THE TRUE NATURE OF MISSED WITHHOLDS
 
                                ADO - 6
                              25 May 1993
 
                 Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
 
     The following is a theoretical underpinning for the discussion on
missed withholds that follows.  If you don't buy this particular world
view, that's fine, it is only presented to help you understand the
material on missed withholds.
 
     A being is basically an Operating Intention Unit.  His basic action
is to cause things to exist, which amounts to creating knowledge, and
then to not know that he has done so, and then to indulge in the game of
learning what he created.
 
     The being does this in tandem with other beings who are doing the
same, thus any being can create something to know, and other beings,
along with him, can play the game of learning what was created.
 
     Thus the cycle of creation goes:
 
     Create        ->      Survive     ->     Destroy
     Knowledge     ->      Question    ->     Answer
 
     The being creates things to know and then by not knowing that he
has done so turns this knowledge into unknowns or questions.  The game
of course is to answer the question.  Once he answers a question, that
particular game of answering that particular question is ended.
 
     Actually he doesn't even know what questions there are any more,
so the game is to find (precreated) questions to answer, and then to
find answers to questions.
 
     More technically the cycle looks like this,
 
   Knowing - Looking - Not Knowing - Looking - Knowing again (Learning)
 
   Creating Answers  -   Creating Questions  - Answering Questions
 
     KNOWING:
 
     The being in Creator mode starts off with nothing and then
creatively causes something to come into existence by knowing it.  In
this sense, knowing is a creative action because the created thing comes
to be true because the person KNOWS it is true.  It is knowing something
into existence, literally.
 
     We are not talking about creating fundmental truths that are true
no matter what, we are talking about creating CREATED truths that are
only true because something created them into existence.
 
     LOOKING:
 
     Once he has known something into existence he can then look at
it, knowing full well he just created it.  Looking allows the being to
CHECK-OUT what he just created to make sure it got created exactly as
he originally knowed it into existence.
 
     NOT KNOWING:
 
     The Creator then indulges in NOT knowing about the created
knowledge or object and he hides it from himself or puts it in a far off
galaxy where he can run across it in a million years on some voyage of
discovery.
 
     This is the transition from Creator to Creature.
 
     LOOKING AGAIN:
 
     Later, the person in Creature mode, runs into something he or
others have created in Creator mode, and he finds he doesn't know what
the thing is.  Thus he takes to LOOKING at it carefully, inspecting it,
playing with it, experimenting with it, until he again knows what it is.
 
     KNOWING AGAIN:
 
     Thus the being in Creature mode begins to accumulate knowledge on a
vast scale concerning the universe that he is in.
 
     This knowledge is originally created with Looking by Knowing, and
is eventually rediscovered with Knowing by Looking.
 
     Looking by Knowing means the Creator is able to LOOK at something
BECAUSE he has just created it by KNOWING it.
 
     Knowing by Looking means the Creature is able to LEARN about
something BECAUSE he is presently LOOKING at it.
 
     Looking by Knowing and Knowing by Looking define the two basic
operating modes of Creator and Creature.
 
     Creator = Looking by Knowing, or Knowing -> Looking.
 
     Creature = Knowing by Looking, or Looking -> Knowing.
 
     In SUMMARY:
 
     In summary then, the being in Creator mode creates things to look
at by knowing them into existence.  This is called Looking by Knowing.
 
     The being in Creature mode rediscovers things to know by looking at
them until he learns about them.  This is called Knowing by Looking or
Learning by Looking.
 
     If one graphs this as,
 
     Knowing -> Looking -> Not knowing -> Looking -> Knowing
 
     it can then be said that the shift from Creator mode to Creature
mode is a shift from operating the first 3 items to operating the last 3
items.  The middle item, not knowing, it shared by both sides, and is
the shift over point from Creator mode to Creature mode.
 
     This then is the cycle of a game.  The cycle of a game involves the
creation of knowledge to learn in Creator mode, followed by the process
of learning it in Creature mode.
 
