Home

cant say

By Bernie Wimbush

There has been so much abuse over the years using the topic of missed withholds that I thought it might be worth sharing some of my experience with it. After all it is the cause of all ARC breaks is it not?

A missed withhold is the phenomenon where a withhold is restimulated by another and the person is left wondering whether they knew about it or not.

I love the example where you have just stolen a cookie and just as you put the lid on the jar, mum walks in. The look on her face makes you wonder if she knew about it or not. A missed withhold.

Some suggest that the withhold must be some heinous crime the person has committed. Considering the power of the ARC break that follows, I can understand this view. But it is not the withhold that is to blame, it is the missing of it and the wondering if the withhold was known about or not. **It is actually the person who gets screamed at that is the cause of the phenomenon.

The real understanding of this subject is understanding what a withhold is.

It is an undelivered communication.

Here’s one. One notices that there is no toilet paper and reports it to his senior. The senior accuses the person of being critical and writes a knowledge report. Just a classic missed withhold. The person wonders ‘did he get that there is no paper?’ or ‘did he get that I was genuinely trying to help?’

It is the senior who caused the missed withhold by demonstrating his refusal to accept the communication and is the cause of the subsequent ARC break.

And what about the staff member who wants to leave after years of abuse. Solve that by … was it lions or stakes, no sec checks. Let’s get those heinous crimes that don’t exist, which creates missed withholds of nothingness..

If they were to sit down with the person and find out all the gripes and work out ways to handle them they wouldn’t lose so many valuable resources (who in their ARC broken state take confidential materials and distribute them to the field.)

The corporate church falls into this one. By being unwilling to accept critical feedback it produces the missed withhold and thus creates its own ARC breaks. It is interesting that in the independent movement there is very little of the ARC breaks we see in the orgs. They are better at handling communication and so don’t create the missed withholds.

The answer is communication in a safe space. It is not crimes that create missed withholds and therefore ARC breaks, but the sec checks themselves and the unwillingness to really listen.

“Now, a missed withhold is this whole mechanism of what somebody should have found out and didn’t. And it is what somebody should have found out and didn’t. And that is the whole works. It isn’t a withhold. It’s a should-have-found-out.

“So you possibly will save yourself a great deal of grief if you tell people to get the should-have-found-out’s off the case. Rather than the missed withholds. ” LRH, SHSBC 7 Feb 1962, Lecture 144 

19 thoughts on “Should have found out

  1. Or a MWH of nothing:

    “MISSED WITHHOLD OF NOTHING, 1. there is nothing there, yet the auditor tries to get it and the pc ARC breaks. This gives the pc a missed withhold of nothing. (HCO PL 16 Apr 65) 2 . “cleaning” a rudiment that has already registered null gives the pc a missed withhold of nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A missed no-answer then occurs. To ask again something already null is to leave the pc baffled—he has a missed withhold which is a nothingness. (HCOB 4 Jul 62)”

    • Totally agree with ya there Chris. Also protest can make the meter “read” as well per the HCOB Arbitraries on the question itself or the accusative way it is being “asked”.

      A lot of could be the phenomena noted in the HCOB on Withholds Not Blowing.

      It’s funny as in strange that the subject of withholds has been targeted. First it’s the HCOB Confessional Procedure then the FPRD then as part of the Golden Age of Tech they’ve included the additive of running justifications. You’d think these guys wanted to miss a lot of withholds.

      Anyway Bernie great article.

      • RV: “Totally agree with ya there Chris. Also protest can make the meter « read » as well per the HCOB Arbitraries on the question itself or the accusative way it is being « asked ».”

        Yes. It’s further covered in HCOB 29 April 1969, Assessment And Interest:

        “That an item reads guarantees that the pc will be able to confront and erase the chain. So that an item reads well is a guarantee that the pc can handle it and will not get in too deep for him.

        The exception to this is a PROTEST read. An item, possibly already run, is seen to read. The pc frowns. He is protesting and the meter is registering protest, not the item. One never runs a pc against his protest. To do so will overwhelm him and give a bad result. A protest almost never blows down the TA.”

        RV: “A lot of could be the phenomena noted in the HCOB on Withholds Not Blowing.”

        What is the actual name of the HCOB, RV; I can’t find one by that title. Thx.

        • Here ya go Chris.

