WHAT HAPPENED TO TERRIBLE TRIO?

   The earliest mention of havingness as a process is in Tech Vol II, Jan 1954, in an article on "SOP-8C: The Rehabiliation of the Human Spirit." Formula IV(b)

   "As the pc has rendered automatic his desires and his ability to create and destroy, and has thus placed havingness beyond his control, the auditor should place in the control of the pc his automaticities of havingness and unhavingness and permit him, on his own self determin-ism, to balance his havingness."

   Perhaps this could be done directly, by asking: "What would you like to have more (less) of?"

   It then goes on to describe a subjctive process wherein the pc creates 8 anchor points and pulls (later this became shove) them in and retains the mass.

   This later became two processes, the remedy (shoving in and throwing away mock-ups) of havingness, and its repair (just showing them in).

   PAB 72, Tech Vol II, p.371 has an article "The Importance of Havingness" which states:

   ".. the only advances worthy of the name of scientology occur when the auditor repairs or remedies havingness on the pc. Without the repair and remedy of havingness no real gains become apparent. A preclear will not progress when his havingness is impaired." Up to this point, we are still dealing with subjective havingness.

   Then in PAB 80, "Scientology's Most Workable Process" on p.395, Ron asks:
 
   ".. WHAT is there in this .. mountain of attainment which is the highest gain? Amongst all this gold where is the super-gold? .. Empirically, the super-gold you have had is HAVINGNESS. .. When havingness is neglected, cases do not improve, that's all there is to it."

   He continues: "Well, amongst all havingnesses, what is the super-gold process. There is one. It is not very fast, it is terribly certain, it does not fail in our experience and its gains are permanent. It is a process known as the terrible trio."

   The commands, each of which are asked a number of times (depending on the auditor's judgement), are: "Look around the room and tell me what you could have." "Look around the room and tell me what you would let remain." "Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with."

   Ron also noted that according to report, the terrible trio could  be self-audited, and that periodic use of a havingness process could aid cognitions.

  In The Free Spirit of Jan 86, p.4, in his article "Which Standard Tech?" M.D. Stansfield stated, "Terrific results were obtained in the early days. .. There were many very powerful processes that worked beauifully that were abandoned .. whose only fault was that the PC would go on cogniting and not have to get more auditing! .. Processes like terrible trio .."

   I've tried the terrible trio on a self-auditing basis, but could not get it to bite. So I asked a friend to check variations on the meter, to see if there was one that would read. He tried variations of have, own, reach and handle, and control. I did find as a result of this, that I got a "strugglely" frustrated feeling and after an interim of desultory conversation, "put up with" as one meaning of "have" came to mind.

   I asked him to try this: "Look around this room and find something you could put up with." This gave me an immediate line charge and big BD. The other two questions could be: "Look around this room and find something you could continue to put up with." And "Look around this room and find something you don't have to put up with."

   "Put up with" falls under "endure," along with "survive," and "tolerate" on the pre-have scale and I have noted previously an irritation with "survive." This fits, i.e., "survive" as putting up with a lot, perhaps that I no longer have to put up with. It also fits a "strugglely," difficult to articulate feeling I had encountered previously.

   Variations I've found on running this could be: "reluctant acquiescence," "grudging acceptance," "grin and bear it," and the postulate "There isn't anything you can do about it anyway, so you'll just have to take it."

   As a tech note, combining the pre-have scale with the terrible trio may provide a more effective approach to real havingness. Since the terrible trio has fallen out of favor, this may have been one factor, in addition to those explored by Stansfield in the reference cited above.

                        ***