Game of OT London Auditor Meeting - December - November 1955

[auditor]

Online auditing in any place on the planet http://timecops.net/english.html

Contents:

00/18 This here
01/18 5512C01 LAM-1 The Lowest Level Case
02/18 5512C01 LAM-2 The Fundamentals of Auditing Style
03/18 5512C15 LAM-3 Exteriorization by Separateness from
Weakest Universe
04/18 5512C22 LAM-4 Matching Auditing to Tone
05/18 5601C03 LAM-5 Solution to Body Behavior -- Part I
06/18 5601C03 LAM-6 Solution to Body Behavior -- Part II
07/18 5601C10 LAM-7 Auditor Insight
08/18 5601C12 LAM-8 Anglo-Saxon Thought
09/18 5601C16 LAM-9 Repair and Remedy of Havingness
10/18 5601C19 LAM-10 Exteriorization
11/18 5601C24 LAM-11 The Role of Creation in Aberration
12/18 5601C31 LAM-13 Basic Lecture on Havingness
13/18 5601C31 LAM-14 GE Scientology
14/18 5602C07 LAM-15 The Game of Life (Exteriorization and Havingness)
15/18 5602C09 LAM-16 Sixth Dynamic Decisional Processing
16/18 5602C14 LAM-17 Aims and Goals of Scientology 1956
17/18 5602C14 LAM-18 Games Processing Applied to Auditing
18/18 Appendix Six Levels of Processing Issue 5 and
Six Levels of Processing Issue 7



5512C01 THE LOWEST LEVEL CASE

A lecture given on 1 December 1955

Haven't the least idea what I'm talking to you about tonight, but
according to my watch, it's the 31st of November. Can that be true?

How did it ever get to be the 31st of November?

Female voice: It's the 1st of December.

Is it the 1st of December?

Female voice: First of December.

It is?

Female voice: I only just found out myself.

Is that right?

Audience: Mm-hm. Sure.

No kidding? This Earth time fouls one up something abominably.

You must realize at this time we are trying to settle down the Six
Levels of Processing into a highly static form. Our goal in this
particular case is to level out these processes in such a way that we
won't have to touch this for some time to come. The Six Basic Processes
were stable for a very, very long time; and then when we started cutting
loose from them, however, we went straight up and straight south and
around and about and changed things about and changed things
considerably.

Now, why would we ever change a process in the first place? And that's
what I want to talk to you about tonight. Why would we change processes?
We would find more workable processes; that's why we would change
processes.

But when we find more workable processes, what happens? Immediately that
we discover something that we consider more workable here, there and
everywhere, what else do we discover? We also discover eight hundred and
sixty-five auditors that can't make it work. Instantly, you see. We
discover five or six hundred that probably could make it work and eight
or nine hundred that can't. And therefore, we have to say to that
process, "Bye-bye. It was nice to have you around," and we tip our hat
to it, and that's that.

So we get this thing called a gradient scale of workability from the
standpoint of the auditors themselves. I start running somebody on a
process, and I am running the process. I don't run anything else and
don't let the auditor interfere with the preclear, you might say, and I
don't let the preclear's case interfere with the process. I never do
this.

If I'm running a process, that's just too bad. Preclear is comm lagging
and cogniting and so forth, that's just too bad. I mean, his case can
pop up there every once in a while, and I say, "That's fine," and "How
interesting," and slap it back down again and go on running the process.

It's very, very remarkable, but this works. After a while a case goes
into apathy, and we have a Clear. Maybe this has more to do with it than
we think.

All right. Having run this process one way or the other and very often
having had it run on myself, I decided this is a pretty good process.
It's not very often that happens, but it does happen every now and then.

These far south processes I have an awful hard time testing. Maybe I'm
farther south than they are, but for some peculiar reason I don't have
any trouble with them. And somebody tells me do this or do that and so
forth, and I do that and that's fine. So I say, well, of course, just
like everybody else, I can do this process. And just like me, everybody
else can do this process too. That's a natural consequence, isn't it?
And it naturally follows, so therefore it's a very basic process.

Such as - such a thing as, "All right. Now, be out of this universe.
Mock up a universe. That's fine. Populate it. Solidify it. Start its
time track going," you know. Easy process. "All right. Find another
universe of comparable magnitude to that universe."

Simple. Nothing to this. But for some reason or other, we always find
somebody dragging his heels that can't do this.

Well, then about the next chaps that have any crack at this process,
whatever it is, is the - usually, if an ACC is going forward - it'll be
the ACC student. And he has a fine time with it one way or the other,
and he complains about it bitterly or thinks it's fine. And we patch up
the various broken hearts and cases that result occasionally from such a
process and keep going.

And the next people that have a crack at it, and the first people that
do have, when an ACC course is not running, are the staff auditors. And
these poor chaps are -Кthey have cases and these cases are saying,
"Bitterness, bitterness, bitterness," you know, "It's all bad over
there. Nothing is happening. Too much happens." They're saying various
human things, you see. And they're pounding on the staff auditor to get
the show on the road and so forth, and there sits a new process.

Well, the staff auditor is torn between running something he has had
work on cases, which quite often is - his main test of it is, it worked
on his case. And he then is torn between doing this and sailing
forthrightly ahead with the preclear and running this process. And devil
take the engrams, havingness or anything else, we just run it on out.

Well, this is all very well when we are interested in further south
processes. When we have a process series and when we are working on
things which appertain to Level One, this is all right. See, this is
fine. Then the staff auditor can take the process, process almost any
preclear who walks in and get some sort of result with it. But when
we're running higher echelon processes, this isn't so easy, such as
"Match-terminal the MEST universe with the next adjacent Psi Universe,
81." This is not so easy to do.

Preclears seldom have a reality. They know that this universe is the
only universe there is, they know that they are the only person who is
alive, and they know that robots are much more reasonable and easy to
work with than human beings. They know these things; these are set
things with them, and such processes disturb these considerations. And
of course, we don't want to disturb any of a preclear's basic
considerations in such a way as to give him a forthright lose. We don't
want him to lose right off the bat, so we have to run a gradient scale
to these things.

So the higher-level processes then have a tendency not to get spread
around the way these lower-level processes do. We actually have a
considerable number of processes which have been developed over the past
few years which are terrifically high. Every once in a while somebody
looks at me and says, "How do you run an Operating Thetan?"

And if I've got a little time I'll tell him but it's just not general
information. I mean, there s hardly anybody knows this particular
bracket of process. It's a complete span that lies above, you might say,
what you would ordinarily consider a human Clear. It's a stunt. He has
to work on his abilities.

And right now, by the way, I'm working on a process of how do you get
somebody to mock up live forms that walk up and down the street and that
people tip their hats to and are polite to? It's an interesting thing,
and it'll probably take a long time to work this out.

I'm working on another one much more germane to the situation, which you
might find much more interesting, and that is processes which
immediately and intimately restore abilities. We take some specific
ability which the preclear has once had - let s say he once was able to
play the clavichord. If he could play the clavichord someplace down the
track, there is no reason why he couldn't play the piano. He should be
able to play it. I'm sure that he could still find in some museum and
get photostat copies of clavichord music. He could probably even read
the music and so forth. But he has lost this ability. How do we restore
it to him immediately in such a way that he can suddenly wish off on the
body he now has, the ability to play a piano? How do we take somebody
and turn him into an expert linguist? How do we get him to speak German,
French, Spanish, Italian and so forth? Well, he undoubtedly knows these
things on the backtrack. How do we rehabilitate this information,
restore to him abilities which he already has?

And that, by the way, is my primary target in research at this moment.
It is not the furthest south case. The case that is furthest south
ceased to be of a great deal of interest to me personally the day when I
found -Кthis sounds awful -Кthe day when I found that I wasn't having
any trouble with them.

People keep coming up to me and saying, "We're still having trouble with
black Vs." And I say, "Yes, yes. That's very interesting," acknowledge
their communication. But it doesn't make too much sense to me for this
reason, for this reason -Кhaven't had any difficulty changing a case for
a long time.

But we do get them on staff. We do find people that won't sit still long
enough to be changed. We have people that walk around in small circles
and scream. We have people that sit there and complain and complain
about how nothing is doing them any good and so forth. And we have to
coach them up.

Well, almost on a spur of the moment we pick up processes which will
reach, more definitely, into these specific cases and more broadly into
these cases, and right now Level One is in such a state of flux. We are
trying to settle it down and select out processes which will reach
rather deeply and widely into this bottom-level case and get it moving.
That is a problem right now. It's not my problem, it is a problem of a
group and it is a problem of the HGC staff right here at this moment and
auditors who are around and about the place.

This is -Кwe're still testing; we're still testing. When we get all
through testing and we more or less have made up our mind to this thing,
then we will have Issue 6 or 7 of SLP and hope that it is the one that
rides along.

But we're not paupers on processes that get cases moving. That's what I
want to talk to you about this evening. We have a considerable wealth of
processes which move cases. You always have R2-45.* You have various
other things which more or less move a case along the line.

I dare say that the most broadly workable technique of which I have any
great cognizance, as far as a far-south case is concerned, is two-way
communication, properly done. This is quite remarkable. It, however,
requires a considerable skill on the part of the auditor. And where we
concede that all auditors have this skill, then we would merely say,
"Two-way communication is what you ought to run on these far-south
preclears until they get to moving." See, we'd say that very bluntly.
But unfortunately, the facts of the case are - is by the time we run
clear on out to Istanbul or someplace where an auditor is sitting there
and he reads about this two-way communication (he's never been trained
on it, particularly; his own communication level is rather down) - not
so workable.

We go even further out and get to South Kensington, we are liable to
find an auditor or two who would like something more spectacular than
can be done with two-way communication. Two-way communication, we
concede, has this liability: it is a grind. It is rather nerve-racking
to sit there talking to a post. We don't quite know what this chap
thinks he is, but he certainly thinks he's something else than what we
think he is, and there's a bit of disagreement there somewhere. And he
has definite blocks on his goal lines and things like this.

And it's a very, very funny thing. A very clever auditor can talk to
this chap for a while - not just yak-yak-yak, you know. It's got to be
the old two-way communication, just right, fishing up the
acknowledgments, making sure that the preclear knows he has been
acknowledged, making a great deal out of the preclear's origin of a
communication.

Preclear finally says, "It's foggy today" - origin of communication.

Now, a person who isn't trained in this would say, "Well, the preclear
finally said, 'It's foggy today.' It's not significant at all." As a
matter of fact, it's terrifically significant. This is the first
communication the preclear has originated in session, see. So boy, do we
make a lot out of that, you know.

And we get this preclear talking. He suddenly changes his consideration,
little wheels and gears - he probably is using those things to think
with - and these little wheels and gears go click. And he says, "Do you
know, I might possibly be able to say something else along this line
which would be equally startling and prone to admiration?"

And he finally thinks for a long time and he says, "I'm sitting here."
You know something like this, something brilliant. But the guy has
originated a communication.

Now, we have to find out what kind of communications people will
originate and steer the conversation in that direction and get them to
know they're originating it, and it's rather neat to do this.

Give you some sort of an idea of this: I processed the head of one of
the largest and most important committees in the Congress of the United
States, and when they get up that high, boy, are they nuts. The motto of
the judiciary, of course, in all lands is "Stop that motion." And if you
don't believe me, look at the normal action of police. A police solution
is always "stop."

How do we clear up traffic? We stop it. How do we keep burglaries from
occurring? We stop burglars. Any way you could think of to stop things
would be that.

Now, the judiciary has gone below stop, and they simply wait. And it's
very interesting how long they can wait. Dickens spoke of a case that
was in chancery - people got born into this case, and they died out of
it, and it had been going for ages and ages and ages.

Well, you take some chap who is intimately concerned with the judiciary
- laughingly so-called, because it has some meaning like "justice" - and
we start to process this chap, and we know we're processing a low-toned
case. We just hear who the fellow is and we say, "Oh, no. This could
happen to me," you know?

And sure enough, this was the state of the case. Had automatic recalls
which gave him "yesterday." He always got "yesterday."

You say, "Can you recall something real?"

He'll say, "Yes. Yesterday."

"Well, what part of yesterday was real to you?"

"Oh, why, yesterday about this same time of day."

"Well now, can you recall something else that was real?"

"Ah, yes, yes. Yes. Yesterday."

You say, "Well, can you recall some particular point, some moment of
time in yesterday?"

"Oh, yes. Yesterday."

You say, "Well, can you recall a time when you were younger than you are
now? and..."

"Yesterday."

You can imagine how some chap, some auditor who knows that he better
remedy this chap's havingness, and he's started out on the recall line
to do so - you say, "Remember something real" to somebody over and over,
and they will make havingness out of it, actually. They will alter-is
(remember) the not-is of forget and get a knowingness which they
consider havingness. And you make them do this operation lots of times,
and they'll have more havingness.

And I was going to run this on him, but I finally just - daahh. So what?

So I got him to talking about his epiglootis. And here was a fascinating
man. His conversational powers were bounded on the north by epiglootis,
on the south by epiglootis, and on the east and the west by
superepiglootis. And this was the extent of his conversational powers,
is what was wrong with him.

And he sounded so proud of it. He sounded so proud of it that, by
two-way communication, I actually got this chap to dig up other things
he could be proud of, which is to say I got him talking about other ills
he might have, too. And you know, he just got prouder and prouder and
happier and happier.

I introduced the question into it that it might not be possible,
someplace in his anatomy that he might have some hitherto unsuspected
bacteria which was gently and carefully carving away upon his bone
structure or on his tendons or something of the sort. There might be
some other illness in his life that he didn't suspect.

And he got to thinking about this, and he just had a wonderful time. His
level of pride and dignity there was coming up all the time.

Now, you think I'm merely being facetious, but I found the associated
data to what he fixedly was talking about and made him talk through and
beyond what he was talking about and broadened his view in the line of
associated data, which is always a very reliable method.

This chap is talking 100 percent about how horrible the air force is.
Get him to admit that the army is horrible too. And then get him to
admit that the navy has its faults. And then get him to admit that as we
go out along these lines, military services of other countries might
equally be in a mess. And he is broadening his scope. We are unfixing
his attention by making him talk about data of comparable magnitude to
his sphere of interest.

And when you know this little trick, you could practically talk a guy
well. You make him talk himself well. Up to that point, if you didn't
know that trick and if you weren't willing to get in there with a
steering oar, and if you weren't willing to navigate the shoals and
channels with a very firm hand on the helm, you would have free
association. And it's very difficult sometimes to get somebody to tell
the difference between a very expertly carried on two-way communication
by an auditor and a free association.

We make the original mistake: Let the guy talk. That's what we say: we
say, "Let him talk." Uh-uh. If he's talking too much, shut him up, and
it's an upstride on the case.

How can we shut him up? We acknowledge what he said. How do we
acknowledge what he said? We get him to find out that we acknowledged
what he said. And this in itself might be a great jump in the case
itself. We don't ever let a fellow go on and talk and talk and talk and
talk and let his mind wander around to this and that.

In the first place, it might work for a few hours that he would feel
better, but certainly after a couple of sessions of this sort of thing,
he'll start to talk himself under. And after a great deal of talk, he
actually could worsen his case by free association. Don't doubt this for
a minute, because they very often do worsen their cases.

Here's where free association had an accidental: It's the analyst's
ability to get that obsessively communicating person aware of the fact
that the analyst has heard what the fellow said. See? And some analysts
had this, and some analysts didn't have that, so we had all kinds of
oddities there. One chap, everything was fine. Another chap, couldn't
get to first base.

We can take this accident out of auditing. In the first place, we're not
going to let anybody free associate. We're going to talk with him. We're
not going to talk to him, and we certainly are not going to be talked
to.

One poor auditor, who is a very lovely lady, has had a very rough time
of it with me, from time to time, because she comes in and says very
proudly that she has just done thus and so. And she operates amongst
people who are quite famous, and is occasionally dismayed that after
I've acknowledged that she's done this, I ask her why the hell didn't
she audit the person?

And she says, "But I was."

"No, you weren't. Now, when next time you see this person, do so-and-so
and so-and-so."

Now, this person has called me long distance across some of the larger
stretches of the world to tell me, "What do you know, that was what was
wrong." But she should have known it sitting right there talking to the
person.

The first time she got bawled out thoroughly was she let a very, very
famous personality talk to her for three days and three nights - without
stopping. And she said it did her so much good; did her so much good.
She had to have somebody to talk to.

Well, why didn't she get a maid or the butler or somebody and talk to
them, you know? Why talk to an auditor? Three days and three nights. It
did her so much good.