          It’s actually called Recurring Withholds and Overts:

          HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
          HCO BULLETIN OF 17 APRIL 1977 (LRH is quoted)
          RECURRING WITHHOLDS AND OVERTS
          HCO PL 7 Apr 70RA HCO B 15 Aug 69 HCO B 10 Jul 64
          HCO B 6 Sep 68 HCO B 11 Sep 68
          GREEN FORM
          FLYING RUDS
          OVERTS ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING
          CHECKING FOR FALSE READS FALSE READS
          DEFINITION
          The definition of recurring withhold or overt is an overt or withhold that keeps coming up, repeats again, or shows up again. Definition is obtained here from the American Heritage Dictionary and “the Scientology Tech Dictionary.” Before a recurring withhold or overt can be handled it must be understood what one is. It is simply a withhold or overt that has already been gotten off and comes up again as an answer to an apparent reading withhold or overt question. The pc may also become exasperated at having to get off an overt or withhold that has already been gotten off. The pc may become upset, seem resigned or even protest a recurring overt or withhold. These are just a couple of the signs of a recurring withhold or overt.
          METHODS AND HANDLINGS
          1. When a pc gets upset with a withhold being demanded that they already got off and they get into protest then “there is obviously a false read as the pc is getting off overts already gotten off.”
          HANDLING: “Check for false reads on overts by asking the pc what overt he or she has gotten off more than once and tracing it back with the pc to what auditor or person said something read when it didn’t. You would clean all these up.” (Reference: HCOB 6 Sept 68 CHECKING FOR FALSE READS.)
          2. When number 1 above doesn’t handle the recurring overt or withhold:
          HANDLING: “Who said or seemed to infer something read when it didn’t? Then this would be dated to blow and located to blow.” (Reference: HCOB 11 Sept 68 FALSE READS.)
          3. When a pc gets upset with getting off withholds or overts or mentions he or she felt his or her overts weren’t accepted.
          HANDLING: Ask who wouldn’t accept it E/S. (Reference: HCO PL 7 April 70RA GREEN FORM.)
          4. “The pc has been invalidated for getting it off.”
          HANDLING: Find out who invalidated the pc for getting off overts or withholds. (Note any terminals for later handling on the PTS RD.)
          5. “The pc has been punished for getting it off.”
          HANDLING: “Find out who punished the pc for getting off overts and withholds. “
          310
          The above methods of handling recurring overts and withholds can be found in the reference materials listed above.
          LRH:P A:lf
          Copyright © 1977
          by L. Ron Hubbard
          ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
          Remimeo
          HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
          HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1977
          LONG DURATION SEC CHECKING
          It has been found on some cases which did not immediately R/S, even though their crimes and past would seem to indicate they should have R/Ses, that when Sec Checking was carried on for several sessions, one each on several consecutive days, R/Ses then began to show up. In two cases, List One R/Ses showed up on persons who had never been noticed as having R/Ses before.
          It can then be concluded that R/Sers do not R/S necessarily on casual brief Sec Checks.
          Part of this phenomena is that the person quite commonly gives off very shallow overts of the order of “I stole a pen from HASI” or “I thought your TRs were bad and I didn’t tell you” and other shallow PT answers to searching Sec Check questions.
          This is so much the case that whenever I see shallow wishy-washy “averts” coming off a case day after day, I suspect that sooner or later a good auditor will suddenly find real roaring overts and R/Ses sitting there.
          The soft-spoken quiet “inoffensive” person is also a candidate for this sort of disclosure.
          Particularly notable is the person who “has never done anything wrong in his whole life and has no overts of any kind.”
          These are just special cases of the same thing and an auditor should be alert to them.
          LRH:cb .dr
          Copyright © 1977
          by L. Ron Hubbard
          ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
          311
          L. RON HUBBARD Founder
          Assisted by
          Paulette Ausley LRH Tech Expeditor

  2. This is a great and rather important reference in the overall use and abuse, of the o/w tech. And I scratch my head and wonder why the execs of the time did not recognize this, give it its own HCOB and push the importance of it.
    A little exercising evaluation of importance at the time, and since, would have saved so much b/s!
    Nice writeup Bernie!

