and very often he will blow at that point . If the BT doesn't blow at that point, the next question is "Who are you?"

The theory of this is that you've now shifted the BT out of the valence he was stuck in by finding it and now you ask him "Who are you?" and the BT, in answering the question, cognites "I'm me!" When he cognites, "me" meaning "me" for the BT, he goes Clear and blows. That's another discovery on AAV, that you're actually clearing BTs, they go clear and they blow. And this particular procedure of asking "What are you?" and "Who are you?" in AAV is called the valence technique.

Sometimes you ask the BT, "Who are you?" and he comes up with some answer other than "me" or "myself" - he might says he's a great warrior or John Jones or something like that and what he's doing is simply answering you with a valence or entity off his track. One acknowledges it and then asks him "Who are you?" Sometimes they come up with "me" or "myself" very quickly and sometimes they'll give other answers, which you acknowledge and you ask the question and they answer and you acknowledge and you ask the question and acknowledge and at some point they'll either blow or they'll come up with the answer "me" and blow. It's not so much an answer as it is a cognition. The BT cognites. He either cognites that he's not what he was being or he cognites he is himself. Either of those cognitions will produce a blow. Sometimes the BT will go as far as cogniting that he is himself but may need to have that acknowledged by the PreOT in order to get an FN and a blow. On rare occasions, it's possible for the BT to be asked "Who are you?" andanswer "Me" without blowing. The PreOT acknowledges the answer and the BT might still not blow because he hasn't quite fully cognited on it. And the handling for that is for the PreOT to ack him encouragingly when he says "Me," and then to say something like "Your answer was fine, but I want to repeat the question again and when I do you can give the same answer again." Ask "Who are you and the BT says, "I am me," and then comes to realize, "Oh! I really am me," and will either blow then or blow when the PreOT acknowledges it. And that's the extent of the valence technique and it's the most commonly used technique in AAV. It's not necessarily engaged in at the beginning of the rundown. In the actual development of this level, the valence technique was developed after all the past auditing repair steps were done. The way that AAV is currently being run at Flag and in the AOs is the auditors tend to jump in and run the valence technique right from the start on anything and everything that they lay their hands on. That's actually a departure from the research and development of AAV and in my experience, it's not as successful. It's better to handle the repair of past auditing purely as what it is. By then you've handled all the BPC on the cases and now you're starting in on new BTs and clusters that haven't been audited before or messed up and you handle them with the valence technique.


Q: Does it sometimes happen that a BT who has been contacted on the repair of past auditing but who doesn't blow causes trouble?

No, I've never seen that happen. The only time I've seen any trouble occur is when you haven't cleaned up the by-passed charge on a BT. You may have only found some of his BPC, but not the rest of it, such as having repaired a list error on a BT or an engram running error on the BT but he also had out ruds in the session or some other charge on the L4 or the L3 or whatever.

Now there's a danger in the valence technique or in all of AAV there's a danger and that is that the PreOT has to limit his attention to one BT at a time and run one at a time. If, for example, he had his attention spread over two or more BTs at the same time and they all got the question "What are you?" you could get a multiplicity of answers, each of which is right for one individual but not right for the others. So, it's essential that the PreOT be able to limit his attention to one BT and run one at a time. And I think that one of the things that's going on in the sort of squirrel version of AAV in the field is that they're running them sort of wholesale and en masse, willy nill. They're just telling pcs, because one of the things they've found out from debriefing PreOTs is that you ask them "What are you?" and "Who are you?" and all that. What it can do is it can stir up a whole lot of them at once and not handle--or maybe handle one and not the rest or whatever.

So, it's a liability. The PreOT has to be able to limit his attention to one at a time and audit it to a blow before taking up another one. If the PreOT is weak on this, the most easy and simple handling is for the auditor to give him an R-factor to limit his attention to one BT and repeat this from time to time, as necessary just to ensure that the PreOT is limiting his attention to one at a time. Most people can do that if they know that's what they're supposed to do. If the PreOT is weak on it, there's a remedy which is to do the TR8Q drill from the assessment drills bulletin. It's actually a modification of the TR8Q drill from that bulletin. It's simply a matter of drilling the PreOT to put his attention on one spot at a time. The drill basically is a matter of a coach placing his finger somewhere near the PreOT's body and asking him to put his attention on his finger, andacknowledging it and moving the finger and having the guy put his attention on the finger. It's simply an attention drill. After drilling the guy on locating his attention in one spot for a while, his ability to do it improves and this boosts his ability to run AAV.