So I said to the auditor, "Next - I know this preclear," I said,
"already. And the next time you get this preclear in that kind of a
situation, if you can't get in something that sounds like auditing at
least once every hour, you're losing." And got this auditor to go back
and acknowledge firmly what the preclear had just said.

Preclear would say, "Gabbledy-gabble, yak-yak, yakety-yakety-yak."

And the auditor would say, "That's fine!"

And the preclear said, "Yakety-yakety. . ."

And the auditor said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute."

And of course, this grande dame of high society - of course, anybody
saying "whoa" to her or "wait a minute," this was quite startling, and
this stopped her flow and arrested her attention.

And the auditor at this time said, "I said, 'Fine.' You know, you said
so-and-so and so-and-so, and I said, 'Fine.' I said, 'That's fine."'

She did that, and this grande dame sank back and said, "Whew! Well."
Changed her whole case. First time she had ever been cognizant of
anybody acknowledging her for years.

We've had this happen often, you see. We've had this happen often with
preclears, so we know this works. The obsessive outflow isn't the
preclear talking. It is a machine the preclear finally had to set up to
go on saying what the preclear had already said without acknowledgments,
you see? So the preclear said it once and didn't get it acknowledged,
and then he goes on talking and doesn't get it acknowledged and doesn't
get it acknowledged.

One would almost say that those things which haven't been acknowledged
certainly persist, and they persist until they're acknowledged. So the
mechanical aspect of acknowledgment is something a fellow ought to
understand.

Do you know that if you were to say to the preclear, "How glad I am to
see you. I am very glad you are here. I'm very glad you are here. Did
you hear me?"

"(mumble) - what?"

"I am very glad you are here. I am happy to see you. I am very happy to
see you."

Now, you'd think this would be a crazy preclear that would have to be
talked to this way. Oh, no. It's somebody who floats in on the gay wings
of the social machinery, you know. And they say, "How are you?" and "I'm
very happy to be here," and they sit down. "Well, we're all set for a
session now. Yakety-yakety-yakety-yakety-yak. "

You say, "I am glad you're here."

And they say, "Yakety-yakety-yak."

And you say, "I am glad you are here. I'm glad you arrived for the
session. Thank you for coming for the session."

They say, "Mmm - what's he talking about?"

And you say, "Thank you for coming for the session. I'm glad you are
here."

(sigh) "Yes. Well, ha, yes. Yes, as a matter of fact."

This will work more often than you think - more often than you think.

Now, if you were to run this technique on this preclear, you would find
something fascinating, find something fascinating: "What statement
wouldn't you mind hearing?"

Now, these people with their shut-off sonics turn them on with that
command. And it's an interestingly simple command - that is "What
statement." You're not talking about sound; go a little bit downhill. At
least let them sit in the symbol band.

And you say, "What statement wouldn't you mind hearing?"

And he will tell you from what person and so on. And he will inevitably
come up, if he's having any trouble with his case, with statements such
as this, Mama: "You're a nice little girl, and I'm very glad you're
here." From Papa: "You're a nice little girl. I am happy you are my
daughter."

And this goes with the preclear, wow! Now, these - these are the
acknowledgments they're waiting for. You approximate any of those as an
auditor, and you will get an immediate result in the preclear. So
two-way communication has an awful lot to be known about it.

If you just approximate anything that you believe the preclear is
waiting to hear and say it to them, they get into communication. What
kind of guesswork, though, does that take on your part, hm? Well, not
really any. There's the mechanics of two-way communication itself, and
they carry you along a very long distance.

Now, supposing you wanted to turn actual two-way communication into a
thoroughgoing repetitive-type technique? You would patch up various
significant origins and acknowledgments on the track.

"What statement wouldn't you mind hearing?" and "What statement wouldn't
you mind stating?" are very interesting. But you know, you don't have to
carry along a duplicative-type question on a low-level preclear. You can
handle any concept in Dianetics and Scientology on a two-way
communication basis. You throw it on the table and talk it over with the
preclear. That is sort of the way it is.

Preclear has some sort of an inkling that this or that might not or
might be true in life, and he has sort of adventured it, you throw it on
the table, too, and you talk about it for a short time, you're liable to
get a terrific upsurge.

Now, this chap who is the head of the judiciary committee could run only
two-way communication, but he couldn't run two-way communication until I
looked him straight in the eye and said, "Do you know that I heard you
say that?" And he looked like he'd just been caught guilty of chicken
thievery.

I said, "I heard you say that."

This is something he never intended to have happen. First place, he was
talking way back in - about two feet back of his head. He was two feet
in front of it, and he was talking two feet behind it, just hoping that
as he made statements, nobody would notice. He was running "hiding" on
sound, "hiding" on meaning and significance. He was a master of
obscurity of statement.

See, he was trying to obfuscate the whole issue that he was
communicating, and I finally brought him up gently and gradually into
the admission of the fact that he was communicating, that a
communication was going on, that he was talking to somebody, that
somebody was listening to him and so on. And this all by itself was a
tremendous case gain.

Now, you say you can't make any case gain in an hour and a half with
somebody who can't even run any Straightwire at all. That was the total
length of time I processed this chap, and he lost his chronic somatics.
I processed him an hour and a half, and I ran him on Two-way
Communication only, on a discussion of what other diseases might be
chewing on him.

I broadened his view and lifted his attention off by showing him there
was something else of a tasty nature to look at, such as he might have
cancer of the brain, who knew? X-ray machines can't look into the brain.
He might have cancer of the brain? Might have. You know, this interested
him terrifically.

If you'd listened to this, you would have thought maybe I was evaluating
for him or something, when I would occasionally come up with a
suggestion. Oh, but really, I was just originating the same kind of
communication he was originating.

He'd say, "Well, I don't know. Maybe some of these horrible things which
are occurring - maybe these horrible pains I am getting when I wake up
in the morning, you know, maybe they really mean something else that's
much worse."

And I said, "Well, you probably at the same time when you wake up in the
morning have a kind of a fuzzy feeling in your head. Is that right?"

"Oh, yes. Yes." The man drunk like a fish all the time, you know. Of
course, he always had a hangover. And I'd say, "Well, something like
that, you know, could betoken - could betoken a much more serious
neurological condition. You know that nerves rot, don't you?"

"Oh, yes - do they? Is that right?" you know.

Well, that would have been a dizzy-sounding auditing session, but
actually, it was working all the way. His comm lags, his actual
acknowledgments were there. He was in there closer and closer. He was
much less hostile about life and so forth and people. As a matter of
fact, I think he finished it up feeling rather benign about the whole
thing. He could have a whole walking menagerie of ills. Wonderful,
encouraged him; there was some hope. He could rot clean away.

Now, as we look over - as we look over the low-level processes, then,
let me assure you, we already have one. Well, what's its trouble?

Well, I don't have too much time with some pcs, and if I'm merely
picking one out of the hat to run, I always pick this one out of the
hat: Two-way Communication, you know, and then steer it around in some
direction, broaden his span of attention wherever it's fixed (that's the
secret of it; if you find it's fixed someplace, broaden it), and just
accept that tone level for the pc. It doesn't matter where he's fixed.

He's fixed on effort, work, or maybe he's at the south side of work: "I
work so hard, and nobody ever appreciates it," or something like this.
Broaden his span of attention on the thing. Call to his mind that nobody
ever probably thanked all those poor slaves that worked those pyramids
and, you know, get his attention off and around and moved around. You're
really not telling him things of any great magnitude. You're saying some
tiny gradient sometimes of what he just said, see, only you just come
upscale a little bit more.

He just got through moving a tremendous number of boxes. Well, you
suggest that it might have been stones. You see, you have to be careful
not to outflow against him too much more than he's outflowing against
you, which puts comm lags on the thing.

But you know, if you sat there and looked at a preclear long enough,
he'd finally originate a communication. That's the other thing that an
auditor really has to know to run it. If you just sit there and look at
him long enough, it's sometimes very trying on him. He gets upset, he
gets nervous, he gets - so on.

Now, a pc, he keeps presenting you with some sort of a problem. We know
a pc right now who has squiggles in front of her eyes. It's fascinating
what you do about squiggles in front of somebody's eyes. That's
fascinating. What do you do about squiggles in front of somebody's eyes?
You're not going to sit up here and run a process that's going to
eradicate these squiggles, are you? And yet the pc keeps talking to you
about them and keeps mentioning them. All right.

Now, we just question her. "Are you sure they're not squaggles?" You get
the idea? "Have you ever had - have you ever had a condition where your
sight was slightly blurred? Oh, you have?" You see, "Isn't that
interesting. Well, did you ever have any - did you ever really get your
eyes upset? Have you ever had any disease in your eyes or anything like
that?" you know, anything you want to say.

And then they all of a sudden start to give. And believe me, they will
discuss this subject with you for maybe fifteen, twenty minutes. And
then all of a sudden it's an exhausted subject as far as they're
concerned, and they go off of it, and we never hear any more about these
squiggles. Maybe they're still seeing them, but they don't interest
them. You get the idea?

All right. So we do have a process; we do. It has a liability, however,
of requiring skill. It can too easily become free association. It can
too easily become some sort of an evaluative technique, which is exactly
the reverse of free association. It is the person talking to the
patient, and the patient never gets a chance to say anything, see. All
right. It's too easy for it to degenerate into something and have no
plan.

Well, the plan of two-way communication rather goes this way: You know
that you're at liberty to discuss any point or knowingness in the entire
field of Dianetics and Scientology. You can just throw it on the table
and start talking about it, and you're going to get some kind of a
result from the preclear. That's an interesting thing, because you're
talking about their case.

Now, we take some fixed problem of the preclear, and by any mechanism
whereby he invents problems or tells you lies or any other mechanism, we
get him to get some attention fixation of comparable magnitude. What
else might he fix his attention on, we are almost asking him. "What else
might you fix your attention on that would be just as bad as this
horrible case of wifosis you have, huh? What - what else? What else
would be as bad as that?"

And if you ask him too bluntly, you kind of shatter his ARC. But you can
broaden his attention. He's telling you - he's telling you that his
lungs have been in terrible shape for a very long time, and you ask him
if it's ever affected his heart. Get the idea?

What is the exact mechanical operation under what you're doing? You're
asking him to broaden on a gradient scale his fixation of attention. In
other words, we don't ask him to unfix it, ever. We just simply ask him
to fix his attention on some other things too.

"Could those lungs ever affect your heart? Do you ever have heart
trouble?"

Now, many a doctor does this sort of instinctively. He's in there doing
a diagnosis, and he's tapping and doing all sorts of things. It's quite
interesting. I don't know, he may feel that he knows what he's doing,
and he may only be diagnosing. But it's very often true that the chap
does have this as an immediate result: the patient feels better.

The doctor thinks, "Well, it's on the basis that he was diagnosed, and
he is now - his mind is at ease concerning it." Well, his mind would be
much more at ease concerning it if the medical doctor had discovered
whether or not any other area in that vicinity was also affected.

If I were doing a diagnostic-type auditing, see, and the chap were
complaining about his shoulder, we would wind up with the possibility
that actually - we were talking about his left shoulder - that his right
big toe was possibly being affected by the same condition. And in other
words, we would just broaden his attention out, as far as the body is
concerned.

Then we would ask him whether or not other members of his family or
associates are ever affected this way, just to find out whether or not
we have an epidemic. And the chap would go away, and in a large number
of cases, why, he would just feel fine. But of course, it'd take about a
half an hour or an hour to do this type of diagnosis.

We would impress him that we were diagnosing by having a lot of shiny
things around that we did things with and clattered occasionally but
none of which resembled operational instruments, you understand. I mean,
we'd have meters, and we'd have small weighing machines.

And we'd say, "All right. Now, your shoulder feels bad. Now, how about
your hand? How about your hand? Your hand ever feel bad at all? Have you
ever had any trouble with your hand? Well, all right. Now, put your hand
on this little machine here now." And you'd carefully read the scale.

You could do a diagnosis. You would become - you'd become absolutely
fabulous to people because so many people would walk in the door and
walk out well.

Now, you're treating somebody, mind, let us say - let us use this
horrible sort of comparison, because the second we say, "treating the
mind," we think of minds full of diseases and all sorts of things. Minds
are - if minds are full of anything, they're only full of disabilities.

So let's take a look at this. And the chap starts talking about his
disabilities, what he can't do. Well, let's find out how whipped he
really is. That's the direction he's usually trying to go. Now, that
sounds funny, but a preclear will sit there and talk to you about it
very glibly. "I can't play a piano, either, you know. Can't ride a
horse, you know. Can't ride a horse or play a piano or..."

Very often they can't eat, either. Yeah, having an awful hard time
eating. And you'll find some preclears that will take the greatest
satisfaction in these things if you just start talking about it. And
that's the preclear you ought to run it on. Preclear isn't really
in-session, having a rough time, doubtful of the auditor, asks you lots
of questions concerning your experience as an auditor.

Kick their shins when they do something like this, you know. I do. I
mean, it's just literally - they say, "Now, have you ever had a case
like mine?" and so forth.

I look at them right between the eyes, and I say, "A case like yours?
Well, what sort of a case is yours?"

"Hm, is that right? Well, I don't know. I might have had cases like
yours. Any other members of your family have cases like yours?"

And here we go. In other words, just let's broaden this scope, and let's
get it off of that subject. And you'll find out that once they find they
can - here's the whole secret of it - once they can find they can
communicate with more things than the things they're communicating about
or with or at, they then feel that they no longer obsessively have to
hold on to that thing, you see?

There is no such thing as an abundance of communication; it's an
unattainable, on any subject. When you learn that real well, you know
two-way communication. You see?

You say, "Well, there's such a thing as too much communication with the
tires of a lorry," you know.

Well, for a body, there is. What are you doing processing a body? Aha.
To a thetan, he might just love the idea of thousands, millions,
billions of bodies in intimate communication with the tires of lorries
on the underside.

You process the thetan, you'll find out that you're usually processing
something which at least reacts on a lower tone level, quite ordinarily,
than the body. And this is the case you have trouble with, the case
that's - is, as a thetan, much lower on the Tone Scale than the body.
And you get this case, and he hangs fire and nothing he thinks has any
effect at all on anything that happens. You got that?

Now, that is the toughest case there is. There is no tougher case than
that. You can process this fellow forever. For instance, if you think
hard at your shoulder that you have a pain there, you, being in pretty
good shape, probably can bring a pain there, see? I did it just now,
hurts like hell. All right. Now, an effectiveness of postulate is what
I'm talking about, see?

You say, "Boy, what a terrific pain I've got there, you know. Just got a
pain there, that's all there is to it." In other words, when you think
something, something happens. You got it?

Well, the case you have trouble with, when it thinks something, nothing
happens. And in the next-to-the-last paragraph of his twenty-eighth
lecture, Sigmund Freud mentions this case as totally uncurable. "Not to
be cured by us," he says. He calls it a level of detachment.

That's the case, level of detachment; the person is detached from life.
In other words, what we could say is this individual makes a postulate
and nothing occurs. He gives an order, nothing happens. Get the idea? He
says, "Ridge move," no ridge moves.

And when he gets down totally to a point of where he's absolutely
convinced nothing will ever occur, you've got yourself an interesting
state of affairs. You have somebody who will bring the body on a kind of
a stimulus-response mechanism into the auditing session. But then you
run concepts, you do this, you do that, you do something else. You ask
them to run problems. You ask them to do this, that, anything, and
nothing happens as a result of this. You actually don't even stir the
case up.

You could ask this chap with complete impunity to repeat after you "It's
a boy. It's a boy. It's a boy." You know what would happen to almost
anybody? They'd go - any male would go, almost - well, some high
percentage, would go immediately into the birth engram, see? Repeater
technique doesn't work on this person. That's the person who has no
change, and that's the person that you worry about, and that's the
person whose case you are trying to crack on these low levels. So open
thine ears, and we will give you the hot dope here - at least, warm
dope.

Do you understand this as the individual who, as a thetan, dead in his
head, can say, "My right foot is gangrenous. It hurts. It's going to
hell," anything he wanted to say, and there would be absolutely no
consequence whatsoever of his having made the statement? You got that?

So that he believes there is no consequence to any of his actions in
life, and he goes out and he does the damnedest things. He goes out, and
he runs through crosswalks with cars, and he robs aged ladies and kicks
babies off parapets, and anything and everything you could think of he
does, because there's no consequence. That is the state of mind into
which he has developed himself: There's going to be no consequence.

So you ask this individual, "What would happen if you got mad?"

Oh, he can run this by the hour. There's only one thing he knows, is
that there's no consequences to anything. So he can behave the way he
wants to. You have your insane person, your criminal, these fall into
that classification - your homosexual. There is no consequence to their
action. That is the action back of their actions. They say, "I don't
affect anything."