  3. The only reason I did not introvert too much on the squirrelly “OT Preps” I had was because I at least had a little bit of training and had noticed that the auditor never checked for false reads even when I was completely baffled by the “reading” question. It is such a simple thing to check and verify or not. I think they mostly dropped this out in practice sometime in the 1990’s. My heart goes out to anyone who endured multiple intensives of this …..and I have heard many stories of that happening. I was lucky because I was able to (mostly) duplicate what was happening, called a fairly quick halt to the proceedings, and then went back to my training.
    Thanks for posting this important LRH data, Chris & RV. It just might save someone’s sanity or their life.

    • Hi Espiritu,

      Here are two more quite relevant HCOBs that could help explain or illuminate further what you are saying:

      HCO BULLETIN OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1968
      Class VIII
      CHECKING FOR FALSE READS

      When you check for earlier auditor false reads on a GF or rudiment type read:

      When follow-up of the read seems to bog down, get nowhere and
      when pc has no answers.

      When the pc protests, seems ARC Broken by the read or seems
      resigned.

      When the pc starts to explain how the thing has been run before.

      When there is protest or inval.

      L. RON HUBBARD Founder

      HCO BULLETIN OF 11 SEPTEMBER 1968
      Class VIII
      FALSE READS

      False Reads are handled by checking back any that are false to when they were first “seen” by an auditor.

      Sometimes a false read goes on and on, never cleans because there wasn’t anything there in the first place.

      Find when and where somebody thought it read when it didn’t. Can ask, “Who said you had an______reading when you didn’t have one?”

      Also check Protest, Invalidate and Suppress to clean up a false read.

      L. RON HUBBARD Founder

      • Thanks for posting thesereferences, Chris. I am no where near as highly trained or experienced as you are, but I was fortunate enough to at least have read and drilled these and other procedures dealing with false reads. Having this knowledge I was able to duplicate that there was an outpoint present at the time and was not sent spinning by the out tech I received. Karen de la Carierre finished the cleanup, so I am fine.
        Besides gaining abilities to help others, training is very important to a person case-wise also. It gives a stability that would be difficult or impossible to acquire otherwise. I can just imagine if I had not known this “little” fact that you just gave references about. I might have gone on and on, introverting on missed witholds of nothing and wound up in a miserable ball of self-invalidation on a long term basis. It is very beneficial for a person who is being audited to understand the tech also. That’s why I feel that your publishing these simple references is so important for people who may have had that kind of an experience, and promoting the fact that the damage can be undone quite easily with Standard Tech.
        This is also an opportunity to promote that getting auditor training is not just the best opportunity ever to learn to an effective way to help one’s family and friends…..it is also very good Karma! Everybody wins.

      • Actually, OT Preps and “auditing to chase after a graph” are very much in-tech and follow LRH tech on the subject. Now, I don’t know what occurred in your case, so this is just a general comment, but how could you expect to put someone on the OT levels who is out of valence (low on the left) or crazy (low on the right)? That just won’t work. (Ref: C/S Series 71)

        And I wouldn’t begin to think of letting someone who can’t comm or has continual problems or ARCXs easily and is constantly upset or who has service facs and computations on the OT levels without putting in their missed Grades. (Ref: Bypassed CAse HCOB; OT Preps HCOB).

        So “chasing after a graph” is a much-needed action. As I said, I don’t know what happened in your case, but generally one follows the above issues on this. For an in-depth study of OCAs in relation to the Bridge, you can read the Expanded Dns series and listen to the XDN tapes.

        • Exactly Chris,

          Here the actual source:

          HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
          HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1972
          Remimeo
          Franchise
          Registrars IMPORTANT BPI
          Advance Mag
          R6EW—OT III NO INTERFERENCE AREA

          Note: (The following HCO B is broadly released despite the fact that it contains technical terms and upper level tech programs. A person who is taking this route has a right to know where he should go and where he shouldn’t.

