natter or criticism

By Jim Logan

Fundamentally there is a mis-definition, a mistake, a mis-conception with what “natter” actually is. In Scientology it is has a technical meaning. That is, it isn’t just “criticism”, nor opining that something is no good, or poop, or any other pejorative.

Now, this isn’t the place for a thorough study of anything, including this technical point of what is “natter”, Scientologically, but I can provide some material here to differentiate on the area.

The first issue is really definitive:

“This does not say that all things are right and that no criticism anywhere is ever merited. Man is not happy. He is faced with total destruction unless we toughen up our postulates. And the overt act mechanism is simply a sordid game condition man has slipped into without knowing where he was going. So there are rightnesses and wrongnesses in conduct and society and life at large, but random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt so that one can live (he hopes) with the overt. Of course to criticise unjustly and lower repute is itself an overt act and so this mechanism is not in fact workable.” HCOB 21 Jan 60, JUSTIFICATION.

Next are a couple of guides for a person to use, when observing behaviors:

“Sometimes pcs who have big overts become highly critical of the auditor and get in a lot of snide comments about the auditor. If the overt causing it is not pulled the pc will get no gains and may even get ARC broken. If the auditor doesn’t realize that such natter always indicates a real overt, when pcs do it, eventually over the years it makes an auditor shy of auditing.

“Auditors buy “critical thoughts” the pc “has had” as real overts, whereas a critical thought is a symptom of an overt, not the overt itself. Under these critical thoughts a real overt lies undetected.

“Also, I love these pcs who “have to get off a withhold about you. Last night Jim said you were awful ……..” An experienced auditor closes the right eye slightly, cocks his head a bit to the left and says, “What have you been doing to me I haven’t known about?” “I thought …..” begins the pc. “The question is”, says the old pro, “What have you been doing to me that I don’t know about. The word is doing. “ And off comes the overt like “I’ve been getting audited by Bessy Squirrel between sessions in the Coffee Shop.”

“Well, some auditors are so “reasonable” they never really learn the mechanism and go on getting criticized and getting no gains on pcs and all that.” HCOB 7 Sept 1964, Issue II, PTPs, OVERTS AND ARC BREAKS.

“The primary error one can make in ARC Break handling is to handle the pc with ARC Break procedure when the pc really has a missed withhold.

“As some auditors dislike pulling withholds (because they run into pcs who use it to carve the auditor up such as “I have a withhold that everybody thinks you are awful ——”) it is easier to confront the idea that a pc has an ARC Break than the idea that the pc has a withhold.

“In case of doubt one meter checks on a withhold to see if it is non-existent (“Am I demanding a withhold you haven’t got?”). If this is the case the TA will blow down. If it isn’t the case the needle and TA remain unchanged. If the pc’s nattery or ARC Breaky condition continues despite finding by-passed charge, then of course it is obviously a withhold.

“ARC Break finding does work. When the pc doesn’t change despite skillful ARC Break handling, locating and indicating, it was a withhold in the first place.

“The hardest pc to handle is the missed withhold pc. They ARC Break but you can’t get the pc out of it. The answer is, the pc had a withhold all the time that is at the bottom of all these ARC Breaks.
“Scientology auditing does not leave the pc in poor condition unless one goofs on ARC Breaks.

“ARC Breaks occur most frequently on people with missed withholds.

“Therefore if a pc can’t be patched up easily or won’t stay patched up on ARC Breaks, there must be basic withholds on the case. One then works hard on withholds with any and all the tools that we’ve got.” HCOB 4 Apr 65, ARC BREAKS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS.

Again, this isn’t a short course in Level II, but you will note two salient features of these materials; not ALL criticism is the symptom of an overt, there is a character to “natter” that one can be aware of in oneself, and others; a primary use of this technical point of “natter” is to help the person get gains.

“Natter” doesn’t do much, save fail to lessen the target of an overt and fail to ease one’s conscience thereby. So, yes, a trained Scientologist uses natter to discern what in the course of human interaction prior to this exact material, was sometimes perplexing.