They could stand there with a sawed-off shotgun and - fully loaded - and
pull both barrels at your chest, see the bullets go in out of those
barrels, see you drop to the floor, dead and blown to pieces, and they
would not think anything had occurred.

And the police are going to do something with these guys? You know,
somebody is going to pass a law to make these people more law-abiding?
They can't.

Well now, at a little higher level than this - not your criminal,
criminal is not a type - he is merely a fellow who has picked the third
dynamic out for his randomity. An atheist is another kind of criminal in
another age. He has picked out God for his randomity. You see, he's not
a criminal, though; he's a heretic.

All right. So you could pick out almost anything for one's randomity,
you see, and have no consequence in action because of this thing. One
knows that he cannot create an effect. And let's go back and look at the
first of The Factors and find that there, and that hasn't moved any, and
it's right where it was. Prime purpose - prime purpose, cause to effect.
That's the way it is. That's the way you get universes, everything.

And we find out that this individual can stand at cause-point and scream
like hell, and nobody will ever hear him. He could fire off rockets, he
could shoot cannon, he could distill the most insidious poison in the
world and put it in a chute down toward the effect-point, but there's
only one thing he knows: It will never reach the effect-point. Get the
idea?

So when an individual believes that he no longer can reach an
effect-point on this cause, distance, effect line, you have then a case
who hangs up in processing. His postulates don't work, is one way of
expressing it. When he says something, it never arrives.

Now, does two-way communication seem to make a little difference to you
now?

Audience: Mm-hm.

You see what this is?

You say to this lady, and she's going, "Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap,
yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap," see? And you say, "Bzzzzt-whoa,
whoa, whoa, that's fine. Good. Whoa, whoa, whoa, I heard you."

"Huuhhh!"

What happens there? This individual actually realizes that they have set
some words in motion which did register on another living being, and you
shortly afterwards will start to become alive and become real to this
person. Do we see this?

With two-way communication, we establish the other thing: that they can
receive a thought. Now, it goes both ways. The individual who cannot
cause any effects is the most surprised person in the world when he gets
over to E prime. When he is over there, he says, "What's going on? What
could possibly have happened? I can't be an effect."

He's very surprised, you see. He can't cause anything, he can't be an
effect.

One of the ways he keeps from being an effect is not to cause anything,
and he's got this all worked out. And he'll hang fire on this beautiful
little equation till the end of time. He can't cause anything, therefore
he never reaches any other effect, and therefore nothing ever reaches
him. So on two-way communication you show him at once that you can say
something that interests him.

He's struck by this as being very, very fantastic. He doesn't believe
there's any such thing. Nobody could possibly talk to him about anything
that would interest him. He knows this. Any interest in the thing, he
generally knows more than anybody else in the whole world, anyway, and
he hasn't got any reason to listen to anybody. They have nothing to tell
him.

This is quite often his computation. It's fantastic, because it's a
highly aberrated computation. You mean, somebody else isn't going to
invent - will never invent something that you then won't know about?
Uh-uh. You see, that's an impossibility; that's an impossibility. You
mean, there's a writer down here writing in a book, and every word he
writes in that book you're going to know all about before you ever read
that book? Uh-uh. See, it's really not going to happen that way, not on
a two-way communication basis.

So this chap believes implicitly that there is really no real fun to
living, but he'll go on living, anyhow. He'll sort of humor himself.
There's nothing to have an effect on him; there is nothing he can cause
an effect upon. And you've got a hang-fire case. His postulates don't
work. Other people's postulates, too, don't work on him. They go off in
other vias.

See, you say, "Put your hand on your head," and he crosses his legs. Get
the idea? He does not reach, and he is not reached, and that is your
case.

Now, instead of plowing around with a bunch of figure-figure processes
one way or the other or trying to get him to do this or trying to get
him to do that, let's just look right bluntly, right straight in the
face, this situation: This individual's postulates do not work.
Furthermore, no consequence ever occurs to him. He's gotten himself
nulled down to a point of where he gets no consequence for his acts or
anything of the sort. Therefore, his level of responsibility for the
society is very poor.

That is the extreme of this case. That is the extreme case that
psychoanalysis couldn't help. That is the extreme case that will walk in
and sit down. A person who is not in this extremity can be run on any of
the processes in SLP Issue 5 - a person who is not in that extremity,
and that person will get better.

So how do we remedy this one thing? First way to remedy it is two-way
communication. The individual says things and you hear them. This is a
great surprise to him, but he finds out at length that it's true, you
did hear him. And you say things that he hears. Fantastic! But once
you've established this fact, the individual discovers he can cause an
effect. So we've disabused him of his most basic computation, and we
demonstrate to him that he can be an effect without necessarily dying in
his tracks.

So that's how two-way communication works, and that is the first edge in
on one of these chaps. If you know exactly what you're doing and know
exactly what's wrong with him - and that is exactly what's wrong with
him - you can then solve him.

Now, you can give him things to do which produce interesting results on
him. There are many things you can give him to do. I have told you some
recently about telling lies. Have him tell lies about the environment,
invent problems about the environment - various other things you can
give him to do.

But there is one technique which is not a new technique, but which is
not in general use, and which is a very fascinating one. It's a
possibility with this technique that you'd drive him immediately into
apathy, but we conceive that you've already stirred him up and got him
going with two-way communication. And then we would concede that you
knew your case wasn't in too bad an ARC with you, and then we would
start to run him on something like this: "What would obey you?" And we
would ask it as a repetitive question.

Asking it as a repetitive question might almost drive him mad.
Duplication is too close to communication. But you could ask him this,
and he's liable to have a line charge, he's liable to go into apathy,
he's liable to do almost anything. But the point is, you will be running
the technique which is most intimate to his state of case. See, that is
right on the button.

Now, the other side of it is "What wouldn't you mind obeying?" He'll
find out there are a lot of things that can order him around and he
wouldn't mind it at all. And you get him to discover those two things.

If you took then this detached case, if you took then this case which
has always been called the failed case, in any psychotherapy, if you
took this case that is the hang-fire case that is a long time in
processing with us, and if you observed this fact in this case, if you
would yourself get some reality on it - this fellow makes a postulate,
and nothing happens; you make a postulate, and nothing happens. So the
common denominator of the case seems to be "nothing happens" or "always
too much happens, and it's the wrong thing." Equally, you see.

All right. We would look at this case, and we would say right away we
have something here with which to work. This individual, on a two-way
communication basis, must discover that what he is saying is being
heard, and he must discover that he can hear what you are saying. That's
the first thing that you'd have to establish with this case.

And you would establish it. I don't care by talking about what or
anything, you'd just establish those two things: that there was a C-E
line in both directions, see? He gets the acknowledgment, you see; he
gets your acknowledgment, he does hear what you originated. He can
originate something, which you then respond to. This you establish, on
whatever subject we don't care.

But having established that, we then would get him to - if we were in
extremis with this case - to address the one pin in the case that must
be solved before you can run any figure-figure technique, before you can
do anything else with the case at all, and that's simply - well, you can
get him to tell lies, you can get him to do a lot of things, you
understand? But if you were right up against it on there and you were
hitting the one technique that would be right to battery on this one
point, is "What would obey you?"

You don't ask him to make a test of it. You just ask him, "What would
obey you? And what else would obey you?" Now we turn around the other
way to, and we ask him what he wouldn't mind obeying. And we'd run it as
repetitive questions. We'd run it with good two-way communication. We'd
run it in such a way as to get him cognizant of his own command over the
universe in general.

And when you've rehabilitated that command somewhat, then you can run
any figure-figure process, then you can run any computational process.
You can run any idea, no matter how abstruse or - and get the result
with the preclear. You could have him examine all of these ideas.

But to ask somebody to run something who has not immediately learned
that he can cause an effect and an effect can be caused on him is, of
course, going to result in a failure, no matter how tricky it is, no
matter how well thought out it is or anything of the sort. There is the
center of these cases.

And I want you to look this over, and next time I see you, I'm going to
ask you if you've run into anybody like this and if you have had any
kind of a conversation with anybody whose postulates did not produce an
immediate effect on life. See if you can't integrate this a little bit
and see what this detached case is of Sigmund Freud. See what this
"nothing happens" or "too much happens always," - this highly automatic
case of Dianetics and Scientology-and see if you can't just trace it
back to this: His postulates don't work, and postulates don't work on
him. Get yourself some reality on this, and then we can go on from
there.

Thank you.

[auditor]

5512C01 THE FUNDAMENTALS OF AUDITING STYLE

A lecture given on 1 December 1955

We have the main subject here in this basic auditor's course - this is
not a basic auditing course; this is a basic auditor's course, coaching
course - and we have here as our main subject (what do you know),
auditing.

Now, that sounds a little bit strange but, actually, it's not strange,
since there's a great deal to know about this subject of auditing, all
of which is very fundamental and much of which is completely bypassed,
overpassed, neglected and not connected with at all, by a great many
auditors. And failing to hit these very fundamental bits and principles,
the advance of Scientology thereby is enormously held back.

Now, you think that's a brutal statement, but we will just start from
there. Lack of knowledge of certain of these basic principles are
holding back Scientology. How? By creating failed cases and slow-moving
cases.

Now, it is very often the case when an auditor has a slow-moving case
that he looks for another process, and he shouldn't be looking for
another process, because that's probably not why the case is moving
slowly. The first thing that he should suspect is that there is
something fundamental, extremely fundamental, which is awry in the
handling of the case itself. Person to person, as a personality, as an
individual, there is something awry. ARC has not been established.

The next thing that he should suspect - and he should suspect this until
he is on very firm ground - is that he himself may have a fundamental or
two that he himself has neglected to assimilate and use. There are
fundamentals about auditing below the level of auditing which are more
important than auditing. Even though these things are very simple, even
though they are apparently something that just everybody knows, and so
on, they are very, very often neglected and overlooked.

Now, I will give you a very, very sharp example of this. I happen to
know a preclear who runs smoothly, easily, performs any and all command;
given a proper process, will clean it up in a matter of a few minutes.
This is one of these demon preclears -can run anything, does run
anything; see, exteriorize and so forth.

Not long ago this preclear got into the hands of an auditor and got
loused up. Now, how did this preclear - how could this preclear possibly
be loused up? This preclear could run everything. Well, he couldn't run
the misauditing that he was being given.

Well, was this misauditing really - really rough? I mean, was it really
tough misauditing? Was it flagrant breaches of the Auditor's Code and
all that sort of thing? Did these enter into it? No. There was something
very, very fundamental missing in the auditor's education. He didn't
know a certain aspect of existence which goes as follows: We have a
scale. At the top of the scale there's Knowingness, just below this
there is Not-knowingness, and just below that there is
Understandingness.

Understanding means something exists to be understood. So something must
already have been invented so that we could have something to
understand. That's why understanding comes at that point on the scale.
Know, Not-know, Understand and below that, on a dwindling spiral, ARC,
until we get to the bottom of this, and we have Unconsciousness.

Now, that's all there is to that scale. There isn't any embroidery work,
no Mechlin lace, no frills, nothing. If you just look at that scale
right there, with just those things on it, you will see a scale in its
purity which will mean a great deal and make a great deal plain right in
auditing.

At the top we have Knowingness. Therefore, it tells us at once that the
preclear who is cogniting, who has suddenly come into a new piece of
knowingness about existence, is in pretty darn good state at that
moment. Right? So therefore we could even change a process at that
moment. But it has to be big. He has to be sure of it. It has to be
Knowingness.

Now, if he merely understands his father and mother, where is he? "Oh, I
- I suddenly understand my father and mother." That's not really a good
cognition. It's an understanding cognition, it is a knowingness about
something. And therefore we would think for a moment or two before we
changed our process on "Oh, I see what Father was all about." You get
the idea? We would think for a moment or two, because it goes Know, and
then that little postulate Not-know, and then Understand. So it's a
little bit lower.

And therefore you would handle this more gently. You'd maybe run it a
little bit further, and it'll turn up into some knowingness. Some
knowingness on the subject would have something to do with a far more
general picture. A knowingness must apply more broadly to the dynamics
than an understandingness. An understandingness generally applies to one
part of one dynamic, and a knowingness generally applies to at least a
few dynamics. All right.

Now, when we look this over, we see what we mean by a cognition. A
cognition is something that is pretty darn sweeping. It is knowingness;
it is not knowingness about something, which is understandingness. So we
look at this understandingness, and we find out that changing a process
at a moment of minor understandingness would be a risky thing to do,
because it's below the level of a broad knowingness.

Now, you see these things, you work with them. It's something like how
red is a red bicycle? You and I know that a red bicycle - a red bicycle
that is very red is a really red bicycle, see? We know that. We can talk
about it. We could measure it in angstrom units and go through a large
chemical formulary and describe all of the colors of red and their
reflective incidences and the ingredients which go into paint to make
these colors red, and we could go through an enormous category, but it
still wouldn't have gotten around this one fact: How red is a red
bicycle? It's real red. Well, you and I understand that, but when we get
it down to a system or put it down to MEST, we understand it less well.

Do you know that the chemist or the color expert who has finally figured
out how red that red bicycle is, is probably unable to see. He's
probably got glasses about that thick. All right.

So we understand what an understandingness is. See, that's easy to
understand. We don't have to go any further on it. We do know what a
knowingness is. This person has a certain knowingness on a certain
level. We can understand what that is, and as such, in an auditing
session we so adjudicate it.

Now, very often the auditor is making a slight error. He says this
preclear got a cognition. All this preclear did was understand why Mama
went into rages. Well, you could call it a cognition. You could play
around with the idea of shifting the process or something at that point.
With some two-way comm you probably could put it on the shelf, but it'd
need a little assistance, you see?

And the preclear might be way up Tone Scale to understand something
about Mama. Certainly the preclear has come up Tone Scale on the subject
of Mama; certainly this has occurred. Very well. Very well.

We know the preclear is fairly high, but he isn't on a subject of
knowingness. The actuality is that if he knew Mama, Mama would never
again bother him. You got that? Just never again. There's - this kind of
a gap could be envisioned between: It's quite one thing to be able to
understand Mama and put up with her, and quite another thing to know the
subject of Mamas, because you certainly never worry about them
afterwards, you see? There's a difference between this understandingness
and this knowingness.

Now, let's go down just below understandingness, and we find the
component parts of understandingness. We find understandingness from
there on down, till we get clear to stupidity. But it is better
understood as it goes lower if broken down into its component parts:
affinity, reality and
communication.

It's pretty hard to measure understandingness after it drops a little
bit above obvious understandingness, you see? It gets a little difficult
to measure, so we want three more yardsticks, and those three are
interdependent upon one another. Now, the reason we throw them in there
is because they are yardsticks and also because by using them, we can
promote understanding. We can actually bring it about.

So we have these three points, and we have this dwindling triangle, you
might say, which goes down to practically nonexistent understandingness,
which is stupidity. You could have stupidity about something, which
would be above stupidity. But do you know there's a point below
stupidity, and that point is unconsciousness. And we have embraced all
gradients on the scale when we get to unconsciousness; we embraced all
gradients.

Unconsciousness is a sort of waitingness. It is the last way to handle
waitingness, for a thetan. He doesn't go any further south than
unconsciousness. He doesn't have a death. That's as far south as you can
get, then, would be a complete oblivion. But that complete oblivion is
the unconsciousness which you see somebody enter into when he is
unconscious.

Now, unconsciousness, oddly enough, has its own gradient scale. There is
an unconsciousness by reason of anesthetics. And an individual,
actually, under anesthesia knows pretty well what's going on. But
there's an unconsciousness below that. There's an unconsciousness to a
point where the individual does not know, as a thetan, what is going on.
And that is about as close as you can come to an absolute, and that is
the bottom of that scale.

So there is a bottom of the scale, and there is a top of the scale. Now,
the funny part of it is, is the bottom of the scale is approached more
or less on the basis of, as the bottom of the scale is approached, a
dimming out of the intellect, the IQ, the good personality traits and so
forth. And these dim out, and they get dimmer and dimmer and dimmer, and
the final bottom of it is for the fellow to be unconscious. See that?

When he is unconscious, he has no agreement, therefore no reality. He
has no communication, and in addition to that, he has no affinity. A
fellow in a terrible rage might, to you, seem to be an individual
without affinity. But believe me, an individual in a terrible rage has
far more affinity present than an individual who is unconscious. Please
see that, and you will see what is wrong with sodium pentothal and all
these other brackets like hypnotism and so forth. Do you see that?
They're downscale.