          The amount of improvement a person can receive is so great that it takes a long series of actions to do it. As for “handling bad mental conditions” this is too simple and is not the business we are in. Just by handling the current upsets, problems, overts and withholds of a person in an hour’s session, Scientology can make more case advance than was possible in any past century. So there is a vast difference between handling disturbed people and obtaining all the advance of which a person is capable of obtaining.
          The data in this HCO B is issued to straighten out a current error being made in routing some cases.)
          A long series of tests and many case results have for some time demonstrated that there is a NO INTERFERENCE AREA between R6EW and OT III.
          A study of many cases and their results demonstrated conclusively that one does NOT audit Dianetics or Lower Scientology Grades on a pre-clear or pre-OT (Operating Thetan) AFTER he has begun Solo VI (the 1st Solo step) or BEFORE he has reached OT III (a higher Solo step per grade chart).
          Upsets of varying degree were found in ALL cases tampered with in the NO INTERFERENCE AREA.
          Repair actions to repair errors made by the Solo Auditor are all that can be beneficially audited on a person between R6EW and OT III.
          Even the powerful L10, when done between R6EW and OT III will fail. Above and below the No Interference Area L10 is fantastically successful.
          Nothing is superior to the Solo Grades.
          THEREFORE, it is vital that a case be fully set up before beginning actual Solo Auditing.
          For information, the following list, taken from HCO B 8 Jan 72, Issue II, is what constitutes a “set-up”.
          1. C/S Series 54 (former injuries, illnesses, etc., run out by Dianetics) completed?
          2. GF40XRR (Resistive Cases List) assessed? Engrams of it handled?
          3. Dianetics Full Flow Table run? To Dn Completion?
          4. Full Drug, Alcohol, medicine handling done?
          5. Dianetics ran well? To End Phenomena?
          6. All Grades run, single, triple or Expanded?
          7. Green Form (case repair) items handled?
          8. Attained End Phenomena of each grade?

          9. Interiorization Rundown done? INT is okay?
          10. C/S Series 53 (any abnormal Tone Arm positions) handled? 11.Power to End Phenomena. Single? Triple? Power Plus?
          12.Tone Arm Range okay?
          13.Power, no illness after?
          14. Power, no ethics troubles after?
          15.Success stories okay?
          16.Director of Processing Interview okay? Pc not wanting something handled?
          17.Graph of Oxford Capacity Analysis Personality Test (or American Personality Analysis Test) with no point below middle of graph?
          A. Pc set up and okay to go to R6EW Solo?
          B. Pc needs further set-up and repair before Solo?
          The above is a checklist used by Solo Course Case Supervisors. (It is NOT the program sequence by which the case is handled. This is given in the Grade Chart.) These are the points checked.
          Once onto Solo, whether these points are in or not, that’s it, HANDS OFF.
          Once on Solo the pc is into the Non Interference Area. He may not have Dianetics or Grades. He may only have the lists and repairs given to Solo Auditors.
          Of all these actions a full thorough drug-medicine-alcohol rundown is the most important. People who have been on heavy drugs, pot, etc or who have been alcoholics get things turned on in their banks and sometimes become terrified of them and will not Solo. They are unable to confront their pictures.
          The remedy is to have a thorough drug-alcohol-medicine rundown.
          The ONLY people who can’t Solo are these poor devils who got onto these psychiatric type drugs.
          These can be handled by a competent drug rundown.
          The ideal program appears on the Grade Chart, displayed in most orgs and often
          sent out.
          The chart has many symbols on it. A full glossary of these symbols and terms exists in HCO B 20 Aug 71, Issue II, “Classification and Gradation Chart, Abbreviations Explained”, which should be posted alongside the chart.
          A fast summary of the steps would be
          C/S 54 (handling illnesses, accidents, injuries) Dianetics
          ARC Straightwire
          OBJECTIVE Processes
          Grades 0-IV
          POWER
          POWER PLUS.

          Into this program can be placed the engram handling GF40RR for resistive cases, past practices, etc.
          A Drug Rundown would occur in the area of Dianetics.
          An Interiorization-Exteriorization Rundown would be given after the pc exteriorized. This usually occurs early on in processing and has to be handled.
          A C/S 53 (for TA misbehavior) could be given anywhere.
          The actual program run on the pc varies according to what the Case Supervisor requires, but it follows the Grade Chart.
          TEST
          The Oxford Capacity Analysis (OCA) or the American Personality Analysis (APA) is a graph which shows desirable and undesirable characteristics in a case.
          The points on the graph are moved up by processing. And Dianetics and Scientology processes below R6EW are very capable of moving these points into desirable range.
          Above R6EW, the first Solo step, the graph can change but the person is moving out of the normal range of humanity and the Solo grades are not designed to change a human test graph and in fact these tests do not measure the OT band of abilities.
          The test graph should be in normal range before Solo is begun.
          Auditing below Solo is quite capable of handling the graph points and bringing them up to desirable range.
          SOLO PROGRAM The Ideal Solo Program is as follows:
          1. Set-up done and all items on the checklist okay.
          2. Good training as a Solo Auditor. Can include the Professional Route of Class VI. Or the Social Counselor Course plus Solo. Or (at this time) the Solo Course only. One Solo Audits as well as he is trained and no better.
          3. R6EW Solo Auditing to End Phenomena and attest.
          4. Clearing Course Solo to CLEAR.
          5. Operating Thetan I to attest.
          6. Operating Thetan II to attest.
          7. Operating Thetan III to attest.
          8. Operating Thetan VII (audited by an auditor level) to attest.
          9. OT III Expanded to attest.
          10. OTIV.
          11. OTV.
          12. OT VI.
          13. OT VIII as released.
          After 7 above (OT III) or after 9 above (OT III Expanded) one can run more Dianetics, Expanded Grades, GF40, the famous L10 or do any other case action. One cannot profitably do these actions between Solo R6 and OT III. That’s just the way the bank is.