     From the above discussion it is apparent that a being is inherently
a knower, something that can know, either by creating knowledge and
things to know, or by learning about things already so created.  Thus it
can be surmised that anything that fouls up a being's ability to know or
to learn, or to cause others to know or to learn, will be of great upset
to him.
 
     One of the things that beings like to do is to share what they know
with others or to hide what they know from others.
 
     This is all part of the warp and woof of games.
 
     You communicate to your customers that you have a product, you hide
from your competitors how you made it.
 
     Beings use the presence or absence of communication cycles in order
to indulge in sharing or hiding things they know from others.
 
     For example, if a being learns something of value in the struggle
for survival, he will go to some effort to communicate this to his
friends.  When they finally get the message they will send back to him
an acknowledgment so that the originating being can know for sure they
got the communication and so end cycle on the effort to communicate with
them, and so proceed to take up something new.
 
     In the same way, if a being knows something that he does NOT want
others to know, he will go to some effort to NOT communicate it to other
people, and he will look for the absence of an acknowledgement from the
other person to verify to himself that in fact they do not know it.
 
     Thus we have these two fundamental cycles of action in this game
universe.
 
     The first cycle of action is the effort to communicate something to
another being, followed by the clear presence of a return
acknowledgement.
 
     The second cycle of action is the effort to NOT communicate
something to another being, followed by the clear absence of a return
acknowledgement.
 
     THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF THE RETURN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CAN NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED AS IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
VERIFICATION OF THE COMMUNICATION OR NON COMMUNICATION CYCLE THE BEING
IS INDULGING IN.
 
     Without the clear presence or absence of a return acknowledgement
the being can not end cycle on his intention to communicate or not
communicate.  He thus gets stuck in that cycle forever.
 
     1.  TRYING TO COMMUNICATE
 
     If a being is trying to communicate something to another, and no
acknowledgement is forthcoming, the originating being will be left in
doubt about whether the other being got the communication or not.
 
     He won't know if they know.
 
     THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO SEND THE COMMUNICATION.
 
     It's constantly LOOKING for the presence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.
 
     He may even take to fabricating acknowledgments where there aren't
any just to end cycle on the deal.
 
     He can't stand not knowing.
 
     Once he gets a clear indication of the presence of a return
acknowledgement he is free to DO other things.
 
     2.  TRYING TO NOT COMMUNICATE
 
     If a being is trying to NOT communicate something to another, yet
he is getting constant indications that indeed the other party is
getting the communication anyhow, the withholding being will be left in
a doubt about whether the other party is NOT getting the communication
or not.
 
     He won't know if they know.
 
     THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO STOP THE COMMUNICATION.
 
     It's constantly LOOKING for the absence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.
 
     He may even take to NOT-ISing possible acknowledgments where there
may be some, just to end cycle on the deal.
 
     He can't stand not knowing.
 
     Once he gets a clear indication of the absence of any return
acknowledgment, meaning that he has successfully prevented others from
knowing what ever he was hiding, he is free to DO other things.
 
     If the being is ultimately unable to determine whether his
intention has been carried out, whether it be to communicate or to not
communicate, he will suffer a DECISION CYCLE FAILURE.  He won't be able
to go on to DO other things, yet he won't know what to do about his
present problem.
 
     He gets stuck instead in a question, 'Do they know?  Do they not
know?' Since he can not answer that question, he can not DECIDE what to
do next and so he starts to build up charge.
 
     He is like a man sitting at the fork of a road asking 'Should I go
right?  Should I go left?' He's been there for a LONG time.
 
     Eventually he makes a decision about his indecision which is
usually to bury it, where it will fester, continuing to create charge
for the rest of time.
 
     This is like the same man who DECIDES to build his home at the fork
of the road and says 'there is no fork in the road, and there is nowhere
to go, and I have arrived where I wanted to go anyway'.
 
     Thus when the being is unable to reach a CONCLUSION about whether
other's know or not, he is also unable to DECIDE what to do next.
 
     A CONCLUSION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what is true.
 
     A DECISION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what to do.
 
     The failure of the conclusion cycle leads to a failure of the
decision cycle.
 