You take a subject who has been hypnotized or who has been given a great
many drugs or something and you start bringing him upscale, and he goes
into rage. Well, that's not the moment for you to smack him in the face
and push him down again. The fellow is coming up through anger and rage
and will go above those points because there are other way-stops.

But when we get to these other way-stops - when we get the original Tone
Scale, when we get the various points on the subzero Tone Scale, we are
getting far more specific than we actually need to be for elementary
auditing knowledge, and we're actually getting more specific than an
auditor should be in his basic understanding of this subject. He
shouldn't introduce all of those interpoints until he understands the
skeleton of that scale. Because the skeleton of that Tone Scale will
tell him practically anything he wants to know at any given moment about
the behavior of his preclear. And it will certainly tell him whether
he's winning or losing.

This case was a pianola, we used to call them, and the auditor in
question was utterly baffled in running the case and could not end
sessions on this case. Get to the end of the session, couldn't end the
session; case wouldn't let him end the session. Arguments, upsets.

And do you know why those upsets came about? It's because the auditor,
under very close questioning, did not have a good grip on the fact that
Knowingness is at the top of the scale and Unconsciousness is at the
bottom of the scale and had thought the preclear was more "restful"
because he was less energetic and thought therefore that was the time to
end the process.

This auditor had been auditing I don't know how many preclears without
ever understanding that his mission and goal was to raise the ARC of the
preclear. Lord knows how many preclears this auditor must have dumped
into limbo. You know, they walked out of the session saying, "Where's
the door?" He didn't understand that a preclear who is groggy is a
preclear who is low on ARC.

And I went over it carefully, patiently - and for a guy that's commanded
men awfully gently, hrumph - and I finally got it through his head that
when the preclear started to get dopey on him and fog on him, that an
auditing booboo must have occurred, or the preclear hit something that
was too rough for him to handle for his state of case. One or the other
has happened.

Either the preclear has pitched into it and it's too rough for him,
therefore he starts toward unconsciousness - and they go fast, believe
me; that is not a route in distance or time. And the other one is that
the auditor had pulled some sort of an error, and the error was then
followed by the anaten of the preclear. But the error was not the anaten
and was not to be found in the anaten, and the anaten wasn't the error.
The error had occurred before the unconsciousness (analytical
attenuation - our coined word, anaten) occurred. The error occurred
before the unconsciousness took place, and the unconsciousness was the
last word of warning the preclear could give. He says, "It's all wrong."

And I said to the auditor, "Well then, how would you get somebody out of
this?"

"Oh," he'd say, "you have to continue running the process. You've said
that many times."

Bzzzzzhh.

"You're going to run a process on an unconscious preclear?"

"Oh well, he wasn't very unconscious. He was just doped off."

"How is he going to register on this? Do you realize that he may have
sunk below the point where you started the session?"

"Oh well, of course. They always do, don't they?"

Rrrrrrr. He meant his always did. But it's not true. If a preclear
cannot wind up a session more alert than he started the session, there
was something wrong with the auditing. We just say, "alert." We're just
talking about a better understandingness, a better ARC, a better
consciousness.

Now, let's look at this thing called unconsciousness at the bottom of
the scale and realize as we go upscale we must then being approach -
approaching higher and higher consciousness, we mean he is more and more
alert, that's all. We don't mean he is getting into the consciousness
with a cosmic consciousness which is the square root of blah. We simply
mean he's waking up. Did you ever see anybody wake up? Well, that's how
a preclear gets conscious. You know, they wake up.

Preclear walks in at the beginning of the intensive, he's feeling for
the door. He's feeling for the chair. You really don't find him feeling
for the door or feeling for the chair unless you know how to look, and
it's that he misgauges everything just slightly, you know? She puts her
purse down and then moves it a couple of times to get it in the right
place, you know? You get the inaccuracies. They're minor, but they're
there to be observed.

And at the end of the intensive, a precision of motion, positiveness,
placingness and so forth ought to be present. If you only knew this, you
see, you would see at once that your preclear was bettered. He was more
precise, he was more competent. And it will show up on the rather
lengthy method of the intelligence test, it will show up on behavior
tests, and it will show up in piloting airplanes and so forth.

But do you need these gross tests to discover whether or not you're
assisting the preclear? You don't need these gross, huge systems to tell
you whether or not you're benefiting the preclear, not for a moment. If
you merely know that stupidity - one of the symptoms of stupidity is an
unknownness of time and place, and is a definition of stupidity -
stupidity could have several definitions, but the mechanical definition
is an unknownness of time and place. And therefore competence would be a
knownness of time and place, wouldn't it? That's what competence is.

What would you think of a bomber who pulled a stick of bombs an hour
before he got on the target, but instead of pulling the stick and drop
the bombs, which is what he intended to do, he let down his wheels?
You'd say he wasn't very competent. Now, the bomber who pulls the stick
of bombs at the moment he is on the target, and it is the bomb stick,
he's competent.

Well, it's unfortunate that his competence would be dedicated and
devoted to such an activity, but at the same time, he is doing a
precision placement, isn't he?

Well, let's look much more thoroughly at that. What about Miss Malaprop,
the lady who always says the exact wrong thing at the wrong time to the
wrong people? You ever known such a person?

Female voice: Yes.

They just can't ever seem to say, "How are you, Mr. Smith?" you know.
Nothing simple like that. It's always something else, and it is always a
little bit offbeat. That is just the placement of the communication,
isn't it? Time, place, person. The right communication in the right
place to the right person would be competence in communication, wouldn't
it?

Well, after this person has made enough communication boo-boos, they
stop talking. You see, it goes downscale. It's not that they have
learned better than to talk. They're just going downscale on
communication, that's all.

And after a while, if you looked at them, they wouldn't be very
conscious. You would come in the door, and you'd slam it and so forth,
and rack around the house and so forth. And this person - you've been
home an hour, you know, and this person looks at you and says, "Oh, are
you home?" Get the idea? Well, that is where the awareness fits in.

Now, an auditor who sees his preclear all of a sudden go "Duuhh, hmm"
he's dealing with something. It's time for him to get in there with some
two-way comm. It isn't time for him to change the process. It's time for
him to find out if there's any auditing to patch up. It's time for him
to get in there with some two-way communication one way or the other. I
don't care if he talks about fish and goats.

Every once in a while an auditor says to me, "This two-way comm is all
right, but it's too complicated. I never can think of anything to say to
the preclear."

I say, "Well, you just thought of a horrible thing to say to me, didn't
you?"

He cognited. "Yes, I did, ha-ha!"

"All right. You can probably think of equally nasty things to say to a
preclear."

Now, where you have communication, which is two-way communication,
you're going to get a rise in tone. Where you have a slump on the part
of the preclear into anaten, a relaxation of attention, his alertness is
dropping, he is not being as sharp or as smart as he was before, there
is probably something wrong.

Now, by the mechanics of auditing you can expect the attention to the
environment to introvert when you are running a subjective process. Have
you got that? You can expect, as you start to run a subjective process,
that his attention for the environment will introvert. Now the question
is, is it less alert?

See, from the environment to his subjective bank is not necessarily a
drop of consciousness. But did he shift from the environment to his -
see, he's examining whether or not his mother's universe and his
universe are entangled or separated or what, see? And he's examining
this, and his attention goes off the environment and goes onto the bank.

That will make him appear, from an outside viewpoint, to be less alert,
as long as we say "less alert to the environment." You see, we have to
classify it. He was not alert at all to his bank and his mother's
universe. He was restraining this in some fashion, so he was not alert
at all to that a moment before you started auditing him. And now right
after you started auditing him, and addressed his mother's universe, we
find him less alert to the environment and more alert to his mother's
universe. You get where the shift of attention has gone?

Well, the question is not whether he's shifted his attention in to out,
or out to in; that isn't the question. The question is whether or not
there's less alertness to that attention. Is he less capable of exerting
attention? That's the question you have to answer, so that the auditor
has a very, very nice adjudicative principle.

He sits there and he watches the preclear, and as far as the preclear is
concerned - remember, he's a thetan; he isn't a body. Now, is the thetan
less or more alert? We get the answer to this in the thing called
communication lag. As lags lengthen, the thetan is going downhill.
Something for you to remember, see? He's going downhill.

Well, you can permit him to go downhill a little ways, if you know
enough to bring him back uphill. But supposing we had a preclear, and it
was rather late in the evening, and we ask him, "All right. Now, 'Are
pumpkins red or green?"' Whatever our auditing question was, you know,
"Are pumpkins red or green? Good. Fine."

You say, "Are pumpkins red or green?"

And he says, "That's right. They're red."

And you say, "Good. Are pumpkins red or green?"

And he'd say, "Well, pumpkins are red."

And you say, "Well, are pumpkins red or green?"

And he says ... (silence)

Now, we know that something is a little less alert here. Is it the bank
or the preclear? Let's just take a look at this, see.

He finally says, "Oh, I don't know. I guess they're kind of pink."

You say, "Well, fine. Are pumpkins red or green?" And we get a little
bit longer comm lag.

Now, it's just about time for you as an auditor to get very alert. It's
late in the evening. It's approaching ten o'clock. You know, your
preclear can go diving on down the Tone Scale on the gayest little
toboggan ride you ever saw in your life and wind up out. He's comm
lagging on something. You've asked him the question the third time, and
his comm lag was longer. And you ask him the fourth time, and his comm
lag was longer. And you ask him the fifth time, and if his comm lag
didn't shorten that time, you've got a problem on your hands, auditor,
because that comm lag is not going to shorten.

The tiredness and the accumulated fatigues of the day, perhaps hunger,
lack of food, all sorts of oddities may have entered into this session
while it was in progress. And the worst thing you think you could do is
not flatten the comm lag. Hm-hm, that isn't the worst thing you can do.
The worst thing you can do is mess up a preclear.

If you were auditing the process only - not only in an extreme situation
like this but in many other situations, you're going to make mistakes.
And you're never auditing a process; you're auditing a preclear. And
these days we interlard all processes with two-way communication. And
when do we use it? That is the big mystery. We use it when the preclear
starts downscale, and we bring him back upscale again with it.

We say, "Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. You just come out of that little
boil-off, and you sit up there, be a good little preclear, huh. We don't
allow no skidding around here. We don't allow no anatening. What did I
do wrong?" That's an awfully sort of a not-promotive-of-ARC question,
but the very funny part of it is, if the preclear went anaten, it's an
awfully good one to ask.

Not "What have I done wrong now," of course. But you can ask him, "What
have I - what have we done here? What's wrong? Has anything gone wrong
with the session?"

"No," he'll say - polite preclear. "No, no" - grog, grog. "No, nothing's
gone wrong. Nothing."

He'll be really rather sure. "Just look it over for a moment there. Has
anything really gone wrong there, or is everything all right with the
session and..."

"Oh, there's nothing really wrong except, when you dropped your ashtray
a couple of minutes ago, why, it had a funny feeling on me." Or "You've
asked the last twenty questions without any kind of a break, and it just
doesn't seem to me like you're very interested." Something's gone off.

Well, why bother to categorize how many things have gone off when all
you have to do is ask the preclear? And that's a whole subject in
itself. So we'll go back and take a look at this other - these other
factors. And these factors start at the top with Knowingness, and they
wind up at the bottom with Unconsciousness. Your preclear is a thetan.
He is just so alert.

Now, there are some little oddities that come in this, and one of the
oddities is this: A thetan is very close to being unconscious if he
doesn't know he's a thetan. If he doesn't know he is a being separate
from a body, I'd say he was practically snoring. See? He's really right
there at a deep yawn, at least.

And one of the manifestations of his coming awake is quite curious. He
starts to have nightmares. A thetan trying to have nightmares is
something very remarkable to observe. The reason he has nightmares is
not very disturbing. He starts to come awake himself while the body is
asleep. He isn't differentiating between the body and himself. He has
the body and himself still entangled, but to some slight degree he's got
a differentiation going here. He's being audited, you see, and he's a
little more aware of the fact that he is himself and the body is a body.

So he goes to sleep at night, and lo and behold, do we have a very
relaxed thetan? No! What the hell is a thetan doing going to sleep at
night? Just ask that question. That's a - dduuuhhh. To get rest? Huh!
"Thetan needed rest." These are asininities, see? What's he doing going
to sleep?

Well, he's doing - going to sleep is because his anchor point is the
body, and the body keeps him located. And when the body goes to sleep,
he's no longer located. And the reason he dreams and has nightmares is
very cute. He's trying to put up enough mock-ups via his own machinery
to get himself located again.

Believe me, honest, I tell you, this is the total significance of that
circumstance. You'll have that circumstance reported to you over and
over and over and over, so you might as well know the answer to it. It's
one of these really - real fundamental things.

The thetan starts to wake up. He doesn't go to sleep anymore, of course.
And so the body goes to sleep, and he starts waking up, and his answer
is to have nightmares so that he can get enough mock-ups around so he
can orient himself. Sure, these are horrible nightmares. Sure, these are
awful. You ask him what his acceptance level is as a thetan. You just
take the area of the body in which he's normally situated, and you give
it havingness and find out the things it accepts, and you will be
flabbergasted.

The idea of a piece of used sewer pipe would be as delicious as a
lollipop to this thetan. See, his deterioration of havingness is quite
marked, and we see this thing turn on. We see these various mechanisms
occur as the preclear is being audited.

But the preclear is asleep if he's interiorized, more or less. He's
depending on the wakefulness of the body and its alertness, and we start
to wake him up by auditing. Then how are you going to tell at any given
moment if he isn't just boiling off or if he isn't just waking up
through a boil-off?.

Boy, I tell you, you could get awful philosophical about this. This is
one of the most complicated questions that you ever heard of. This
question is so complicated that Bergson would have gone mad trying to
answer it. But fortunately, we're not this completely involved.

The preclear, as he sits down, is a unit. He is a unit beingness. And
the sleepiness of the preclear or the anaten of the preclear is marked
by such things as misplacements, inabilities to talk to you - the
standard things you look for in a preclear, that you recognize.

You say, "What's your name?"

And he says, "I feel fine."

See, the wrong remark and the wrong answer, wrong time. And we then
place our preclear rather accurately about where he sits. We know he's
kind of out of communication, therefore, we know that he's not very
capable of liking things. We know that he's practically spun in on two
or three lines, therefore, he's probably not exteriorized.

We can add all these things up. And one of the finest things in the
world to do is to gather experience on simplicities, not complexities.
And if you gather experience on just these simplicities of how well is
he communicating, you eventually get your preclears taped. You've got
the preclear, then, standardized. You're looking at a standardized
package; you're not looking at something else and then looking at some
kind of a standard.

I'll give you an idea. I do quite a bit of photography one way or the
other. If you want to learn a camera, you don't use several brands of
film, because you'll be studying the film, not the camera, you see? You
take - I don't care whether it's bad or good - you take one brand of
film and shoot pictures with that one brand of film and get it developed
and printed in one drugstore, one chemist, one laboratory.

Whether it's bad or good, we don't care - whether the finishing is.
We'll learn to use the camera, because the other things are being held
standard. Do you see that? We'll know, then, whether or not we're taking
pictures or not taking pictures with a camera.

As soon as we start taking pictures with the film too - you see, we take
eight brands of film. We're going to test all of these films and the
cameras, only we're not going to pay any attention to the kind of film
that we put in the camera, we're going to learn to use the camera by
using them.

And then we have these things developed all over town in various
laboratories that do various things and great differences and so forth.
And we find out we don't know anything about the camera. Therefore, we
kind of say to ourselves, "Well, I can't understand this camera."

Well, this is foolish, because you weren't studying the camera. You were
studying films and laboratories at the same time. So the place to start
in is on one of these simplicities, is how awake is the preclear?

And listen, he ought to be - this is one of these complicated things,
see - he ought to be just a little more awake in any given instant of
the session than he was in any past instant of the session. You knew how
awake he was when he walked in and sat down. Therefore, you will know
whether or not his communication, his affinity and reality, are better
for progressing moments of the session.

If they are better - you see, you're looking at the preclear as a
package. We're not going to separate him out now as a thetan. We're not
going to pull him apart and say, "Well, this is behaving one way and the
other behaving the other way." We know all these complicated factors
exist. So we're just going to take this package that we call a preclear,
and we're just going to look at him. And as we audit him, we're going to
find out whether or not he appears to be more alert, as a thinking being
than he was before. And if he is, we're winning. And if he isn't, we did
something wrong or we used the wrong process on him.

Now, that is reduction to a simplicity, but it is as simple as that. It
really is. Your preclear that sat there and went "nyar-vroomph" and at
the end of twenty-five hours didn't think very much had happened was
absolutely right. Something happened to his havingness. Something
happened to his - more important - his attention. Something must have
happened here to knock him down during this period.

