Control Trio 

References
HCOB 11 June 1957 "Training and CCH Processes" 
PAB No. 137 "Some More CCH Processes " 

PAB No. 146 "Procedure CCH " 

PAB No. 120 "Control Trio" 


Description
Thinkingness in general should not be suspected of being under anybody's
control, much less the processor's, but it is probably more under the
processor's control that it is under the client's control. You can do it
better than the person, but that is horribly bad, and when you get this
clear, you will see that you have to get the body under control and get
attention under control before you aim at thinkingness. 
Therefore, a condition to running Trio is this: Is the person's body under
control, is the person's attention under control -- those are two
conditions necessary to run Trio. To assume that power of choice is also
under the person's control -- much less thinkingness -- is of course,
pretty grim. It moves Trio outrageously high. So you could say that there
are two versions of Trio. 

Trio would be just Trio just the way it is. But there is an undercut in
Trio. Trio could be a directive process, and it would be prefaced by "Get
the idea of having that clock." That is highly directive, that would keep
thinkingness under control in the kind of case who was having a rough time
with it. 

The second version: "Get the idea that it would be all right for that clock
to remain as it is." That is just an indicating process. 

Instead of "dispense with" or "not-know" at command three, we run into
actually a brand new process. Its rationale is much higher. "Get the idea
of making that clock disappear." Small objects are much easier for the
person to make disappear than large ones, but you haven't told him to make
it disappear. You have told him to get the idea of making it disappear.
They usually interpret you literally and try like mad to make it disappear,
and it usually does for a short time. This gets him to take over the
automaticity of all the losses that he has experienced unwillingly. It's
the universe that's been taking the things away, and an individual, just by
spotting objects and getting the idea that they are going to disappear or
are disappearing. Of course, then he does take over this automaticity of
losses, and he becomes accustomed to it after awhile and he should come out
of the woods on it. 

Therefore, you have a highly directional, a highly workable set of
processes, and each part of that Trio would be run relatively flat and go
on to the next part. I would say you'd probably run it something on the
order of, certainly not a hundred commands each. You'd try to stay in that
order of magnitude, and you could just run it round and round. 


Commands
1. "Notice that (indicated object) and get the idea of having it." 
2. Notice that (indicated object) and get the idea of permitting it to
continue." 

3. "Notice that (indicated object) and get the idea of making it disappear." 

Run each command until it is flat before going on to the next command
(i.e., 1 would be run until flat, then command 2 would be run until flat,
then command 3 would be run until flat, then return to command 1). This
would be continued until all three commands no longer produced any change. 


End Point
Run the process until a realization occurs, or an ability is regained. 

Cautions
None.