You can read deeper into the psyche than the pc can as-is1. That’s something to remember when you come up against tests. So therefore, little, light, shallow tests are far better than deep, deep, fundamental tests.
There might even be something to a Rorschach. See, there might even be something to it, rather than the old – it actually started as a kid’s game, you know, it’s the kid’s inkblot game. You spill some ink on a piece of paper and fold it together and display it out and ask the other kid what it is, you see? It’s a kindergarten game. And everybody got very fundamental. And they found out that you could read various deep and connotations – and you found out – they found out that various psychologically disoriented psycho – drams would occur in these things, see? And they coordinated it up empirically against a tremendous number of neurotic and insane persons. And they found out there’s some coordinations in this. Then they could lay out one of these Rorschachs in front of people and get the person’s reaction to it and then they could evaluate the test. And they could say, “This is what is wrong with you.”
Now, look how that operates with the one I am just talking about. The guy very often sits there and says, “That’s what is wrong with me.” It is beyond his ability to as – is. What you have done is restimulate him without any hope of destimulating it. You – in other words, you could force him to assume the characteristics and dimensions of this neurosis or psychosis. That operation could be put under the heading, “This is how to be nuts, taught cheap,” see?
A meter has only this value – that it is at the level of reality of the pc. If it reads on the meter, it has the potential of being real to the preclear. If it does not read on the meter, either it is totally suppressed or it’s unreal to the pc. That’s the end and short of it. Therefore, this meter is rather beautiful to that regard, in that it can sort out things that the pc can find are real to him.
We take – we take a meter. Let’s take an assessment level operation at Level IV. We say on this meter, we say, “Grandma, mother, wife, aunt,” and so forth. Flinck – a little tick there and so forth. Now, if we want to be real Swami Gambola, you see, with the complete turban and the Woolworth ruby, all we would have to do is say, “We find that the realest person in your family was your aunt.”
He’d say, “Oh, true, true, true.” See? That coordinates instantly and at once, you see? “You had – You had certain interpersonal relations with your aunt.”
“Oh, yes, yes, she used to talk to me all the time and so forth.”
You understand, that’s assessment for reality. See, you just name off his family members. One of them falls, you just say, “That’s the realest person to you.” Doesn’t matter whether they’re the maddest at him, see, or what the interpersonal relationship is between him and this person. We know his mind is on that person and we know that he can have a reality on that person. Therefore we know what he can as – is about his family. He can as – is sections relating to that person. And by the time he has got unpinned off of that, we could say the whole family over to him again and this time it would be Grandmama. And suddenly and mysteriously we would have a lot of things of reality about Grandmama. And he all of a sudden can as – is those. And we say all over to him again all the family names. And now we have Papa.
Ah, great, because he now can as – is something about Papa, who he dramatizes all the time. But supposing we had gone about it this way, much more intricately: “Now, you fill out this paper of your characteristics of the ideal person, the ideal villain, the – what – what novels you read most, what type of tobacco you have. Now, here is another piece of paper. What are the types of tobacco and the reading habits of each family member,” and so forth. And you say, “Well, you’re – you’re actually dramatizing your father.”
He’d say, “This is a disaster – horrible!” And he would go off all beaten down, see, and develop all of Papa’s ills.