Now, the good old days, when we were having people boil off like mad, I
actually went and tested boil-off on pcs and got records on boil-off.
And do you know that not one single preclear was ever found to benefit
from any boil-off?. This is a complete misconcept, that if we make them
unconscious for a period of time - one was made unconscious, by the way,
for 300 hours. He was run in boil-off of 300 hours from various periods
(that was the accumulated amount of time), and he was no better at the
end of this period than at the beginning. Has no therapeutic value.

Similarly, nothing else has any therapeutic value that does not
immediately promote his consciousness. If we can't promote his
consciousness, we're not promoting the preclear.

The goal of auditing is to raise the ARC of the preclear. Is this
nebulous? No. Let's go back and look at this fundamental scale, this
terribly fundamental scale. At the top there's Knowingness, below that
there's Not-know, and below that there's Understand. Not-know is a
postulate, so it's the ability to make postulates.

We're not interested, really, in the horribly complicated mechanics of
any of that beyond this one fact: ARC are co-related, and ARC equal
understanding. Understanding is the combination of ARC. Knowingness
isn't the combination of ARC, you understand. Understandingness is the
combination of ARC, because you understand something, you understand
something. And when you just know, you know, that's all. Follow this?

So then understanding is compartmentable. And the compartmentable factor
is the triangle, and that triangle is the ARC triangle. And if it's real
big, if there's lots of affinity and lots of reality and lots of
communication on the line, you say, "Mm-hm. In good shape."

Now, this is no time to go worrying about whether or not a compulsive
outflow or something of the sort is present. Just don't worry about
that. Communication is communication. Of course, it has its parts, but
we understand communication. We know some guy who is rattling away at a
mad rate and never gives us a chance to say a word in reply is not
communicating; he's doing something else.

All right. ARC. And at the bottom of that scale is unconsciousness. And
as we raise our pc up the scale toward knowingness, he is simply getting
more conscious. And as we drop him down the scale, he's getting less
conscious.

Funny part of it is, the more unconscious he gets, the more time enters
into the situation, waitingness enters into the situation. The mechanism
of unconsciousness is simply another way of waiting so you won't know
about it. That's what unconsciousness is, "you won't know about it."

All right. Now, what are we stressing this simplicity for? Because I'm
afraid it needs stressing here and there. It answers the most fantastic
number of questions. It answers, for instance, this question that this
auditor was up against: "How do I end a session?"

He'd say, "Well, I kind of get the process flat, but the preclear is
still groggy."

We find the preclear was always groggy when a process was run on him.
That's because there didn't seem to be any interest in whether or not
the process did anything or not, you see? There was no two-way comm. The
preclear could volunteer some information. It wouldn't be picked up. You
were liable to get another remark on the part of the auditor.

The preclear - here was one boo-boo that I picked up that preceded the
first anaten the preclear had had, and this boo-boo was just exactly
this: It was a break on two-way communication, and a real simple break
that you wouldn't think was a break at all.

The preclear said, in essence, "I think Mother didn't treat me too badly
after all."

And the auditor said, "Well, we all come to realize things about Mother
sooner or later."

Now, this doesn't sound like very much, does it? There was no
acknowledgment. The auditor didn't say, "Good. Yes." He didn't receive
the communication. He batted it back to the preclear, see? He made
another comment. You got the idea, huh?

Preclear originated a communication, which was a bit of
understandingness, and the auditor didn't say, "Well, fine," or anything
like that - "Good." He didn't say, "I have received that." He gave a
counter-communication. And we found out this auditor did that all the
time. But that was why the preclear was anaten, not because the process
was not working. The process wasn't making the preclear anaten, because
the preclear couldn't say anything. A countercomment drove the preclear
down. Get the idea?

Audience: Yes.

Now, this is very, very curious, then, that the first moment of
analytical attenuation which was demonstrated by the preclear was
preceded - and the auditor I was talking to about this and trying to
explain it to him was very fighty with me right up to that point. He
wasn't being brash; he was merely saying, "But I can't understand how
you could possibly believe that I did anything wrong with the preclear.
I obeyed the Auditor's Code. I ran exactly the right process," so on.

And we checked up to find exactly the moment when the preclear started
to deteriorate, and we found out that it was a lack of an
acknowledgment, see? It was just as fundamental as this: The
communication line went out. And the auditor did not notice that the
preclear had gone unconscious because of the auditing and had assumed
that something horrible had reached up out of the depths and dregs of
the case and had pulled the preclear down.

So we get to the next thing that the preclear decided. And the preclear
decided this very, very glibly. Preclear decided that in view of the
fact that the auditor always consulted him laboriously about the process
to be run and always took the process that the preclear offered - and
other conduct bore this out - that the auditor in this case expected the
preclear to be responsible for his own case, and that the auditor was
taking no responsibility for the case.

They never got a chance to run any process the auditor decided on.

The auditor didn't decide when to end sessions except by postulate.

"Well," he'd say, "I'm giving you warning" - I think that's a wonderful
thing to use to a half-anaten preclear - " I'm giving you warning that
I'm going to end the session shortly." You got any idea what the word
warning kicks up in the bank? "And I give you fair warning if I..." you
know, every fight up and down the line. "I'm warning you that I'm going
to end this session."

Anyway, having done that, there wasn't any ending of the session. The
preclear, you know, stayed groggy, and the comm lag stayed there, and
the process wouldn't flatten, and the preclear stayed groggy and got
more groggy.

And you just kept running the process and doing everything right, but
you couldn't end the session.

Well, the auditor had an awful time with this because I kept saying,
"All you do is throw in some two-way comm. You start discussing the
situation."

And the auditor didn't get it that if you added some C onto this
triangle, the preclear would come upscale, which would of course make
him less groggy, and he would therefore be totally capable of being
reasonable about ending the session. You get that?

But the auditor didn't follow that procedure. Having ground the process
out to the last horrible click, but having made it obvious during the
entire ending period of the session that it was an overt act on the part
of the preclear because the auditor wanted to end the session. You get
how this would be? The preclear, of course, just kept going downscale
and getting more and more and more and more anaten.

Now, you'd think that somebody would look this over very carefully, but
I found out, much to my surprise, that the auditor did not clearly know
this basic fundamental: that Knowingness is at the top and
Unconsciousness is at the bottom. And as the preclear approaches
Unconsciousness, he's, of course, running out of affinity, reality
(which is agreement) and communication.

Some communication which contained affinity and agreement would, of
course, raise him up. So the preclear felt a little groggy toward the
end of session. All the auditor had to do was talk with him about it,
and he would have come right out of it.

Now, you get this fundamental - this fundamental scale. The preclear is
operating on it. He is behaving according to it. He does not diverge
from it. There aren't sudden wild variables that enter in. The preclear
is either more alert at the end of two hours of your auditing than he
was at the beginningjust as you see him, you understand; no factors of
extroversion-introversion or anything else connected with it. He's just
more alert, just as a human being, than he was at the beginning of
session or you didn't do him any good. Fantastic, but true.

Now, quite often a preclear is doing something fantastic, and we get a
variation of his conduct in a session. We have a preclear who is sitting
in front of us. And we start to audit the preclear, and the very instant
that we start to audit the preclear, the preclear seems to absolutely
collapse as far as we're concerned. We see this occasionally. What
happens when we do that?

This is not a very hard thing to explain. The preclear is actually
objecting to being audited, and the social machinery is agreeing. And
once in a while we get this wild one, but it's about the only departure.
Right there at the beginning of the session the preclear turns on a
whole bunch of somatics and so forth.

What are you going to do about something like that? Is there any other
reason behind this? Yes. Simply working with the agreement of the social
machinery and not the agreement of the preclear won't do this in its
entirety. This preclear had to be acutely ill and wasn't talking. There
had to be something very fundamentally physically wrong with this
preclear to get any behavior of this character. And anything that
happens there from there on in terms of somatics with this peculiar
preclear is upscale.

So you want to know how bad off this preclear was? This preclear was a
social machine. You start to wake the preclear up (snap), and they turn
on somatics, and they go on upscale. They will also occasionally get
groggy and go through a period of grogginess and so forth.

But just because there is this case that is better off in agony than
they were totally numb - this preclear, by the way, that turns on the
somatics when you get them into session and so forth, usually was an
anesthetic case, anesthesia, a numbness of a body or area. And you start
to make it liver, and the somatic is liver than the area was.

If you want to check this over with the preclear, you've asked the
preclear, "All right. Do your - body have any numb areas?"

And the preclear said, "Oh, well, nothing much. My left side, of course,
is totally numb all the time."

Well, when that left side starts to turn on, you will get somatics, do
you see, in the preclear - hm? So that you do have an appearance there
of the preclear going downscale when they're going upscale.

Well, it doesn't matter if that little variation works. You still check
your
auditing. You still check as to whether or not we haven't busted this
thing
high, wide and handsome. And the preclear who is being audited by social
agreement and not by their own agreement will thereby start out on the
right
foot. You'll get them to agree to be audited before you're through, and
have a
session running, and this situation will remedy itself, if you tried to
find out.

They went anaten or they got somatics the second you started auditing
them, then the best thing that you can do is to find out if there is
anything wrong between auditor-preclear, session and the ARC which
prevails on the subject of auditing. The second you try to check this
up, you will immediately discover that there was something wrong.

Maybe one of the things that was wrong was simply that the preclear was
acutely well - acutely paralyzed, you might say, from the knees down and
didn't tell you. You're going to find out some more information right
there. Your omission in that case was not knowing enough about your
preclear.

Now, the other point - the other point is - oh, let me finish off this
one point. Here is this scale. It goes Know, Not-know, Understand, and
then down at the bottom is the harmonic on the Not-know, which is
Unconsciousness. And that is all up and down the scale, marked with
points and degrees of ARC. And that's one of these stable scales.

I found out originally that in research and investigation, whenever I
diverged from the basic Axioms of Dianetics which were laid down - the
dynamic principle is survive, the purpose of the mind is to pose and
resolve problems, these various, very fundamental axioms - when I went
astray from these various fundamental axioms, an interesting thing
always occurred: I was wrong. I neglected some of these fundamentals, I
was wrong. I kept these fundamentals in mind, I was right.

Well, this is one of these stable data of the auditor; this scale is a
stable datum. And whatever else you know, if it violates this stable
datum, it's wrong, not this scale. Get the idea? If the preclear
apparently violates this stable datum, the preclear is wrong, stable
datum isn't. You see that?

You can stake the case on that scale. You can say, "Well, it runs Know,
Not-know, Understand, ARC, on down to total Unconsciousness and the
degrees of it are so-and-so. And this preclear is behaving peculiarly
and erratically and is changing valences, and that has nothing to do
with this scale." Nah-ah-ah-ah. It has everything to do with that scale.
And if you figure out the relation of the preclear's conduct to this
stable datum, this scale, you'll all of a sudden understand the preclear
yourself. All right.

The other thing is two-way communication. Somebody says, "Two-way
communication is very difficult to use. It's very difficult to think of
things to say to the preclear. It's very difficult to remember things to
talk about," and so forth. One is having a social difficulty there, not
an auditing difficulty. Please make the distinction. Because if you
introduce other subjects than auditing the preclear and the preclear's
life, very often, you're going to find out that you're off the entire
subject of what the preclear is thinking about. You know? So it's not an
appropriate communication. It hasn't any agreement with the
circumstances and the time. You get your agreement factor by having your
communication agree with what is going on.

And the preclear is too often hounded by the auditor - too often hounded
- by this one thing: "How do you feel?" An auditor must realize this
thing about havingness and not-havingness. A preclear's havingness can
be cut to ribbons; and when it's cut to ribbons, his anaten increases.
He gets more unconscious when he's losing havingness. If you're running
processes on him which are making him lose havingness, he will become
unconscious.

So run processes on your preclear which give him havingness if he tends
to get a little blinky the moment that you ask him how he feels and how
does it seem to him now, because these are as-ising processes. These are
processes which rob him.

You say, "Well, that ordinary social convention of 'How do you feel?'
you mean that upsets a preclear? Huh! Couldn't be." Oh, yes it does,
because he looks himself over to some degree, and he as-ises some of
him.

You can say, "How is it going?" You can say, "What are you doing?" You
can say, "How are you doing it?" You can say almost anything you want to
say except, "How does it seem to you now? How do you feel? How are you?"

He'll become very tired of that. You know why? Because it's as-ising
what little havingness he has. And you make yourself a quarter of an
inch of gain, and then you ask him, "How do you feel?" and you'll lose
half an inch. See? You're not winning. Most preclears are a critical
problem in havingness.

Now, what does this have to do with the scale? It just is that the
preclear has a consideration that he has to have just so much to get
along. There are some fellows that believe they have to have a million
bucks before they can possibly eat their breakfast comfortably, and
there are other chaps who have just a wonderful time of it if they've
got a couple of bob in their pockets. And they think, "Boy, this is
really fine," and they really enjoy their breakfast.

These are differences of considerations, aren't they? That's all they
are. So one preclear believes he has to have eighty-five stone, and
another preclear believes he has to have at least a couple of ounces of
havingness in order to feel comfortable this morning.

But the funny part of it is, is once having made this consideration,
they then obey it and respond to it, and they've lost the basic
consideration. You can change it around, but they will now respond to
it.

So you cut this fellow down below eighty-five stone, he's lost. He
thinks he's lost a lot of havingness, and he'll start going anaten on
you. And you cut down this other fellow's two ounces, and he'll start
going anaten on you. You see this?

Male voice: Mm.

So when they start going anaten, one of the things that is happening is
that they're losing some of their communication terminal - reality.
Something is being lost there. Now, maybe they just lost an auditor
because you made a boo-boo. But again, this is explanation of anaten by
havingness.

When your preclear starts to finish up the session and he's groggy, you
start talking with him. Preferably start talking with him about how he
is doing things, what he conceives these things to mean, you know?
That's real tricky. Throw some meaningness in there, get some more
significance in there one way or the other.

"Well, what do you suppose that really amounts to, you know? What could
that mean? What does that mean to you?" not "How does it seem to you?"
Because you've got to make him go twist, twist, crick, crick, and he'll
have a little more havingness. You get the idea?

And if worst came to worst and you'd run his havingness clean out
through the bottom - as for lord's sakes I hope you never do - you still
have some processes to fall back on.

He very often will fall out of the ability or not be able to do the
thing of mocking up a mass and pulling it in on himself or pushing it in
on himself. Very often he can't give himself havingness. You could run
him too low or he could be too low so that he couldn't do this. But you
can always ask him to remember something real. Not the full
next-to-the-last list, just "Recall something real." And I've seen
preclears do this in the worst shape you ever heard of, and it does
remedy havingness in a moment of extremity.

Of course, it alter-ises a not-is, and that will create mass. They're
not just pulling in old facsimiles, they're actually creating new mass.
They have to alter-is (remember) the not-is of forget in order to get
the isness of known, you see? And it actually does remedy havingness.
You can keep it up for quite some time, and your preclear is not upset
by it. Very often it will communicate.

Now, if you are running Separateness and your preclear starts to go
anaten or suddenly starts to pull back or move in some peculiar fashion,
you will conceive that he has lost some havingness. He pulled out of an
engram. He didn't spot some separateness in it. He pushed some energy
around and, by heat loss, lost some havingness. You better stand by to
remedy havingness whenever you're running anything that might upset the
preclear's havingness.

How do you run havingness? There are many ways to do it. The time to run
havingness is when the preclear is still able to run it, not when you
get him down to the extremity of remembering something real.

All right. Do you see that there is a basic fundamental by which to
compare the results, by which to compare other data on a case, that you,
trying to convince some auditor that he ought to become a better
auditor, could show him rather easily and keep him from getting involved
in thousands of data? Just make sure he knows this one fundamental
spectrum, you might say, of the preclear, and he will come out in the
clear, and his auditing will better.

And it's up to us to make sure that everybody is auditing just about as
well as anybody possibly could, because only in that way are we going to
make forward progress. Okay?

Audience: Yeah.

Thank you.

Audience: Thank you.

[auditor]

5512C15 EXTERIORIZATION BY SEPARATENESS FROM WEAKEST UNIVERSE

A lecture given on 15 December 1955

Okay. And I want to talk to you tonight about a very spectacular thing
that is not particularly germane to basic auditing. Basic auditing is
how you get a preclear to sit still and be happy that he got out of the
session unscathed. That's basic auditing. If you can ask a person
questions for two hours and he's happy about it, why, you've done a good
auditing job, according to basic auditing. You get the idea? I mean just
that, if you could - if you can hammer and pound a guy with various
thought concepts for two hours and at the end of this time he's happy
about it, you must be a pretty good auditor.