     Now a being in good condition will have a balance of the Creator
and Creature modes within him.  He will be creating some new things to
know, and he will be discovering other things already created by himself
and others to learn about.
 
     If such a being gets stuck in a conclusion cycle of the form 'Do
they know?  Do they not know?' he will put all of his attention into his
Creature mode trying to determine the answer to the question 'Do they
know or not?'
 
     He is trying to know by learning and loses all interest in knowing
by creating.
 
     He is not willing or able to just CAUSE others to know or not,
which would end his quandary; so he devotes more and more time to
Creature mode where he attempts to learn by looking whether the other
party knows or not.
 
     What he is LOOKING for is the presence or absence of a return
acknowledgment.
 
     The long term end result of this is the being becomes incapable of
Creator modes at all, and is totally swimming in failed Creature modes.
 
     They are failed Creature modes in that he is trying to learn by
looking whether they know or not, but can't, so he is never able to make
a decision as to what to DO next, so he never gets on with this life or
the game.
 
     This is what Hubbard referred to as 'being stuck in a decision in
the past.' He is still there trying to draw a conclusion and make a
decision.
 
     'Do they know or don't they know?'
 
     Since at a high enough state two beings can see each other's
pictures anyway, not knowing whether someone else knows something is
rather silly.  Thus strenuous involvement in such efforts to know if
they know, leads to a dwindling spiral of less and less direct
perception of others and what they do and do not know, and eventually to
total aloneness.
 
     This is 'spiritual death' at the bottom of the tone scale.
 
     Such conclusion cycle failures invalidate the being's basic
causativeness over life by invalidating his CREATIVE causative
knowingness, his ability to bring about certain knowledge in others by
creating it so, and also invalidates his ability to learn by looking,
specifically by looking directly into the minds of others.
 
     That's why missed withholds make you DUMB.
 
     A being who is hiding something and yet is wondering if others
know, can always end cycle on his quandary by just outright informing
the other party of what he did.  You see that is ending the endless
knowing by looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing
cycle, you just CAUSE them to know, and poof no more doubt.  Of course
you might get executed.
 
     But you wouldn't be in doubt any more and you could get on with
your life.  Being parked at a fork in the road is a waste of time to an
Immortal Being.
 
     Likewise if a being is trying to get something across to someone
and yet is wondering if they have gotten it or not, he can always end
cycle on his quandary by outright NOT informing the other party of what
he wanted them to know.  You see that is ending the endless knowing by
looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing cycle, you
just CAUSE them to NOT know, and poof no more doubt.  Of course you
might get executed.
 
     The point is that the correct answer to any endless failure of the
knowing by looking cycle is to exercise a causative looking by knowing
cycle and take your lumps with the consequences.
 
     The consequences are never as bad as staying in a learning by
looking quandary for the rest of time.
 
     THAT'S HELL.  It's better to be executed.
 
     Executions end, Hell's don't.
 
     Mortal's by the way can always be counted upon to make the wrong
choice.  That's why you always find them parked so far into their
reactive minds (their 'Bank').
 
     Their Bank is the home they built for themselves at the fork in the
road, snarling guard dogs and all.
 
     So there are two kinds of missed withholds when looked at in this
light.
 
     There are those things you wanted others to know but you still
don't know if they know.  We call that a POSITIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.
 
     There are those things you wanted others to NOT know but you still
don't know if they know.  We call that a NEGATIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.
 
     It is this last one that most people consider the missed withhold.
 
     You do something bad, someone almost finds out, you are left unsure
if they did or not.
 
     One day you are smoking in your bedroom, and you know you are not
supposed to be smoking.  You hear your mother coming up the stairs and
you quickly throw the cigarette out the window.  She comes in the room,
and looks around, sniffing the air, and says 'boy does it smell in here,
your sneakers need washing?'
 
     So here is something that you wanted to NOT communicate to your
mother, namely that you were smoking a cigarette.  Surely she couldn't
have possibly missed the smell or misidentified it.  Yet she would have
had your hide if she thought you were smoking.  So what's going on?
Does she know, or doesn't she know?
 