That's not routinely done in audited AAV, but is a possible remedy.

Clusters can also be handled with the valence technique very often. In other words, often a cluster is stuck in a valence and will respond to the "What are you?" question. Sometimes it's necessary for the PreOT to concentrate his attention down to one part of the cluster and ask it the "What?" and "Who?" questions of the valence technique to blow it and sometimes he has to blow the cluster bit by bit. Sometimes the cluster will be stuck in one valence which is common to them all, come out of that and then when he starts to ask "Who are you?" it starts breaking up and he has to ask the individuals "Who are you?"

With a cluster you sometimes get what's called a partial blow, which is part of it will blow, some will partly blow and some will not. It's just a matter of picking up the individuals and handling them one at a time with the "Who are you?" question. Sometimes a cluster will blow part way out from the body on the "What are you?" question and the PreOT has to reach out from his body to where the cluster now is and ask it, "Who are you?" in order to get a further blow. Another phenomenon that can occur with a cluster is that on the "What are you?" question or on the "Who are you?" question, the cluster will start moving out from the body and then will just sort of suddenly blow explosively and the whole thing will just sort of explode apart and break up and the individuals will start flying off in all directions and the thing just sort of blows up and it's kind of described as an explosive blow. That'll usually be accompanied by a big BD on the TA or a series of BDs of the TA and shouldn't be interrupted.

A similar phenomena is what's called an automatic blow. There are times on AAV when you get an automatic blow. It's a cyclic phenomenon that occurs as you're doing audited AAV and you start running something, it's often slow or sticky on a one-at-a-time basis and you handle one and you get a blow and it may go on like that for a session or for several sessions. Then it'll suddenly start going easier and faster and easier and faster and this will often culminate in what's called an automatic blow when you just suddenly start getting BTs and clusters blowing off all over the place. You get this kind of automatic blow phenomena and it can go on for a very brief period of time or it can go on for a long period of time. The reason it's important is because once an automatic blow starts, the auditor should do nothing. He should just sit there and let it occur. On the meter, it's very obvious when it's occurring because the needle will start surging. You may get a series of falls or long falls, but the needle will start surging downward across the dial, time after time and the TA, if it's high, will usually start pumping down. It will BD and BD. Sometimes the TA goes into a sort of pumping action. It will BD down and move up and BD down and move up and BD. You'll see the TA doing a sort of pumping action. So you have the meter firing off and the TA moving and the PreOT talking about things blowing and so on. All the auditor should do, if anything, is to encouragingly half ack, very lightly and just let it go on. You don't do anything because you don't want to interrupt an automatic blow. When you get an automatic blow, you wait until it's ended and when it's ended, you simply end off the session. You DON'T DO ANOTHER SINGLE THING. And you usually end either on a dial wide FN or a floating TA after such anoccurrence.

Now, it's also true that after an automatic blow very often in the next session or sessions, you'll start out again having to handle individual BTs and clusters and it may proceed pretty slowly to start with and then the momentum will build up and you'll get another series of blows or an automatic blow.

Q: What causes that?

Basically it's because BTs and clusters tend to come in layers like an onion, is one reason and having taken a certain amount off, then the rest of that layer starts disintegrating and blowing. Another factor that influences it is that the mass of the banks of the BTs and clusters tends to hold BTs and clusters together and as you reduce that mass, then there's less to hold them because they have their banks in common and mass tends to stick to mass. Another thing that can influence it is that there is a certain type or category of BT or cluster, which, by its nature tends to actually hold on to others. Sometimes they even prevent others from blowing. An example of that could be a BT or cluster in the valence of a magnet and when you blow the BT or cluster being the magnet, then the others tend to fly off because there's nothing holding them. Another example would be a BT or cluster being a vacuum and other BTs and clusters being sucked into the vacuum, or for example, you might have a BT or cluster being sticky paper and others sticking to it and so on. And then there's a whole category of things on the whole track, usually connected up with implant stations, such as pole traps and other gadgets that were used to trap thetans or to make thetans stick them, such as electronic ribbons, pole traps and so on. If a BT or cluster is being a pole trap or is mocking up a pole trap, very often other BTs and clusters who have some incident regarding having stuck to a pole trap at some time will see this picture of a pole trap and will automatically go and stick themselves to it. Those aren't by any means the full extent of the categories of BTs and clusters that tend to hold onto others. There are many types of things a BT or cluster could be being that by its nature tends to hold on to others. If you blow the BT or cluster that's holding the others stuck together, then the others tend to fly off.


