From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 5 - March 1992
(First published by The International Society of Independents, 431
Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA, USA as Update Series 1 on December 16th
By David Mayo, USA
The term "service facsimile" originally meant a facsimile (or mental
image picture) that was of service or use to the preclear. A key point
made on this subject was that a service facsimile is a mental
mechanism used by the individual to explain failure. Perhaps that is
the main purpose of a service facsimile. That is a relatively simple
and easily understood idea.
However, when running service facsimiles, auditors generally spend a
lot of time clearing what is meant by "service facsimile" and
"computation" and getting across the idea that the auditor expects the
pc to give the auditor a computation in answer to a listing question
(even though these listing questions do not ask for a computation).
Despite the time and effort spent on such "clearing", when listing to
find a service facsimile, the pc very often doesn't answer with a
computation. As this is a listing action, the auditor is then in the
predicament of either having to reject the pc's answers (items) or
risking ending up with an item that is not a computation.
But that isn't all there is to it. The meaning of the term "service
facsimile" has been changed over the years. There are at least two
(and possibly more) different mental mechanisms referred to as service
facsimiles. This has caused an inordinate amount of confusion to
technical personnel. It has also resulted in at least one unusual
solution in auditing. Possibly none of the versions of the service
facsimile are routinely fully run out due to these confusions.
As a facsimile?
The first type of "service facsimile" discovered, described and
addressed in auditing was a facsimile that the pc (reactively) thought
was of use or service to him. Hence the term "service facsimile".
Injuries or illnesses, especially in childhood when an ally was
present, can result in such a "service facsimile".
Service facsimiles have also been called sympathy engrams. An example
of this is an incident in which a child breaks his leg and is given
sympathy, looked after and taken care of by an ally. If care and
attention were unusual for that child or if the ally was not usually
an ally, then the broken leg would seem to be valuable to the child's
survival and the facsimile of that incident would be kept around ready
to be called into play in the future when there seemed to be a need
One could then say that the facsimile in the example above, was
"reactively computed" to have survival value. But that doesn't
necessarily mean that there was an actual computation, just that the
service facsimile seemed to have survival value. As such this would be
more accurately described as a reactive assumption rather than a
computation. The idea that a service facsimile is a "computation
generated by the pc not the bank" is a later additive which is not
correct. This, in itself, could explain why so many auditors have so
often had to work so hard to get pc's to answer with a computation
when asked for a service facsimile.
Chronic disabilities - ally presence
The type of service facsimile described above is best found by asking
for a chronic disability and then running out the incident of its
inception. E.g., if the disability is a lame leg, one would run out
the entire incident when the pc got the lame leg, paying particular
attention to any ally present at the time and an "ally computation" in
that incident or as a result of it. When that disability has been run,
ask for another, as there may be more than one. (One could also ask
for a "fixed condition" rather than a chronic disability).
This type of service facsimile is best handled by running it out - as
a secondary or engram - since it is a facsimile.
Another type of "service facsimile" was mentioned by Hubbard. Hubbard
stated that the present time "Term" and "Opterm" package were the pc's
service facsimile. It is not clear how or why he considered that to be
so, nor did he make any further clarification of this. Furthermore, no
technique was given to handle this phenomenon.
The next type of "service facsimile" is a computation or, perhaps more
accurately, an assumption. It is not a "service facsimile" in the
original meaning of that term and it is not a "facsimile", by
definition. This is what came to be called a "service facsimile" in
about 1963, but it is really a computation or an assumption. This type
of computation is illogical analytically, is considered sensible
reactively and is considered essential to one's survival or at least
to enhance one's survival. Such a computation was thought to have been
formed during a period of confusion and low analytical ability. A well
known (but unreal) example of such a computation is : "All horses
sleep in beds". It has also been described as an "idee fixee".
There have been different methods of finding this computation type of
"service facsimile" over the years. In my experience the most useful
were released in 1963 (during the same time period that this
computation "service facsimile" was being described, and shortly
thereafter). Some could argue that these methods of finding service
facsimiles do not always result in a computation as the item found.
True. But running the item found by these methods usually gets enough
charge off so that the computation comes into view and blows by
cognition during the running of the process. At least this is an
approach that adheres to the Auditor's Code rather than evaluating for
the preclear by "clearing" that a "service facsimile" is a computation
and that he is expected to give computations as answers (even though
the listing question does not specifically ask for computations).
The more recent method of finding service facsimiles by listing from
each command of the service fac brackets is the least workable, in my
experience. This is partly because of the excessive amount of
"clearing" (evaluating) what the auditor is asking the pc to find in
answer to the listing question, including having to explain to the pc
that he needs to answer with a computation. The nature of the
computation the pc is supposed to have is also "fed" to the pc by the
wording of the bracket commands, used as listing questions. For
instance, "What do you use to make others wrong?" really feeds the pc
the cognition that he is using something to make others wrong. It's
like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" So, in a
sense those listing questions require that the pc cognite on his
service facsimile "in advance" i.e., while looking for what the
service facsimile is and before having run the charge off it.
Then the change (circa 1978) of trying to run out the service
facsimile dianetically after it had been run in the service fac
brackets, is an unnecessary action. It probably follows from a
confusion of the original idea of a service facsimile (sympathy
engram) with the later idea of a service facsimile as a computation.
Method of handling
In my experience, the most effective method of handling a
"computation" type of service facsimile is by using the PreHav scale.
Start by assessing for a PreHav level (doingness) and then list from
that as follows. Assess: "In this lifetime have you
Then using the item so found, list:
"In this lifetime what have you__________(PreHav level found)?"
Example: If the PreHav level assessed out to "Failed to control" then
the second question would be "In this lifetime what have you failed to
control?", which is listed to find the item. If the item was "My
emotions". Then the item to be run in the brackets would be "Failing
to control my emotions". (Yes, we know that that item is not a
During the running of the item in the example above, as charge comes
off, one or more computations will come to view and blow off.
There is yet another meaning that developed for the term, "service
facsimile" which might be best described as considering a ser fac to
be an impulse or an intention, e.g., to make self right, to make
others wrong, to dominate others, etc. Al - though this is far removed
from the original meaning of the term "service facsimile", during the
1980's the expression "make wrong" was used so interchangeably with
the term "serfac" that the two became almost synonymous. This same
concept was also referred to as an "evil intention". Whether you
consider these to be "service facsimiles" or not, they would probably
respond best to expanded dianetic techniques.
Three kinds of serfac
So there are at least three different types of "service facsimile",
the facsimile, the computation and the intention. These different
types of aberration require and respond best to different methods of
Not everyone has a service fac. Making a pc look for one (or in some
instances even asking for one) can start an endless search - for
something not there.
It is noteworthy that over time there has been a shift in attitude
that parallels the shift in definition of service facs. from a benign
attitude toward the pc or the pc's case to a more accusative attitude,
one where in the pc (or his case) is accused of "willfully and
knowingly making others wrong", etc..
Not only individuals have service facsimiles; groups and organizations
can, too. In fact, one of the characteristics of any cult or mass
movement is that they are "service facy" - the more fanatical, the
more "service facy" they are.