But let's specialize, let's specialize now, in preclears, and let's go
way upstairs. Let's go up into the super high school of auditing. And
let's immediately ask this question of auditing in general: Is it an
infinite job? That is to say, is there an infinite rise in the preclear?
In other words, is there no end to this auditing? Let's ask that
question.

And then let's ask another question that's just as pertinent as that:
What do we mean by universes, anyway, and how do you split them? And
what's meant by splitting them? All right.

And then there's another question that goes along with that, which is
just completely ungermane to these other two, but I refuse to go on and
on and on being sequitur all the time. I just refuse this orderliness.
And so the next subject on this line that I will probably -КI will
announce to you and then probably forget to talk about, or maybe forget
to talk about first, is do bacteria exist?

So, you see, that has no relationship. So I'm feeling rather proud of
being able to jump that gap.

Let's go in at once into the second subject, since I've forgotten what
the first subject was. But anyway...

The second subject is what's a universe? What's a universe? And that is
germane to the first subject for the excellent reason that infinite
auditing is only possible when you are auditing a complexity of
universes which you are mistaking for one individual. And infinite
auditing then pretty well ensues unless you split those universes. In
other words, is there any end to auditing? Yes, when you get all
universes split.

Well, there's an awful lot of things a thetan can do and exteriorize and
be himself and everything, without going into a lot of universe
splitting; that's certainly true. And in such a case, you do get to
ceiling - or an apparent ceiling of a precision exteriorization with
full view of the environment.

But what about the exteriorization that doesn't return to the thetan
full view of the environment? Something very, very amusing happens here.
What happens to this fellow? Exteriorize him, he doesn't get a full view
of the environment or he won't exteriorize. Either way, he's in the
wrong universe. He exteriorizes into the wrong universe. You can just
say that's what happens.

Well, what is a universe? We have to get that before we even know what
we're talking about. And you may have lots of ideas about what a
universe is, but it is simply any time continuum, any time continuum
under the control of one specific individual. And that, you could say,
carelessly, is a universe. But a universe is a time continuum, we say
that definitely; but in control of one person, we say that indefinitely.
Do you get the idea?

It's a consecutive series of incidents. Now, when an individual has had
a consecutive series of incidents in cooperation with another person, we
get an agreement condition which brings about a duality of universe. And
by this agreement - I give you The Factors - we get a co-time continuum.
We get two people working on the same time continuum. You get the idea?
They've agreed, then, that this time continuum exists, and now there are
two of them that have agreed it exists.

Well, we look at the physical universe and find we're all agreed upon
this time continuum. We're very precisely agreed upon it - even though
we have, privately, very strange ideas about it sometimes, such as the
1.5 who tells you he never has any time, and the fellow who's always
late, and the other guy who's always early and so forth. Nevertheless,
there is an agreement.

And this physical universe that has these walls and this space and so
forth is evidently the product of an agreed-upon time continuum; only
there's just plain ordinary billions, to what enormous power, I wouldn't
know, things and persons agreed upon it. So it's very solid.

We got that now? And that's really all this physical universe apparently
is, because as we start to break this down, we start to break down the
physical universe too. We can process a guy today to a point where the
walls disappear. We can process him ahead of his own time in various
ways. We can process him behind it.

You want to know - just an example, how would you process somebody so
the wall would disappear? Well, just get him to sit in a chair and start
reaching for anything and everything. That would be the simplest, most
elementary thing. He'll start to reach for things in the next room, the
next thing you know, he's looking through the wall.

Run "What wouldn't you mind obeying?" and "What would obey you?" those
are the two auditing commands - and you're liable to have a wall melt on
your preclear after a while. Because these things essentially are stuck
orders. They are commands. And they're solid because somebody said they
were solid.

Now, many of your preclears have the most gorgeous engrams of things
they never experienced. These engrams are manufactured out of the
postulates that other people have made to them. Their mother said there
was a terrible accident and the house all burned down, and the preclear
is sitting there with a beautiful picture of a burning house that burns
down. And now we audit out this picture, and there's Mother. You get the
idea?

See, we had merely audited the picture that was made by Mother's command
that the house burned down, see? She said, "Horror, horror, terror,
terror," and the child put together the picture of it, only the picture
stands between the child and Mother in some odd fashion.

That is exactly the way a wall is built. There's no other way a wall is
built. Somebody doesn't come along and lay a lot of blocks up.

Fellow comes along and says, "That's a wall."

And you say, "Yeah, yeah. I guess so. That's a wall."

And he says, "That's a wall."

And you say, "That's a wall."

And if you want to try this sometime, you'll probably get for the two of
you a wall across the middle of any room. You just sit there and
gruesomely agree upon the fact that it had a wall there, and eventually
the thing is liable to start taking on dimension for the two of you. But
somebody else comes along and walks through it, therefore he invalidates
the both of you, you see?

Therefore before he walks through the wall, you would say to him, "Ahah
- ah. Wait, wait, wait. Look out. Look out. Look out."

And he says, "What? What's the matter?"

And you say, "There's a wall there."

And he says, "No wall there."

And you say, "Well, we'll beat you to death if you don't think there's a
wall there."

And the fellow says, "All right. There's a wall there."

And if he keeps that up with you for a while - well, if you got
everybody in a whole building to agree completely that there was a wall
in a certain room and nobody after that ever came into the building,
theoretically, you would have a wall. Get the idea? People come along
years later and rent the building, and they have a wall there. I mean,
something silly like this could be expected, you understand? There's
something going on here.

In other words, a series of orders and counter-orders are the
composition of a universe. Commands, counter-commands -postulates, in
other words, or considerations. Postulates are made and considerations
ensue. All right.

We have, then, walls and so forth which we can touch and feel. But
remember, we had - agreed we had a hand, and we agreed there was a wall,
and so a hand can touch the wall.

Now, similarly, a thetan can exteriorize not only out of his head but
straight out of a universe, and he says, "What walls?" Only he seldom
does this because he's below the death level of a body, ordinarily, in
tone. I hate to have to mention this, but it's a fact. Fact.

So as far as walls are concerned, he's liable not to see any walls. Then
you process him for a while, exteriorized, and he finally gets up to the
point where he can see the walls. And we process him some more, and he
gets up to a point where he can't see the walls anymore without saying
they're there. You see what his course of action would be.

Now, that's all open and shut. We would simply exteriorize somebody. He
couldn't see the surroundings; we processed him, and he could see the
surroundings - not because we told him to; because he recovered his
ability to receive commands. Get that as the key of reality, please. You
can receive commands without being upset by them, you can see. But if
you can't receive commands, you can't see. Get the idea? And everybody
hangs kind of between these two points. There are limited numbers of
commands they want to receive, and they don't see things where they
won't receive the order to see them. You get the idea?

These walls are perpetual commands, you might say. And when an
individual is receiving commands and he's happy to receive other
people's postulates and so forth, he has a good grip on the physical
universe or any other universe that he wants to look at. But when he's
unhappy about seeing them, he braces against the physical universe, and
he puts himself below the point of seeing a wall. So we process him up
to a point of where he's willing to receive a command, and he sees the
wall. And we could process him from there on up by running the other
side of it too, "What would obey you?" And we get him up above the level
where he has to put the wall there in order to see it, but he can do
that too. You get these three grades - hm?

I said we were going into high school tonight. I probably should have
said doctorate in college, but that's about the score.

Now, if you want to - if you want to really get yourself a good firm
reality on reality itself, you want to run this on somebody quite
permissively and very gently, with lots of two-way comm: "What wouldn't
you mind obeying?" and "What would obey you?" You see, those two sides
there, unbalanced. You don't run "What wouldn't mind obeying you?" There
isn't anything as far as the guy can see, you see. It becomes an
impossible question.

So "What wouldn't you mind obeying?" and "What would obey you?" This
permits him to get the idea of using force and all sorts of things in
order to make things obey him. And he will, and he'll work up out of
this. And his reality will turn up; his reality will change. This is
definite. Furthermore, it's not a terribly abusive thing to havingness.

It's a very, very important process. There are a lot of other processes
down along the same level, but most of them would fail to reach any
altitude - that is to say, you couldn't run a case all the way out with
the process. Well, you could run a case all the way out with this "What
wouldn't you mind obeying?" and "What would obey you?" You could run a
case all the way out. That goes right straight through the roof. See,
you run that all levels. All right.

That's quite an interesting thing. But to get a reality on reality, you
want to run that on somebody or have it run on you, and you'll wake up
to the fact that that thing that's sitting there is just an order. It
says, "See a wall"; that's what it's saying. You say, "Ha-ha." Of
course, you can accept this intellectually, but it's not quite as
startling as it is to look over there and not see a wall but hear an
order.

Now, one's own resistances and so forth compound until he actually
thinks he's putting masses into things. Actually, resistance is not
putting energy up against an order, you see. I mean, if there is no
mass, if it's all a series of orders, then a resistance would simply
mean putting an order up against an order. And so we get another
possible process (which I have never run on anybody, but which seems
quite amusing) is "Who could you outorder?" And that would be
resistance. "What could you resist?" and "Who could you outorder?" would
be more or less the same thing.

Now, that's an interesting thing about reality. Now, if we have all
these commands and postulates compounding into the physical universe -
and you don't have to believe that if you don't want to - get the
process run; if it turns out all right, it turns out; and if it doesn't,
it doesn't. So what! But it does give us a little bit better grip on
what all this time, space is.

Now, if we're all in agreement upon what orders we're receiving from
where that makes space and that makes walls, that makes everything else
- if we're all in agreement on this, then we'll all perceive the same
things. But that doesn't make us all the same person.

The Hindu philosopher, in my youth, was very entertaining, but he
abstracted a little bit too abstractly for my youthful digestion, and he
gave me some awful mental headaches when he started telling me about the
way things were. Because he kept insisting that we were all part of the
great pool of yup-yup or something, and that there was no separateness
amongst us or individualities. And he just never did pound that home; he
just never did.

And years and years later, imagine my astonishment to discover what we
call the "thought pools." Every thetan has had an engram somewhere along
the track - he's had a pool mocked up, you know, in which he could look
in it and see thoughts and so on. Real cute. But it's on almost
anybody's track. So it's a natural thing to assume that life would be a
pool of something, or something like that.

And for one who really has no good grip on a postulate and can't receive
orders, like a Hindu philosopher sitting on top of a mountain or
something - this chap has a bad time with it, and so he gets around the
whole thing by looking at the bottom of the scale. And the bottom of the
scale is the thetan just goes right on down through the bottom. And he
is so unseparate from everything and anything that he conceives himself
to have merged with everything.

And maybe you can get out through the bottom. I don't know. I've seen
preclears pushed in that direction, but not pushed all the way out. They
usually protested before they got there - thus ruining a noble
experiment. But anyhow ...

Here we have - here we have, however, the truth of the matter and,
again, another rather simple experiment which anybody can make. And if
everybody can duplicate a similar experience, then we certainly must be
duplicating something like the modus operation of existence, see? We
must be approximating it if any of it can reproduce an experiment with
the same result. The whole science of physics depends for its similarity
of result upon the fact that it's working only with things on which
we're all agreed.

A physicist is always afraid to go out of any field where he doesn't
have total agreement. You never saw a man quite as frantic on the
subject of disagreement as a physicist. You disagree with a physicist,
and he gets upset. He works entirely in the field of agreement;
entirely. He works nowhere else. Only he's got an obsessed and
compulsive agreement that's gotten very, very solid as his total point
of fixation, and that can make some interesting mental quirks if you
haven't ever met many physicists. Anyway ...

Life magazine, I think July of 1954, ran - in the middle of the month -
ran a whole series on the prominent physicists of the day and so forth.
I had an ACC class in absolute stitches over the pictures of these guys,
because it looked like something off of a - what's that German
intelligence test that shows you the pictures of insane people and tells
you which one could be a friend?

Male voice: Rorschach.

Huh?

Male voice: Rorschach.

No, not the Rorschach. It's the Sckone or the Skzoz or something.

Anyway, they show you pictures of insane people, and as soon as the guy
says, "Well, I think I would..." - you have to answer the question this
way, by the way. You have to say, "Well, I least dislike that one."

And they say right away, "He has an affinity for paranoid
schizophrenics," you know. Marvelous. Marvelous test.

Anyway, where we have this agreement on solidity itself, you see, we're
working with a rather low order of things. And we can go down from there
or up from there. And if we go down from there, we get a mergence -
mergence of life. We get almost a total mergence of life. It might be
individualized, it might be composed of individuals, but it certainly
isn't individuated.

And therefore we can run this experiment, any one of us, and achieve a
similar result. I would be very interested if you ran it and didn't
achieve the same result. It would be quite peculiar. And that is, you
ask a fellow to - not a preclear, but anybody - don't put him in session
or anything like that, because you might help him with this - just run
an experiment and ask a fellow to get things around in the room from
which he's separate, and just have him spot them. And have him spot this
for about three, four minutes, just so you know he's doing it all right
and so forth.

And then you say, "Things that you are not separate from" or "Get the
idea that you're not separate from" or even this one, "Things that are
not separate from things" - in any way you want to run that; but
preferably, "Things you're not separate from" or "Things you're
connected with," over and over as an auditing command. Sends him down,
down, down, and he goes right on out of communication with you.

He tries to drop through this bottom into this complete vacuum of
something. And you never saw a guy go down so fast in your life. I mean,
it's good. I mean, you run it for twenty minutes, and you can establish
this. Not because you think so, but simply because as we look at it,
that's the way it happens. I've run it on preclear after preclear, just
to get the way of things. All right.

Having run this, then, for about twenty minutes - things he's together
with, (togetherness) - we then turn around and ask him once more for
things he's separate from. And we notice he's getting - "Haahhh. Boy,
that's better," you know. He's coming up out of it. He gets out of it
further and further and further. And the next thing you know, he'll go
out of his head if you run this long enough, and he's not in horrible
condition. See, "things you're separate from," and he should finally
wind up and go out of his own head and exteriorize.

See this? And he is not in any kind of an artificial or false condition,
because his IQ, his ability, his appreciation and all other desirable
factors go up. He can handle things better, he can postulate things
better, and he can start to handle this thing called matter and he can
do various things if he does this.

So we just look at these two directions, and we find the wrong
direction. And the wrong direction is "things that you're connected
with," see, or - so on, and the right direction is "things you're
separate from."

Now, to play a game, somebody gets connected with something, you see?
But he always must feel that he can separate himself from it, otherwise,
he doesn't easily play a game with it. After a while he gets to be a
pawn, not a player. See how this is? All right.

So we run these two processes, and we rather easily discover - to be
very, very technical, very technical indeed - we discover at once that
being all squashed into one nirvana, and so forth, is for the birds.
That's my scientific opinion on the subject: It's for the birds.

Now, it's quite interesting, it's quite interesting that an effort such
as yoga and the rest of these things would still play around with this
togetherness as a goal, and it's only therein that yoga is trapped. Got
it? See, that's the only trap in yoga. There is so much learning in it,
it is so impressive, and it takes so long to do it, that it rather
persuades one that there must be something there.

Yes, there must be something there, but there's just enough of this
reverse vector in it to booby-trap it. That's the only booby trap in any
of these philosophies is that they make one go toward togetherness - do
all sorts of odd things.

They approach it obliquely sometimes. There's the chakras. In order to
get out of your body, you're supposed to exteriorize six, I think, other
thetans first. It's quite amusing. If you want to get ahold of an old
book published in France sometime in the seventeenth century, if I
remember rightly, why, it gives you seven things to get out of
somebody's body, seven exteriorizations. And they claim that this last
one - the last one is the individual. This is 1661 or something like
that. Somebody had just got the hot dope from the Far East, and he
spilled it out in all of its splendor.

And you only had to exteriorize six entities to get up to a point of
where you could bump off, see? And I want to call to your attention that
the exteriorization of an entity is a little bit difficult. In fact, the
effort to do so, by the time you got up to number six, would have proved
so great that you'd be dead in your head. Get the idea? You get the
reverse vectorness?

Now, the person is not these other entities. See, that's the other
trick. So that's - I say, is an oblique booby trap, you know. It makes
him think that he's the other six, too.

And the Huna and the spuna and the muna and the kuna and the rest of the
Boola-boola witch doctor philosophies that I've sat around and
yap-yapped about under the banyan trees and had a good drink of
smullagulut and so forth, with the boys, are all fine. There's a
tremendous amount of wisdom in them, but sooner or later - sooner or
later you sort of feel like you've just tripped over a crocodile and he
said, "Gulp. "

But here we have, then - here we have the entirety of - we've got this,
see? I mean, this is a very valuable thing to have in Scientology and
I've mentioned it a couple of places. But I want to mention it and give
it the value which I think, if you inspect it, you will find it does
have. And that is, that we have a common denominator of booby traps,
see?