Also, as a tip for the auditor: If he's having undue difficulty blowing BTs and clusters, he can suspect that there might be a BT or cluster that's holding the others or sticking them or preventing them from blowing. You can ask the PreOT if there is such a BT or cluster and if there is, audit that one and blow it. Either you'll get an automatic blow or the others will now run much more easily.

Now that covers the automatic blow phenomenon, and we've largely covered the valence technique. There are a few other little oddities that go along with it. One of these is when the BT says, "I'm me," sometimes he's operating on an MU on the word "me." He says, "I'm me," meaning the PreOT and he doesn't really mean himself. Sometimes you might have to get him to repeat the answer to the question again.

That brings up the subject of a misidentification. The word misidentification is pretty common in AAV. The concept of it is going back to the theory of the valence technique, when a person is outof valence, he's misidentifying himself with an identity other than himself. If the person thinks he's a cook, then that's actually a lie. He's not a cook. He's a being, basically. He can be a cook and if he's doing it knowingly, that's fine. That's usually considered to be his beingness. When he's doing it unknowingly, it's a valence and is aberrative. That's a misidentification of himself with a valence. A BT or cluster--or any thetan for that matter, can misidentify himself with anything under the sun. That's a mistake and needs to be cleared up. Clearing it up usually brings a big resurgence in any person or being or thetan. Likewise we covered the fact that earlier in the AAV theory the point that a person who's Clear, when audited on engrams, tends to misown the charge or the engrams as his own. That's a type of misownership of charge or picture or incident. Now we're talking about misidentification which is identifying oneself with something which one is not and that's another basic error a thetan can make and it will hang him up. It's what's hanging him up, undoing it sets him free.

These two things of misownership and misidentification are actually two aspects of a more general term, which is called MISCONCEPTION or misconceptions.

There are several basic misconceptions a thetan can make. These are primarily a misconception of matter, energy, space, time, form, event, location or identity. All misconceptions could be classed under one of those with a possibility that you could add a misconception of thought or significance as well. Examples of misconceptions that we've already covered are the misconception of misowning an incident as one's own, when it actually belongs to a different being. Another example: the BT or thetan thinks "I am Mamie Glutz" and he is not Mamie Glutz and never was Mamie Glutz. Mamie Glutz is the identity or valence of some other person and that will hang him up. Hence, the importance and workability of the valence technique, because it separates out false identities or false valences and returns the person to his own identity.

This goes so far that a BT, being very, very suggestible, can form a tremendous number of misconceptions. An example is that a thetan or BT could run into another thetan who received an implant and on simply perceiving that this other person had received this implant, could assume that he'd received that implant and would try to run it as his own if he's audited on it or if he's asked for one in auditing. This also explains why the running of uncharged items in auditing causes so much BPC because it actually makes thetans or BTs form misconceptions about their own past. The auditor will often encounter this when he's trying to handle a BT on AAV. He may also run into it on the valence technique or anywhere else and when something isn't running or it's getting more solid or he runs into difficulty, the first thing that one should suspect is that he's running into a misconception. that he's trying to handle isn't what it appears to be.

There are other things that hang up BTs also. There are overts, there are motivators, there are engrams, etc., all the things that are common to a bank can hang up a BT and be the things that are wrong with a BT. In other words, anything that can be wrong with a preclear's case can be wrong with a BT, because, after all, a BT is a pc with a case. When it doesn't resolve, you have to assume that it isn't what it says it is or looks like it is.

If a BT is running a motivator and it doesn't resolve, you'd immediately suspect either a) that he didn't have that motivator and it could be somebody else's motivator or a totally dreamed upmotivator and that what he really should be running is an overt, or, conversely, you could be trying to run an overt and it doesn't resolve and gets more solid and that's not what's wrong with the guy. It's a misconception and you should actually be running the motivator. That can have any number of variations. Anything that a person could think up could be what you run into, because after all, you are dealing with anything they could think up in the past.

So, those are the misconceptions. The sub;ject of misconceptions is actually the very basic principle of AAV; it's even more fundamental than the valence technique.

The most fundamental thing that you're doing in AAV actually is you're straightening out misconceptions.They're usually misconceptions of time, place, form and event; more broadly, matter, energy, space and time and identity.