     Positive missed withholds are important too.
 
     You try to communicate something to someone, and you just never can
figure out if they got it or not.
 
     One day you go up to your boy friend, and you tell him that you
love him and want to marry him.  He says, 'Oh sure dear, that's fine.'
 
     Did he get the communication or didn't he?  Does he really know
what's going on inside you or is he missing the enormity of your
statement?
 
     Wonder, wonder, wonder...
 
     Positive missed withholds can also happen when people are trying to
confess negative withholds.
 
     You go up to a minister on the street one night wringing your hands
and looking really distraught and you say, 'I killed my wife last night,
what should I do?' and he says, 'Thank you for telling me that, why
don't you get some sleep?'
 
     Did he get the communication or didn't he?  Does he really know
what's going on inside YOU or did he miss significance of the
communication?
 
     Wonder, wonder, wonder...
 
     So withholds can get missed even when people are desperately trying
to confess them.  You say 'I feel like killing myself' and someone says
'Yeah, I know EXACTLY what you mean, life can do that to you.  Don't
worry about it, I read in Psychology Today that we all feel that way
sometimes.'
 
     Bang.  The withhold was not communicated.  This is deadly.
 
     This can be particularly bad in session where bad auditing can
cause the preclear to have a DOUBLE missed withhold.
 
     PC = Pre Clear, one who is not yet clear.
 
     AUDITOR = One who is applying clearing to a pre clear to help
them become more clear.
 
     Pc: 'You know you haven't been very warm to me recently, I guess I
have something to confess, and I have been wondering for a few days
whether or not you already know, so here it is...  I have been sleeping
with your girl friend.'
 
     Auditor: 'Ok, now we are going to take up your relationship with
your mother...'
 
     Double Bang.  The PC has a clearly missed severe negative
withhold from the Auditor, and he brings himself to tell the Auditor,
and the Auditor acts like he didn't even hear it, so now its a
positive missed withhold too!
 
     'Did he know, didn't he know?' (negative missed withhold)
 
     'DOES he know, DOESN'T he know?' (Positive missed withhold)
 
     'Yipes!'
 
     So in auditing you are looking for those moments of WONDER when the
person was unable to DETERMINE if the other person knows or not.
 
     You see even the word 'determine' has this two tiered meaning.
 
     To determine can mean to CAUSE to come into being.
 
     "The ability to determine one's own future."
 
     To determine can also mean to LEARN about what has already been
caused to come into being.
 
     "The ability to determine the past."
 
     So this whole Creator mode - Creature mode thing is built into the
very fabric of our language.
 
     Determination can mean being determined to CAUSE, or it can mean a
determination, what was gleaned through learning by looking.
 
     The first kind of determination is Creator mode and the second kind
of determination is Creature mode.
 
     Creator determination is Creation arising from from Knowing,
Creature determination is Knowing arising from Creation, learning by
looking at what was already created.
 
     Thus the being gets caught up in his failure to determine (find
out) whether others know or not, and he also fails to causatively
determine them into knowing or not knowing, and so he slowly goes crazy,
as BOTH Creature mode AND Creator mode are on hold in an inconclusion,
followed by an indecision.
 
     So what you are looking for are those times your preclear tried to
communicate something to someone but is still wondering whether they
know or not, and also those times your preclear tried to NOT communicate
something to someone and is still wondering if they know or not.
 
     Watch out for the can't believe its: 'I can't believe they don't
know' or 'I can't believe they found out', as these leave him in an
incredibility which stops his mind cold.

     The anatomy of an incredibility is:

     Certainty something is true, and
     Certainty something is impossible.

     Each one of these conclusion failures will be followed by a
decision failure, because being unable to determine whether they know or
not, your preclear was then unable to determine what to DO next in his
life.
 
     He is still sitting there swimming in not know and unable to know,
and UNWILLING TO CAUSE KNOWING OR NOT KNOWING IN OTHERS outright to end
his conclusion failure.
 
     So of course his life goes nowhere, either in parts or en masse.
 
