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”