That's useful to know as theory because then no matter what the auditor runs into, he can straighten it out if he knows he's trying to straighten out misconceptions. Also BTs have false data, which is simply another misconception and they can have anything else wrong with them for that matter. But I mention false data because the discovery of false data and the handling of false data actually originated in AAV. It was something like trying to handle a BT and the BT thought that blah blah blah and it had this as a sort of fixed idea and it was necessary to find out,"Well, when did you get this idea?" or "When did you start believing that?" or "Where did you get that idea from?" at which point the BT would kind of get some sort of recollection of how he came by that idea and would shift off of being so stuck on the idea that it would then be possible for auditing to occur or to continue.

They might blow on cleaning up their false data but usually cleaning up their false data makes it possible to do something else with them. I could make up an example of how that would be for illustration. The BT had a false datum, "I can't talk," or "communication isn't possible" or "questions can't be answered." Any of these might block the PreOT from asking the BT "What are you?" and getting an answer to the question. Just shifting that false data enough without even necessarily blowing it or doing much about it would make it possible to audit that BT and get him able to answer the question and then to proceed on and blow him. That's another point, with regard to AAV: while a BT can have anything at all wrong with him (all of the things that cases can have wrong with them); the auditor's job is only to shift or unburden what's wrong with that BT's case enough that he can get to do a technique on the BT which will blow it because it's the blowing, the clearing and blowing of the BT that's the real target, not trying to run up hours on the BT. So, that needs to be watched out for.

As a caution on that, auditors shouldn't get so fixated on relying on the simple valence technique of "What are you?" "Who are you?" that they just do that exclusively. If a BT does run into trouble on it, then of course they have to resort to other auditing tools. All the usual things can apply, out ruds or anything else. Most generally speaking, the things that can be wrong with a BT or any other case are all the things that are listed on a 53. One doesn't normally jump to a 53 at the slightest hint of trouble, but if all else fails, you can have the PreOT put his attention on that BT and you can assess a 53 on it, find out what's wrong with it and handle it and then back to your technique and blow it. That's a "when all else fails."


There again, if you're doing a 53 on AAV or any other prepared list on AAV, it is very essential that the PreOT concentrate on having his attention on one BT or cluster, because as is obvious, a 53, having many things on it, could apply to many, many BTs and you don't want to go into stirring too many up at once.

The next subject heading is what's called over-restimulation and cross-restimulation. Over-restimulation is the condition or situation of having stirred up too many BTs. That's all it is. It's too many BTs in restimulation at the same time. When over-restimulation has occurred, it can become impossible to audit. In other words, there are too many in restimulation, there's too much charge in restim, the PreOT's ability to handle and blow things goes down and simply with the numerical factor of too many different things in restim, it's impossible to handle anybody. For that reason, sessions on AAV are generally fairly short and are never carried past a win or a good win and certainly never carried past a big win.

Another thing that will bring over-restimulation about is rough auditing on AAV. If the auditor is out of ARC or choppy or breaks the code, that can bring about over-restimulation very quickly.

About the only handling for over-restimulation, really, is to end the session and let some destimulation occur. It's better not to get into over-restimulation in the first place. A type of remedy that one, can do--and should try if he gets into over-restimulation is to indicate over-restimulation has occurred, and that'll tend to start cooling if off right away. Sometimes it will handle it and keys them out. Often it will just start them keying out. The other thing that you can do is say, "Come up to present time," and that will often bring a bunch of restimulated BTs out of what they're in and up to PT. That will kind of brighten them up a bit. And you should at least, if you've got over-restimulation going, indicate it and that will cool it off and then you can do the "Come up to present time" handling before ending the session.

What will handle it is ending the session and letting them destimulate before trying to audit again. That will usually occur within a matter of hours or a day and maybe as long as three to ten days for it to key out, but I haven't seen it go to actually more than a day.

Q: How common is that?

Well, it depends on the roughness of the auditing. It can happen to any auditor sometimes because often the BTs and clusters are so entangled and so enmeshed that when you start in a handling, no matter how good you are or how well you do it, it just stirs everything that's tangled into that mess together.

You should try to handle but if the TA starts going up and isn't coming down and the needle is packing up and the PreOT is starting to LOOK less sessionable, his indicators are going more out, things aren't blowing or it's getting grindy, you know it's happening and you should never force ona session or try valiantly to pull it off. You should realize that, hey, it's gone into too much restimulation and we'd better get out of this before if gets worse. The only thing you do is to try to cool it off. Sometimes simply two-way comming with the PreOT about what's happened in the session or what's gone wrong in the session or what's occurred, is enough to start keying it out and brightening him up right there and you can end the session off on a much better note. So, that's over-restimulation

I mentioned the word cross-restimulation and that's very much connected with the meaning of over-restimulation and it explains what happens. Cross-restimulation is when a BT goes into restim and another BT copies what that BT is mocking up or is in restim on. Another BT noticing this going on, jumps in, starts copying the first BT and the second BT and another one start copying that. It's called cross-restimulation because the restimulation starts going across, from on BT to another.