          You will note that “OT VII” is apparently out of sequence. It originally went OT III, OT IV, OT V, OT VI, OT VII. Then it was found that there was a level OT III Expanded. So it can go OT III, OT VII, OT IIIX, OT IV, OT V, OT VI or it can go OT III, OT IV, OT V, OT VI, OT VII, OT IIIX. One gets the most out of it by taking VII after OT III and then OT IV, OT V and OT VI really bite. Many persons were too nervous of OT III to do it well until a drug rundown and OT VII were done. Others thought OT III was endless and OT VII handled that.
          The actual materials of these levels are held under tight security at Advanced Orgs because when they are shown to persons who haven’t moved up the grades, they usually cave in. Thus the materials are only available in Advanced Orgs.
          AVAILABILITY
          Auditing at levels below Power is available from field auditors, Franchises and Scientology Orgs.
          Power is available at Saint Hill Orgs in LA, Saint Hill UK, and Denmark.
          All Solo levels are only available at Advanced Organizations.
          A person goes from Field Auditor to Franchise to Scientology Org to a Saint Hill Org to an Advanced Org to obtain auditing of the whole Grade Chart.
          Going from Clear back to lower grades—or from an Advanced Org back to a Franchise within the No Interference band—is liable to upset his case as it is being run out of sequence. He could go to a Franchise or a Scientology Org after OT III for Dianetics, Drug Rundown or other actions but not between R6 and OT III.
          Processing and the mind is a technical subject. In Dianetics and Scientology, the answers have been found.
          Like all technical material, you can’t apply it poorly or backwards and expect results.
          I try-and very successfully in most cases—to hold the lines straight and keep the materials purely and workably applied.
          In the past year alone, fantastic tech advances have been made and are available in terms of refined application within the existing framework of the Grade Chart.
          But the fundamentals do not change, the progress of the person up the Grade Chart must be regular and on course. Otherwise he will not receive full benefits.
          It is my job to do all I can to make sure that full benefit is received. This is not always easy to do on a rather aberrated planet. But if it weren’t so aberrated we wouldn’t be here doing something about it. Right?
          LRH:ne.rd
          Copyright © 1972
          by L. Ron Hubbard
          ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
          L. RON HUBBARD Founder

          Note again point 17:

          17.Graph of Oxford Capacity Analysis Personality Test (or American Personality Analysis Test) with no point below middle of graph?

          Also when I worked at AOLA the above was *basically* what we followed in insuring cases were ready for their OT Levels.

          Of course if the person has gone Clear on Dianetics the steps relating to power and power plus are omitted but the rest is basically the same and hasn’t changed much since this HCOB’s first issue.

          BTW a person’s non-optimum graph can be easily fixed with a 40X which is part of the line-up.

          “Chasing graphs” only occur when the auditor and C/S are incompetent.

          LR

        • Just my experience without saying anything about the Preps at all, since I have no idea. I just didn’t care for it, did nothing for me as far as I’m concerned, it did however raise the graph.

          • Well FM just like any action in Scientology if Preps were run correctly you would have noticed some gains of some kind.

            This is not your fault but the “auditor” and “C/S’s”.

            A raised graph is *not* the objective of OT Preps but merely a byproduct. Any Scientology auditing if done correctly will raise an OCA.

            True a rise in the OCA is one of the indicators looked for when completing OT Preps but there are others covered in the HCOBs on Good Indicators.

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