If you want to look at a philosophy - a philosophy of the Goldi medicine
man of the Amur River, and you look over everything he's doing and so
forth, you'll think, "Boy, can that guy really pull a few tricks." And
he can too. And if you want to know if he's doing anything wrong that
will lead to any harm along the line, you see - if you want to look that
over very carefully and, thereby, get out of it anything right that is
being done along the line, you see - the common denominator of error in
the philosophy is apparently grouping, see? Togetherness. And wherever
he tries to make the fellow identify himself falsely with other things,
he is pulling a fast curve. Got the idea?

The only reason I suppose we can stay together at all organizationally
is because we run so much in the direction of sanity and ability and so
forth, so that we make a workability as an organization. But if we were
to start making this - a big thing out of togetherness and at the same
time knock out our insistence upon and philosophy about exteriorization
or separateness in general, ooh, would we have a mess on our hands. No
matter what else we knew, see, in Scientology, it would become a mess,
you see? See this?

So although it is unpopular with the public - and several squirrel
publications consistently try to tell you there's something wrong with
exteriorization - it's the only organizational saving grace we have. You
see that? It's just because we have the philosophy of it.

So they say, "Don't put out anything about exteriorization." It's true
you'd better not talk to the press or the casual public about it because
it's a technical subject. But if you start suppressing the idea of
exteriorization in auditing, you see, and stop stressing separateness
and so forth in processes, you know, why, the whole thing would cave in.
Boy, we'd get solid. We would have an edifice down here that was granite
a hundred and twenty-five miles through.

See, we know enough to almost get away with it, see? But even with what
we know, we still couldn't get away with it if we dropped out
separateness and exteriorization. See that? So just mark my words,
anybody starts to drop these things out of Scientology in the future -
you know, I'm not around or something - you could take a look at them
and say, "Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk. You shouldn't do that. What are you trying
to do, plow everybody in?"

You know, somebody tries to drop Separateness out as a process or say,
"Well, there isn't anything to that," and "Exteriorization is actually a
hallucinory delucitation" or something and so forth, why, have your
opinions. Because following along the line after these have been dropped
out of Scientology would be rather arduous, you see? Rather arduous.

At the present moment we can get ourselves out of practically anything
we get ourselves into, but only because we have exteriorization and
Separateness, you see. Now, if we dropped those out, somebody could get
us into something we couldn't get out of. You got it?

Male voice: Got it.

All right. Now, let's look this over. Let's look this over, having given
you a great moral lesson - which I hope you'll account it, by the way,
because a movement is as good as it can undo itself. When you make it a
shooting offense to get out of the army, war is no longer a game, and
people get killed.

The way you want to stop war is to make it possible for anybody in a
uniform to walk over the hill anytime he wants. That's a good way to
stop war. They won't fight their fellow man the same way. All right.

Now, let's look over the situation from a standpoint of processing. If
we have this marvelous thing called Separateness and exteriorization,
and if we've got all that, then why don't people just go zzzztt and
right out of their heads? Why isn't this an inevitable consequence?
Well, today, with modern processes, it darn near is. But in many cases
it is not. What they doing?

Well, you're trying to exteriorize them out of the head which you see in
the preclear's chair or in Paddington Station or someplace, see? You're
trying to exteriorize them out of that head, and they're not in it! And
any time you take a marble out of a box when there is no marble in the
box, you let me know, and I'll give you a certificate as chief
postulator. Now, here's the entirety of complexity.

Now, the very funny part of the universe problem is that it is the
havingness problem at the same time. These problems are two problems of
similar magnitude, scope and interdependence. The reason a fellow
inherits another universe in the first place or tries to occupy one,
it's a wonderful way to misown things so that he can have. You got it?
His havingness problem here is easily solved.

He's saying, "It's mine" when he knows darn well it's Grandpa's, see? So
there is some practicality to misowning or having another universe
hanging around, a little practicality to it, since it does permit
somebody to have.

But unfortunately, these universes promote within the individual a
craving for havingness and a vacuum for havingness, which then brings
everything in on him and gives him a mechanical togetherness. And when
you have a mechanical obsessed togetherness, you have an unhappy
preclear. And if he goes far enough along the track, he becomes a small
black BB shot. You got it?

Now, what makes him this small black BB shot? Why does he become
powerless and so forth? It's because of this togetherness, togetherness,
togetherness, as finally represents itself in engrams caving in on him,
thought masses caving in on him. He can no longer maintain the space
between himself and the order.

Why? He is at the source of the order. And maybe the source of the
orders he accounts to be Mama, the source of the orders that create
space and so forth - Mama, an aunt, an uncle, grandparent, a doctor,
somebody, you see. But he's at that source. And you really should work a
bit on pulling him out of that other universe before you try to pull him
out of his physical universe difficulty, you see that? Because the body
is really itself another universe.

Now, let's look at how he gets into this body. He picks it up at the
moment of birth, evidently, according to our E-Meters, and experience in
general - only he doesn't have to pick it up at that time, and I've
found pcs who picked their bodies up at two and three years and one who
picked his body up at eight and so forth. So it's not a hard-and-shut
thing. It just happens to be one school of body picking up; one school
of body snatching, you might say.

And so anyway, they pick the body up at birth - and we have a technical
name for that, we call it the Assumption - and they come swinging along
the track one way or the other from that point on.

Well, one of the reasons they pick the body up at birth is because it is
so damned weak. Got it? It's awfully weak at that point. And a thetan
who no longer has very much beef finds it very, very easy to pick up a
body at the Assumption because it's just been born, and it's had hell
knocked out of it. Got it?

Now, a body can mechanicalize itself along the track without being
guided by a thetan. It can zombiacate. You see them around every once in
a while. Well, you could either say this thetan has such small amount of
power that he couldn't resist the incursion and the overtaking of
command of another thetan, you see, or there just isn't any thetan
there. You could say all sorts of things connected with it.

But the point is that you'll find occasionally somebody has picked up a
body right after it's fallen on its head when it was three, you see?
It's ridden a tricycle down the hill or something and fallen on its
head, and bango. And maybe the other thetan that was there, you see, did
exteriorize and do a bunk, say, "This is too rough." But you'll find
sometimes that another thetan comes along.

Oh boy, can you get spooked over this, you know? I mean, this is
interesting. It isn't that a diffuse or an unconscious intelligence has
come in to take the thing over. It's actually another person, another
being. It's like Joe or Bill or Pete, you know, has come along and
picked up this body. Quite interesting.

Little Roger at the age of eight gets almost killed in the stone quarry,
and after he comes out of the accident, he's another boy. Doesn't have
much memory of what happened before he was eight, too, only it's a fact.
You as an auditor, trying to recover his memory before he's eight - he
wasn't there! How could he have any memory before he was eight? All
right.

So we go along - every once in a while they'll say, "Well, you know how
it is. One just forgets his youth." You look those people up on the
E-Meter, you find an interesting history there. You don't have to coach
them into it; you just ask enough questions so as not to tip them off,
and read the answers, and you'll find out exactly where they sat.

But here you have a thetan in close confluence and agreement with the
body, and sooner or later he's going to interiorize into the body
because the sets of agreements are identical. So he and the body have
their own time continuum.

The body has a certain engram bank. The thetan has a certain number of
machines and engrams too. And you will find the thetan pinned to the
body by identical or similar engrams or experiences.

The thetan's past track experience goes smack together with the body's
past track experience. You start to run a Fac One or another life out of
the preclear. Nyyaahh, don't you do that - without running it out of the
thetan, too, because there's another one just like it.

One won't give up without the other one. You get the idea? You don't
erase one very often and have him blow free. There'll be another one
lying there right along with it. To do a complete job, erase both. Got
the idea?

So that we find that a similarity of experience, energywise, has a
tendency, then, to make a time continuum between a thetan and a body or
a body and another body or a thetan and another thetan. And it's
actually a mechanical thing; it's quite mechanical. It begins with
postulates and orders, of course. And all there are there are postulates
and orders, this we agree. But the point is, it's involved itself
mechanically down to a point of where you have these time continua
dependent upon similarity of incident.

Two fellows, they want to become friends. One of them says, "You know, I
had a girl once; I had a girl once. She threw me over when I was
seventeen - never been the same since."

And the other fellow says, "Well, you know, that's a funny thing. When I
was nineteen, similar thing happened." They've got something in common;
that's the way we ordinarily express it. They have started to build a
universe.

Now, there's nothing wrong with building a universe, you see, unless the
guy wants to unbuild the universe. And if he starts to unbuild the
universe and he decides he better pull this one apart and do something
of the sort or get into the right universe, why, he may have to do some
of this universe exteriorization, you see?

Now, there's no sense in his being in the universe of the first company
of Royal Fusiliers when he's working for Selfridges, just not the least
- it's just for the birds. He's very unhappy where he is. He doesn't
like what he's doing and so forth. Well, he is in another universe
called the first company of Royal Fusiliers. You get the idea? So he's
in the wrong universe.

Now, we used to have an expression - I think it's Welsh or something of
the sort, it's very old on the track - but people were in the wrong pew,
spoken of in churches and that sort of thing. But this is about the only
thing that ever gets wrong, as such, with the pc. He's trying to get
into a new universe, and he can't get out of an old one. You get the
idea? So he's not out of one universe, and he knows he should be in
another universe. So he's sort of hung up between this way and that, and
he's confused; he's confused about life.

But you start to take these universes apart just indiscriminately and
you discover that you cut his havingness to pieces, and you discover he
becomes a very, very unhappy thetan. Very unhappy. Why? Well, he wants
some of these things. Well, there isn't any reason why he shouldn't want
some of these things. But the havingness itself, if you please, is the
only thing he's going to get out of the wrong universe. So you have to
give him havingness in the right universe; that's one way to do it.

Now, one of the ways to give him havingness in the right universe is get
him to take orders from the right universe and give orders to the right
universe. Savvy? So we could actually take somebody out here who is
having a bad time and put him on a farm and have him run some farm
machinery for a couple of weeks, and he'd come back and he'd be feeling
fine.

You get the idea? I mean, the sun comes up, you know, over the horizon,
bing, and he's up, believe me. And when it dives, why, he can quit. But
of course, if he's working at this season of the year, why, he's been
working for two or three hours before he saw any sunlight. Unless, of
course, he's part of the National Agricultural Act, and then he gets to
work at noon and quits at 12:01.

Anyhow, he's taking orders from the physical universe, and by handling
machinery and that sort of thing, he's giving orders to the physical
universe. Now, you see how that would be? And he does that for a couple
of weeks, and he just sort of comes into present time on the subject.
Get the idea? Because he finds some new havingness to replace the old
havingness.

But the very funny part of it is, is he sometimes cannot reach far
enough south to undo a universe. There sometimes is a far enough south
that he doesn't come out of the universe, and the person who is -
exteriorizes with grave difficulty is simply not coming out of an old
universe.

And let me tell you something. Way back, way back in 1950 I had the
gravest suspicion - knocking everybody out of this universe, "Come on,
start, come on into present time." I had the gravest suspicion back
sometime in 1950 or maybe '49. It seemed to me that if a fellow knew
about the aberration, it wouldn't be aberrative. It just seemed to me
that was the case. Now, today we could say, "If he knew about it or
could himself not know about it at his own will, it would not be
aberrative." We could expand that thing.

But I've just had an interesting experience, a very interesting
experience indeed, fascinating experience having to do with this very
thing. It became obvious to me that exercising preclears through various
universes was not being very successful in some preclears. Sometimes you
just didn't seem to be able to fish them out of the universe.

So I got real clever again, and I said, well, I bet it's a universe he
doesn't know anything about. I'll just bet you. I'll bet you it's one
that's right there that he doesn't know anything about, and he doesn't
know anything about it because he's totally interiorized into it, and
therefore it must be resident exactly where his body is standing! And it
is not the universe that is out there four feet away, where Papa is
always present; he's at least four feet out of that universe. No, it
must be one into which he's totally interiorized, on these very
difficult cases.

So I ran this sort of an experiment. I said the not-have universe, the
one that has the vacuums and so forth, must be the one; therefore we'll
try to run some Separateness with this. And I found that that was a
very, very fine process but, unfortunately, required - as experience has
later demonstrated with auditors - requires a diagnostic process to
precede it. The universe they're trying to fish people out of is not the
universe they're exteriori - should exteriorize them out of. You got the
idea?

They're running the not-have universe, usually, as the wrong universe.
It's the wrong one. The preclear would never suspect it. The first way
we discover this, then - let's just lay down some little principles,
shall we, just - which are just a one, two, three, four, five kind of
formula as to how we go about this. Because what I've done since is put
together and test with success a diagnostic approach to this which does
get, evidently, the right universe. And having gotten the right
universe, then does bring about a separateness from that universe.

And this is quite a trick, because it is next to impossible to do. It's
quite a trick. And the formula which I followed along here does do it.
All right.

So it's no wonder we were having universe trouble. Remember, a universe
is just some sort of a time continuum, an agreement between two people,
where the postulates of one person can become the solid walls to
another. But let's set some kind of an unbalanced universe. Let's get a
universe where one person has domain over another person or dominion.
Got the idea?

We've got a dominion at work here, see, without any choice being exerted
by the preclear; actual overset of some kind or another. And we find at
once
the kind of universe that is the unsuspected universe. It's got lots of
cross
agreements in it. This, by the way , is the whole subject of valences,
as covered in the first book. Today we call them universes because
they're made space and packages of characteristics.

Here's your pc, and right where he is there's another universe. In other
words, we have the extremity of togetherness, the absolute extremity of
togetherness: coincident space in a no-space. And boy, that takes a lot
of doing. All right.

Now, I ran this on the "not-have" basis, and I found out the preclears
weren't scaring them up. So I turned around and ran it on the "poor"
basis. You see? Who is the poorest people you ever knew? And I got a
little bit. You know, I got a little bit further than not-have. Poor -
just talking about poor people, you know, and things like that.

And then, with complete inspiration, hit on this other one. This thing
has to do with force and resistance to force. There's something here.
There's a force greater than the individual has been able to resist in
some fashion or another, and this is all wound up in here. So I started
testing this one: "the weakest people they knew," and got the answer to
this. All right.

Now, we find the preclear, then, interiorized into the weakest universe.
This is incredible, isn't it? We find it by the weaknesses. The
preclear's own weaknesses are so closely associated to the other
person's weaknesses that they've done a closure, which makes a
no-protest, which you get a collapse on, then. Get the idea?

Person A, person B have their weaknesses more or less coactive, and we
get a collapsing universe. Neither one of them has enough resistance to
keep off the other universe. Here we get it coincided.

Well, the way we run this is very simple. We discuss with the preclear,
in two-way comm, simply weak things, weak people. We discuss weaknesses.
We discuss protests and resistances, in other words, but we discuss, in
the main, weaknesses. Resistance means that we don't have a total
weakness, and we want to discuss and find the total weakness.

So we just discuss this, and we start turning up people. And the next
thing you know, the preclear will be sitting there with a body on
backwards - not his body, but another one. A person he never would have
dreamed, usually, was aberrative to him. A person he's totally
unconscious of but he knows all about. After all, he's being this person
kind of in reverse, and it's probably his chronic somatic and the rest
of the whole package up and down the track. This is quite interesting.

He has inherited a series of things here, all at once, in one fell
swoop, and he has a universe that he cannot pry himself out of because
it is, and he is, too weak on the subject to do so. Oddly enough, it
fits exactly the old Book One ally description, but which one was the
ally? And we have this method now. Preclear will tell you after you've
discussed enough weak people.

See that? Your weakest person wouldn't even register on an E-Meter. I
mean, there's not that much charge on it. It is a completely chargeless
situation, which is about the darnedest thing to run you ever tried to
run. It's chargeless. There aren't resistances. There is no tremendous
effect. There will probably be a feeling of degradation run off in the
early stages of the processing, but from there on, it will not be
startling. And an auditor must know this, since he's liable to think
it's flat when it's just started to flatten. Remember that the total
closure is because there's no resistance.

So we get step one of this little process, which is "Discuss
weaknesses." And you discuss weaknesses until the preclear gets somebody
on backwards. And he'll tell you about this. It's usually quite
startling to him.

And then we run Separateness, both ways, on that person's possessions.
You're not going to see that person showing up; that person won't be
visible. Person's room and all kinds of other things may be visible, but
not the person. Got the idea? That person is just missing, most missing
person you ever saw in your life - or you ever didn't see. All right. So
we separate, with Separateness, out this person's possessions until the
person appears, and then we run Separateness on the person, with this
assistive mechanism: weaknesses of comparable magnitude whenever he gets
too stuck.