Sometimes it's called cross-copying, but it's generally referred to as cross- restimulation. That explains why over-restimulation is rough. You get too many in restim and they all start copying each other's restimulation and their own restimulation and it becomes an accelerating restim, plus, they get so confused that everything that each of them had in restimulation is in restimulation at once. That could be a whole series of pictures, fifteen or fifty thousand different engrams, any number of ARC breaks and ser facs and overts and everything else that is in the bank. These things are all going on at the same time and they're all copying it and they actually become so confused about which is whose or what's theirs that it's impossible to audit any of them. That goes back to the basic misconception (confusion of identity).

So, anyway, we were on what happens in over-restimulation and cross-restimulation and the point that there are obviously a lot of misconceptions flying around about what belongs to who and it's impossible to audit under those circumstances. Now, many of these errors that I've mentioned are the subject matter of the AAV Repair List and when all else fails, the auditor can do this list and it has things on it like "Over-restimulation," "Cross-restimulation," "Copying." Another example of what it has on it is "What was correct for one was incorrect for the rest" and it would be obvious when you look at it that BTs and clusters can easily get wrong items by copying other BTs and clusters' items. If you ask one BT "What are you?" and he says that he is a sword, another BT, if the PreOT has his attention spread too far, might get the item "a sword" and start going into some sort of protest of, "I'm not a sword," or he may go into the idea of "Oh, that's what I am, a sword." But it doesn't blow anything for him because actually he's in the valence of a rat or a cow or a broken pipe or whatever he happens to be being. So, wrong items, of course, is another source of BPC. Sometimes it registers as "What was correct for one was not correct for another."

If you got into trouble, you would assess this prepared list and then find out whose charge is was. And generally you don't have to do much with it, unless you've got a very heavy restim going on. What you would do in that case is asses the list and get "Cross-copying" and the PreOT says, "Oh, yeah," and then all of a sudden it starts clicking, like "oh, yeah, no wonder. That's why there are a whole bunch of pictures flying up. Oh, yeah. We were doing one in my elbow and my knee started acting up - oh..." and it just starts untangling. The auditor should, throughout the whole of AAV, and especially when handling prepared lists, the auditor should only do what's necessary forhim to do to start something unraveling and keep it unraveling. The auditor doesn't need to be that active. He can easily be over-active or over-talkative in the session. It's very bad for an auditor in an AAV session to start firing off a whole bunch of questions like "Is it this?" or "Is it that?" and "When was it?" and "Where was it?" and "Tell me about it?" and this and that and the other, because each question he asks could be answered by an awful lot of BTs.That actually could be a cause of over-restim. The handling generally is simply just to indicate the line on the list and let the PreOT spot what's there or whatever. You may have to do a little something like say, "Well, acknowledge the BT's answer" or "Indicate to him that wasn't his item" or "that wasn't his valence" or whatever. If the BT wanted to originate, okay, let him originate and he originates and then acknowledge his origination. And that's generally what handles.

So, to sum up, we've now covered the valence technique, misownership, misidentification and misconceptions (which is the very basic principle on which AAV is based).

Another common error on this level is an error in listing, as the questions "What are you?" "Who are you?" are listing questions. Any question with the word "What" at the beginning of it is a potential listing question. This doesn't mean that it's bad or dangerous or anything else, it just means you have to realize it's a potential listing question. Sometimes it doesn't even act as a list, but it could. What happens then is and how you recognize it is, - the PreOT asks the BT "What are you?" and the BT says "an animal" - no read, then "some kind of nasty animal" - no read, "a skunk" LF. A skunk is the item. Often and usually it is the first item, and there is no problem.

The only time it's a problem would be if the auditor did something sort of forceful, like he prevented the PreOT and the BT from going on answering the question until he got the item. What we call forceful would be an actual thing that the auditor pushed off on the PreOT or on the BT and made him do.

Knowing that these questions can be a list, one can easily spot the indications of an out-list if it occurs and simply ask "Have we got a wrong item?" and if so indicate it was wrong. You usually ask: "Okay, what was the wrong item?" and you get, "Well, skunk was the wrong item." "Well, okay?" and the handling will very often simply be "What's the right item?" and the guy will say, "Actually it's a polecat" and you now have the item and the F/N.