*A related article was posted some months ago, entitled “Natter”

9 thoughts on “Natter or criticism?

  1. Great post, timeless wisdom from the ole man. Wish more of us could see its wholesale application and get into session to handle the bigger stuff. The rest is just preventing us from doing so. I hope those out there who refuse to move on past the ARC x’s leave us alone in our persuit of the bridge. We really mean no harm and wish you well. Live and let live.

  2. sheeplebane,
    I suppose that if somebody or other wants to have a game, then they have to select out another as an opponent. There has to be some “not-know” wtf is going on “over there”, and the resultant randomity that not knowing gives one… well, some randomity.

    Total knowingness, total Pan Determinism, these “no game conditions” (as described in Fundamentals of Thought) is a potential. Games conditions are needed to have games.

    If I want to play a game, then I’m in a much better position now that the required conditions are clearer to me. If I don’t wanna play, then, if I’m in it, I can leave, or if I’m not, I don’t have to.

    I am having a very good game in auditing others, helping train, providing direction to materials that can answer questions, and overall applying the many, many pearls of wisdom that L. Ron Hubbard gleaned and brought together with a real delicate and accurate evaluation of importance.

    There ain’t nuttin’ nobodies can does that can take that away, put me off it, interfere in any lasting fashion, or deny to me and my Dynamics.

    Let them eat poop.

    • Agreed, I see your certainty in this completely. It comes from actually applying the tech and obnosing the effects. People who cannot duplicate will squeal, protest and squirm that what you do is wrong! Yet who will they seek out when they fall into the pit of doom?

      The trained auditor, thats who! Who else can reel him up? A protest site, Marty or Mike perhaps? Dont think so, despite the good exposure of RCS crimes I dont think these boys care for peoples bridge progress any longer. Hope Im wrong.

      LRH besides being a writer, philosopher etc. was always trying to get the planet in session! The least we can do is give it our best shot. I cant think of a better more satisfying game! Beats beating my
      head over with more MEST aquisitions!

      Perhaps this blog is the real platform for those who still have enough minerals to play a bigger better game. Hell yeah, as you yanks say! 🙂

  3. Again Jim, your ability to put the references together that clarify a particular tech point is unsurpassed. Thankyou!

    I read yesterdays posts with interest and largely agree with the main points of it. I would like to point out one line in Jims references above:

    “Scientology auditing does not leave the pc in poor condition unless one goofs on ARC Breaks.”

    That’s quite a statement. A pc goes into session and potentially comes out as bad or worse than he went in. In the church you pretty well don’t have arcxs, you have missed withholds, especially staff and SO, according to their current think. My point is that there is a lot of goofing on handling arcxs so there would be many Scns, ex and current, in a poorer condition because of Scientology “auditing”.
    Im not saying we should accept LRH or tech bashing but my personal opinion is that, at this point in time, with the rampant out tech that the church engages in, we should cut some slack here and there, and keep the above reference in mind.

    • Excellent point cotch. The ability to be there, and listen, without doing anything else but be there, confronting exactly what is, is a key ability of an auditor. Auditing is the key tool of Dianetics and Scientology.

      We are striving to apply these tools to the betterment of beings.

  4. Old Salt: “It’s not natter if it’s true, right?”

    Swamper: “Right. Natter is 1.1 criticism not borne out in fact…”

    Old Salt: “Ok. Now the only question is who is making it true?”

  5. Good point indeed Scottie: “Truth is exact consideration. Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.” (PHL) “That which works. And that which works broadly to that which it applies.” (PDC 19)

    ML Tom

  6. Hey Jimmy and Tom,

    All joking and Ancient Chinese Secrets (like Calgon) aside, I would like to point out for the crowd, that all of these apparent natterboxes (Hey! I just coined a word!) are mostly just stuck at the tone level of “Making Amends” and therefore can’t withhold anything and are merely “speaking out” out of propitiation to the group they have really joined.

    They don’t call me Scottie “nutshell” Campbell for nuthin’.

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s