     So here is one way that this could be run.
 
     Positive Missed Withholds:
 
     'Who or what are you wondering might NOT know something about you?'
     'What makes you think they might not know?'
     'What is it you are wondering they might not know?'
     'What conclusion failures were there?'
     'What conclusions did you draw?'
     'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
     'What decision failures have this led to?'
     'What decisions have this led to?
     'What decisions about indecision are there?'
 
     Negative Missed Withholds:
 
     'Who or what are you wondering might know something about you?'
     'What makes you think they might know?'
     'What is it you are wondering they might know?'
     'What conclusion failures were there?'
     'What conclusions did you draw?'
     'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
     'What decision failures have this led to?'
     'What decisions have this led to?
     'What decisions about indecision are there?'
 
     Instead of 'wondering' you can use 'worried' or 'concerned' or what
ever else indicates to your preclear.
 
     'Who are you worried might know something about you?'
     'Who are you worried might NOT know something about you?'
 
     'Who are you concerned might know something about you?'
     'Who are you concerned might NOT know something about you?'
     etc.
 
     Does she know how much you hate her?

     Does she know how much you love her?

     For a wider run, you can leave off the 'about you?'
 
     'Who are you wondering might know something?'
     etc.
 
     There is no rote way to run this, run which ever questions bite and
your PC is interested in.  Switch back and forth between positive and
negative missed withholds as needed.
 
     Remember you the auditor and your preclear don't make case gain
together by doing it RIGHT, you make case gain by DOING it.
 
     Run this alternately and repetitively, until the PC has spotted all
of his missed withholds.  He will come up with more later, so this can
be run over and over again as needed.
 
     This will turn on a LOT of anxiety.  That means its biting.
 
     As long a there is anxiety on the case, chances are there is more
to find.
 
     Don't expect to get it all in one day.
 
     Expect it to get pretty fantastical.  Mundane human life ain't the
source of your case.
 
     If you are co-auditing, run it back and forth on each other.
 
     Running this on someone will open up your own case so that when
they run it on you there will be stuff to find, and visa versa.  Many
processes are dead ends when audited in only one direction, but continue
to run forever when run back and forth between two people.
 
     Auditing others and being audited are BOTH auditing.
 
     If you miss a positive or negative withhold on your PC, if you put
them into doubt about whether you know or not, they will ARC break on
you, get pissed off in other words.  You can run any ARC break at any
time with something like,

     ARC = Affinity, Reality, Communication, Understanding.
     ARC break = a sudden sundering of such.
 
     'What didn't I know about you that I should have?'
     'What should I have known?'
     'What weren't you sure I knew?'
     'What wasn't known?'
     'What don't I have any idea of that you wish I did?'
     'What would you like me to know about you?'
 
     Remember an ARC break is ALWAYS caused by the MISSING of a positive
or negative withhold.  The ARC break IS their wondering if you know or
not.  It is an ARC break with themselves for no longer being able to
just cause you to know or not know, and know that they have.
 
     So asking the PC 'What are you wondering if I know or not?' will
nail it.
 
     Once the ARC break is clean, the PC will forgive you and be able to
go back into session easily.  If the PC is still hedging inside, they
still have something they wish you knew but aren't sure you do, or wish
you didn't know but think you might.
 
     When a pc is afraid there is something you might know about him,
it's usually because the pc is afraid there is something you DON'T know
about him.
 
     In other words he doesn't want to let you know about him, until he
is sure you know something else about him!
 
     "What would I have to know about you to let you be willing to let
me know everything about you?"
 
     Thus negative missed withholds become difficult to pull to the
degree that the pc has positive missed withholds too.
 
     IT IS THE PC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL THE AUDITOR IF THEY ARE ARC
BROKEN, AND IT IS A HIGH CRIME FOR THE PC TO CONTINUE TO PRETEND TO RUN
A PROCESS WHEN REALLY THEY ARE WISHING THE AUDITOR KNEW SOMETHING.
 
     It is the Auditor's responsibility to make sure that the PC lives
up to his or her own Preclear Code.  And it is the Preclear's
responsibility to make sure that the Auditor lives up to his or her own
Auditor's Code.
 