But there again, when all else fails you use the short L4 as a correction list and it's not very common to have to asses an L4. Sometimes you can get into a sort of listing on the "Who" questions and it's very obvious because you ask "Who are you?" and you get the BT saying something like "a royal person," "someone in a royal family," "a daughter of a royal family","a princess." And that would be a list on the "Who?" question. It's not a great danger, it's just something you have to realize can turn into a list.

Earlier on when discussing misconceptions, an example was given of a BT giving off a motivator when what is really wrong with him is that he has an overt. if the BT is hung up in the motivator, and it isn't resolving or it's making things worse, you would simply ask the PreOT to ask the BT ifthat was somebody else's motivator or not his motivator and that might produce a response and a cog or you can have the PreOT ask the BT if there's really some overt that he's hung up on and it will read on the meter and usually the BT will instantly recognize it and start talking about the overt straight off. If you have to, you'd ask, "What is the overt?" and the BT would say, "Well, I did blah, blah, blah, blah."

There again you don't really need to go into a whole bunch of handlings on it. It's usually, "Oh, well, I was actually responsible for such and such happening," or "I murdered the priest and hid his body in the grove," or something, and boom! There's an FN, and the BT may blow on that alone or you'd go into the valence technique and blow him. So it's just the simple, obvious question that one would ask. It comes back to this idea of simply undoing the misconception. In other words, you're not trying to sec check the BT, you're just trying to un-do the misconception.

The reason these BTs are not available to the PreOT on III is that he just doesn't perceive them. There is a reason for this, which is that incident II, in terms of the BTs' time track, is a pretty recent occurrence. For those that are hung up in it, it's like the last major incident on the track for them. And you have to view it a little bit from the BT's viewpoint, which is that some of these have been BTs for a very long time. In other words, they went down the tubes as thetans way back and they've kind of been out of it, dead and gone and out of it for a long time. They're just sort of existing but not aware and so to them nothing has happened since. So incident II is pretty common and because it was recent in terms of their time track, it gets restim'd when the PreOT starts on III. That's the last, latest big incident for most of them.They are all run on it and everybody that has an incident II will run it and that sort of takes off a layer of fat. It goes back to the telepathic factor. The PreOT has the concept of incident II and III and that picks up all the guys that are available for that. He finishes III because he can't find any other BTs or clusters that respond to those incidents. When he knows the AAV materials then he has his attention on a concept which the remaining BTs will respond to.

The BTs and clusters on this level are dormant. This does not mean that they don't cause the PreOT any trouble. Quite the opposite. The more dormant a BT is, or the more unaware a BT is, the more trouble he causes. This is because the lower his tone level or awareness level, the more he has approached the state of an object and total reactivity and bank. If you look at it in terms of the tone scale, or the chart of attitudes, the further down a being is, the more he approximates all the things along the bottom of the chart of attitudes or the bottom of the tone scale. In actual fact, a BT that's way down scale would be very, very unaware of anything and is very very solid and massy. His bank has gone totally solid maybe. And that impinges on the PreOT's body and causes mass, pressure, somatics, etc , plus, because he has become a solid bank or solid cases or whatever you want to call it, he is very much stimulus-response. The degree of stimulus-response of a being is proportional to how far down he is. The more aware a person is, the less likely they are to act on a stimulus-response basis; and the less aware they are, the more likely they are to. For example, maybe it's a hot day, it just happens to be hot weather and that might restimulate heat and a fire and for a BT very down on the scale, that just automatically turns on all the times when he was burned, or fires, and it's an A=A thing. You know if a hot day equals being burned, equals a fire, equals the time his house burned down, equals when he got too close to a hot sun, equals a hot poker, equals everything else in his bank and they just automatically go into restim. So for the PreOT, it'sa hot day and he turns on a rash and his skin starts itching and then he feels burny and then he feels like he's been branded by a hot poker and just goes on and on and on. The worse off they (BTs) are, the more trouble they cause for the PreOT. That's part of the reason why you get a lot of gains on AAV; as you get rid of these things, the PreOT is much less subject to the kind of trouble that they can cause and do cause routinely.

There are a lot of different sort of levels within the whole scope of AAV and sometimes you'll handle a whole level or band of BTs that affect the PreOT's personality or personality characteristics, and when you have done that, you may suddenly encounter a whole band of things that affect his body and somatics and that sort of thing. Then you may run into a whole band of them that affect his intelligence or his stupidity level. Another band may affect memory. In other words they come in different layers, or bands, or levels, that affect different aspects of the case.

David Mayo