     The Auditor's Code and the Preclear's Code are contracts that both
parties enter into willingly and with full responsibility.  Each is a
bargaining tool for the other.  The Auditor offers to follow the
Auditor's Code as set out by the Preclear, and in exchange the Preclear
offers to follow the Preclear's Code as set out by the Auditor.
 
     Remember any PC WANTS to confess all their negative withholds, but
they are unsure you are a safe space, so really they only become
recalcitrant to discuss what they are hiding once they become unsure
that you don't know something that you should.
 
     You can run,
 
     'What would I need to know for you to feel good about my auditing
you?'
 
     'What would I need to be, do, have or know for you to be willing to
communicate to me on this subject?'
 
     or some such variant.  You will surely figure out your own
questions once the understanding of all this bites on you.
 
     You know a hefty portion of this material is just to get the
Auditor and PC in session with each other.  This doesn't mean that this
stuff isn't deep auditing or won't blow your case to Kingdom come, but
if the Auditor and PC are chary of each other, they will have to go
through these little trials by fire in the beginning no matter what.
 
     Auditing safe or polite material is a waste of time.
 
     No auditing process known to man will stay safe or polite for long,
and if you aren't willing to communicate when the withholds start
showing up and the going gets hot, the process will stop dead in its
tracks.  You can continue to pretend to give answers, but you will lose
what case gain you made, as each false answer after the withhold is an
overt act, and becomes another MISSED withhold.
 
     As the PC, you will be looking at your Auditor thinking to
yourself, 'What a dumb turkey, how come he doesn't know I just stopped
myself from taking about something?  How could he NOT know!?"
 
     Although the auditor will often do something that makes the
preclear think they auditor might know, truth is, if the preclear thinks
the auditor SHOULD know or have found out, the PRECLEAR will miss the
withhold on himself out of the blue just by starting to wonder on it.

     You know sessionability is not just a matter of the PC.  Sure if
the PC is unhappy or unwilling to talk to the Auditor, then of course no
auditing will take place.  But if the Auditor doesn't like the PC, or if
the Auditor is afraid the PC will bring up the Auditor's recent affair
with the neighbor's dog, then no auditing will take place either.
 
     It is vitally important that the Auditor be as willing to talk to
be PC as the PC is willing to talk to the Auditor.
 
     Auditing is not a one way confession.
 
     Especially during a co audit, where both will be PC and both will
be Auditor.
 
     If the person who is doing the auditing develops a withhold that
they will have to give up to the PC when the tables are turned, then
that withhold will prevent the Auditor from auditing the PC as well as
he could while he is still being the auditor.
 
     His attention will be in the future when he must face his own
session and not on the PC in present time.  Thus the acknowledgments
that the Auditor gives will all be lacking, as he won't be completely
there for the PC.
 
     Thus it is just as important that the Auditor be able to talk to
the PC as it is that the PC be able to talk to the Auditor.
 
     No one is really even asking you to give up having affairs with the
neighbor's dog, just so long as you can TALK about it freely to your PC
or Auditor.
 
     If you can't talk about it freely with your PC or Auditor, don't do
it.  You gotta have a full disclosure relationship with at least ONE
living human being on Earth to remain sane.
 
     Auditing is a walk towards a group mind, where each being
intimately knows immediately everything about everyone in the group.

     This is a form of telepathic co union.

     The minute two people don't want to share every detail of
themselves, they are walking towards some other goal AND CASE GAIN WILL
CEASE, for there is no freedom in hiing in telepathic isolation.

     Sometimes its just too much to expect auditor and pc to swap back
and forth this way, so you get a three some going, each one auditing the
other, and that way everyone's secrets remain secure.

     If two people can run these withhold processes totally flat on each
other to a point where there is NO ANXIETY about communicating about any
subject to each other, they will have attained a new and totally
brilliant state in the history of the human race.
 
     It's worth dreaming of, and striving for, even if there is a whole
mess of human emotion and reaction in between.
 
     Homer