You got it? You'll have to have a weakness for that person, a weakness
of comparable magnitude for that person, and immediately afterwards, a
weakness of comparable magnitude for the preclear. You got it?
Two-sided. You'll have to get one for each, every time you start this
weaknesses of comparable magnitude.

Well, how would you run that? You would just run it. Say, "Now ..." The
person says, "I don't know. I just feel weak."

"Well, can you get a weakness of comparable magnitude? Can you conceive
a weakness of comparable magnitude to that person's weakness?"

And he finally does.

Then you say, "Can you conceive one of comparable magnitude to your
own?"

And he does, and you've sprung that one.

Really going to have to fish for bottom on this weakness. So weak they
couldn't pick up a mop. I mean, this is Tone 40, Tone 40. The weakness
of a rotten cell at the base of a decayed weed that has rotted clean
away in the middle, is fairly strong, see, compared to some of these
weaknesses. I mean, it's real low scale. But it's not dramatic. And you,
you look for fireworks, and you're not going to find any fireworks on
this. This is going to drift away.

Most fascinating thing you ever saw in your life. The individual could
put up no resistance. His resistance was totally overcome by one
mechanism or another. He will swear at the beginning, just like it's
described in Book One - just as it's described rather fully in Book One
- the person is all love and affection. And he starts coming upscale,
he's liable to find some stuff there that wasn't quite what he dictated.
We get this kind of a contradiction.

We say, "Well, there was a - there was a - oh, this-this-my father was -
he was really very, very, very fond of children; very fond of children."

God help you if you've got Father as a weak universe. If he can get a
visio of the person, to hell with it; it's not the person, by the way.

And, "very, very, very fond of children." We go on talking about this
for a little while, you know, and, "Oh, he's very fond of children. He
was always bringing me things and so on. Very, very, very fond of
children and so forth; very, very fond of children, and... "

You say, "Well, how many children did he have?"

And, "Oh, just me."

Something wrong with this, somehow, only you don't point this out to the
preclear. Never took any part in any youth activities, never took any
part - never went to camping or anything else or walking with the
preclear. There's some kind of a delusion mixed up in here somewhere as
it didn't have anything to do with a good second dynamic, and you
usually turn up an awful lousy second dynamic. That's one of the first
things you turn up in running this process.

Now, we got these steps now?

The diagnostic approach is what's lacking, and all we have to do is talk
about weak persons and things with the preclear that he has known, or
some such thing, until we get one of these closures showing up.

Now, we could go on talking about weak persons and things until the
closure went by the boards. You see? That's an alternate process. Or we
could just start in at that point and run Separateness on the
possessions of that person and one's own possessions connected with that
person, both ways separatenesses; and boost it whenever it stuck with
this other thingweaknesses of comparable magnitude. Whenever he just
goes bong, why, he's in one of these weaknesses of comparable magnitude.
It's an inconceivable level of weakness. Got the idea?

We're liable to find all sorts of interesting data. But you would resort
to this kind of a mechanism if your preclear had been processed for
quite a little while, (might say several hours) and wasn't showing any
real gain. The preclear is sitting there processing the other universe.
They're so interchanged that the preclear is processing another thing
than himself.

Now, you may trigger on the preclear four or five weak universes before
you trigger the basic weak universe. He'll give you others, but they're
out here somewhere. And boy, when he's living right square in the middle
of one of these universes, its postulates and his postulates are all the
same breed of cat. He has a chronic case of togetherness with that
universe, and you can spring him.

Now, I'd point out other mechanisms to you except that they aren't
terribly workable - I've tested them. Such as mocking the person up,
mocking the person up being weak, mocking oneself up being weak and so
forth, and this doesn't seem to be very good.

But there's an experimental process which has proceeded out from this,
which I am not settled on yet at all, which done something on this
order, is "orders you wouldn't mind receiving from that person or giving
the person." You get a total automaticity, and you just run it out. I'm
just experimenting with that. But it'll probably lead someplace and may
lead someplace with you, which is why I give it to you. All right.

Now, you get the steps of how you would do this?

Now, here we have this very strange mechanism; it's a very strange
mechanism of interiorization into the weak. We've scouted this out where
we've had some preclears who were quite recalcitrant, and we would have
found that the enclosing universe was normally a weak one. Because the
preclear could apparently give orders to it in the beginning. And he'd
permit it to give orders to him. And then the next thing you know,
there'd be some kind of a closure.

All togetherness then would vanish, and most of his hallucinations and
chronic somatics and so forth - I say, "his hallucinations" advisedly,
if you merely call any misvisio the individual has a hallucination -
these are liable to spring from this. It happens very, very quietly. All
right.

Now, on this other thing: Is there such a thing as bacteria? Ha! You
thought I was going to forget that, didn't you? You thought I was going
to forget that.

Is there such a thing as bacteria? This is an interesting and broad
subject. I've seen bacteria wiggle in a microscope. I've seen virus -
invented a microscope one time that actually would detect virus, way
back when - ultraultraviolet ray microscope. It was a very interesting
laboratory bench experiment. Years later they came out with them - they
weren't workable then either.

But this business about bacteria is very interesting. Now, the question
is, do bodies generate bacteria which then bite bodies? Or is bacteria
simply a series of orders which makes bodies themselves mock up things
to give them orders? Or is bacteria actually handleable by serums and
viruses? Or is it true that since the Salk vaccine has come out that the
incidence of poliomyelitis has risen 700 percent? (It has, you know, by
the published official figures.) Or is it true that Salk vaccine breeds
poliomyelitis? Or is it true that propaganda about poliomyelitis breeds
poliomyelitis?

Now, is there such a thing as bacteria? Should you process an acutely
ill person who is sick from some virus or bacteriological infection?
Should you? Should you? You'd better damn well had. That's all it is.

Evidently, due to some recent looks I've taken at this thing right up
close, right up close, and some earlier experiments which I did on the
same subject, fortunately - I would just like to see the bacteria that
perishes in the snap of a finger, that goes all the way out, that
disappears, that all of the various extra gimmigahoojits and so forth
that are supposed to take place because of bacteria - how could all
these things blow simultaneously?

If bacteria exists, then why is it that it can cease to behave exactly
like bacteria and just cease to behave instantly, without running any
further course at all and without any introduction of any other fluid?

Now, this is a very interesting problem, and it opens up a brand - new
chapter to us in this: Should we process people who are acutely ill?
Process which I've just given you - oh, you didn't think these things
were related, did you? Ha! I'll show you. I'll get even with you. I'll
show you that they're together.

The weak universe processed upon the acutely ill person may very well
finish off all bacteriological or virus manifestations. It might happen.
And if we have a process which uniformly banishes bacteria or virus by
separating out the weak universe, it would mean either we had gotten to
the orders which create bacteria and virus, or that they didn't exist in
the first place.

And we've believed they existed since 1870 and Louis Pasteur, but that
isn't very long to believe anything. It's only about eighty-five years.
And a guy who can't hold a postulate for eighty-five years without
becoming convinced just is no good, that's all. That's kind of a
backwards statement, but it isn't long enough to really have a
conviction.

You know, we've got to take it easy, these new things. We Scientologists
recognize that our own long history cannot at all times be duplicated by
other professions and that the many centuries that we have been at work
do not necessarily mean that other professions, new professions, as they
come in, pop in-like bacteriology, only eighty-five years old - we've
got to be tolerant about this sort of thing. We've got to give them a
chance.

But right here at this stage of the game we have an opportunity of
solving the fact of is there bacteria or isn't there bacteria? And I've
given you the process tonight which answers the question. This process
does clip out bacteria. How many bacteria does it clip out? How many
virus does it wipe out?

We find acutely weak person, a very ill person suffering from an
infection of this kind or that, we discuss with them weak things and
people, we find the interiorizing universe, and they might possibly get
enough cognition at that moment to make them get well. They might.

Interesting, isn't it? So we stand on the threshold of maybe making some
interesting discoveries in the field of bacteriology and medicine. And
it would be the only time we ever felt that we had any right to talk
about medicine in any way, shape or form.

Now, if we could do this and if we did have a better answer which would
assist the medical doctor, I'm sure we would have furthered our cause
and goals considerably. But if you know anybody who is ill, particularly
from a chronic infection of some sort or another, do that for me, will
you, and ask me how you come along. If this cures them left and right,
it doesn't mean that bacteria do not exist, necessarily, but it
certainly means that they're awful pantywaists. It means that they must
be awfully delicately constituted to disappear in a tenth of a second.
Something wrong with the picture, though, if they do, isn't there?
Something very wrong.

Well, let's find out what luck we have with this, and it very well may
be that we're all - that I'm dead wrong about this and that this guess
isn't - but remember, it's just a guess, and it's just a hopeful look, a
possibility that something like this could take place. Even though we
are already the oldest healing and philosophic profession on Earth - we
might as well claim that (I hear these other wild claims coming out from
Abbott and Lilly and so forth), in view of the fact that we are, we
should be hopeful of the fact that we, even because of our seniority,
can still make discoveries.

Well, we sure put a lie on that track.

All right. How - you think you have any use for the material I've given
you tonight?

Audience: Yes.

Is it comprehensible to you?

Audience: Yes. Very.

Okay.

Female voice: Could I ask a question, Ron?

Yes.

Female voice: It's about a case - well, which I'm not really finished
there. It's about a case I was running this afternoon. You seem to know
when I've got a sticky case - you give me a lecture right after it ... I
was running - I'm pretty certain that he's interiorized into his
mother's universe. He's an indoctrinated person and ...

I wouldn't worry about it.

Female voice: Yeah?

It isn't his mother's universe. He's probably suspected it. If he's
suspected it, it isn't it.

Female voice: He wasn't suspecting it. I mean, he says he's not
interiorized into any universe.

You talk to him about weak people and see how this one will turn out.
Will you do that for me?

Female voice: Well, wait a minute. I ran him on another universe which I
thought, you know, he'd have to be run on first, and he was getting
"togetherness" all the time. And he just went right out of
communication.

Wrong universe. I can tell you this, that at any time you have the wrong
universe and are running it, you don't get much advance on the preclear.
You have to get the right one, the weakest one, and then you do get
advance on the preclear. Otherwise, you merely get things falling into
him. This fallinginness stops when you have the right universe and run
it. And it also hits a big cognition, and everything turns off as far as
he's concerned. Okay?

[auditor]

MATCHING AUDITING TO TONE

A lecture given on 22 December 1955

Okay. There are innumerous subjects that I could talk to you about,
which undoubtedly would assist your ability to audit. But probably none
of these would be as beneficial as simply the subject of auditing
itself.

Now, I keep talking to you about very, very down-to-earth, low-level
processes. And we have a list of about, I don't know, twenty of
these-fifteen, twenty, twenty-five of these-which are very, very
low-level processes of one kind or another. Of course, we know that
cases go below that lowest level, they go out of communication. That is
about as low as we can get.

Now, when a case is totally, almost totally out of communication, it is
sometimes a long and arduous struggle to put the case onto the first
rung of communication. Now, we as auditors, have a tendency to be a
little bit critical of the general communication ability. This is
perfectly fine, this is all right. We are operating from a point of
knowingness. We know what the formula is of two-way communication. We
know what is communication and what isn't. Other people think talking is
communication. They think numerous things are communication, and they
are very sure that all of these things are bad.

But the chap who will, after a while, say good morning to you is not in
the class I'm talking to you about now - the chap who will say good
morning to you after you've insisted he say good morning. Now, that is
not out of communication. This chap is still in communication. He's
still registering. The chap who is out of communication entirely gives
us another problem. He is not talking. He is not communicating. He is
not observing what we are doing. And this entire body of people is
embraced loosely by the term "psychotic."

Now, I don't intend for you to get the idea that we're processing
psychotics. I merely want you to alert to the fact that you are not
processing, when we say low-scale, the lowest there is on the scale.
See? I just don't want you to get these things confused. And we say
loosely, amongst ourselves, that a person is out of communication, we
are simply being very, very loose.

If we were saying he is totally out of communication, he does not
respond or observe and is not aware of his environment, we would then
say he's psychotic. But another way of saying this is he's totally out
of communication, you see. Now, we can exaggerate the inability of a
preclear to respond or do a process by saying, "Well, he's very badly
out of communication" and so forth, and we go on talking like this, you
understand? But we're not being factual. If a chap is out of
communication, he's nuts. And that's all there is to that.

Now, insanity offers a complex aspect because individuals can be acutely
(which is a synonym for momentarily) or chronically (which is a synonym
for continuously). You should know those two words. It makes you sound
very, very, very good. You could say, "acute this" and "chronic that,"
you know, and it sounds very, very, very pharmaceutical or something.
But it means momentarily - acute, and chronically - continuously. So we
say, all right, he is acutely psychotic. Now, most people colloquially
interpret the word acute as meaning "very." See? That's not the case.
It's just sporadic, see, momentary. All right.

Now, an acute psychosis might be observable in somebody who has just
dropped his spare tire on his hand or who has just barked his knuckles
on the window ledge. See, but he's only psychotic for maybe a
twenty-fifth of a second.

Now, if you want to prove this up, audit one of these knuckle-barks or
tire-dropped-on-the-hand, and you'll find there's a moment when the
individual is unconscious. He is not aware of his environment. He is out
of communication with the environment, and that instant is enclosed on
every side by a sort of an unreality - complete. And as we - see,
there's this unreality, and then there's this instant of actually
unviewed incident. And then it comes out as unreality and then less
unreality and finally back to reality, you see?

So, we have sort of a two-arrowed thing here - here's consciousness,
unreality, unconsciousness, unreality, consciousness, see. That's the
cycle. Well, we get this little incident, and if we run it just by
asking him to tell us about it over and over again, just exactly the way
it happened - exactly what are you observing, exactly what are you
seeing and so on - he will uniformly be surprised that there was an
instant there ... He knows he knew what was going on the entire time,
see. This he knows well. Only he didn't. There is a moment there when he
was not receiving communication and not registering communication and
not giving any communication, and that is the definition of
unconsciousness.

Now, when we get this little incident in sight, we plow it out one way
or the other, run it, we find out something was registering. So
evidently, a person can be unobserving and uncommunicating out at the
same time, you see, and still have something recording. In other words,
an insane person-that's the definition of an insane person: not
communicating-an insane person is doing something incredible in being
insane, in that he's merely out of communication with his environment.
And we look him over very carefully and we find out he is
"all-the-same-y" in the same little twenty-fifth of a second as the
fellow was in who barked his knuckles. Only he's in it for a couple of
years. You get the idea? Hm?

The fellow who is mad at his wife and drives away and goes around the
corner on two wheels (as they very often do) and smashes into the
lamppost or the deadman or something - bang - you know. There was a
period there of maybe fifteen or twenty minutes when he was psychotic.
He was out of communication, his competence was gone, he was not capable
of decision or direction. But all this sums up to is he was out of
communication. No incoming communication, no outgoing communication. But
at the same time, something was registering, something was taking
pictures. That's the oddity about the whole thing.

Now, if we understand that the degree of unawareness of an individual is
the degree he is out and in communication, you see, we see that we have,
immediately and at once, a test of an individual's competence, sanity,
alertness, ability, anything else you want there, see.

Now, just as we can have an individual barking his knuckles or being
drugged and being out of communication, so we can have an individual who
is out of communication over a long period of time. Now, don't try to
separate these two items. Unconsciousness is unconsciousness. It may
have all kinds of ramifications and oddities of one kind or another but
it's just unconsciousness.

Now, we say, "Sleep." What is sleep? All right, what is it? Well, let me
give you this interesting example. There is a period when the thetan is
less aware of being a body and is more aware of being a thetan, when he
has an awful time trying to go to sleep. And the answer to this question
is, "What's he doing sleeping? What is a thetan doing going to sleep -
resting his cells?"

Now, he has developed the habit of going to sleep when the body went to
sleep, because the body has the habit of going to sleep when it goes to
sleep. And every twenty-four hours, it thinks it should be unconscious
for eight of them.

That's because the experience pattern of the body follows the experience
pattern of this particular planet. And this particular planet, oddly
enough, had an average of eight hours of very dark darkness, in excess
of the length of time plankton and algae could store adequate sunlight.
The plankton, the algae which animalcule form - to which form we can
trace back any body cell that we wish to isolate - they were at once and
at one time on that time track and were in the sea, slopping around.
These depended upon the sun in order to have energy, and they had very,
very poor storage capacity. Very good conversion capacity, but very poor
storage capacity. And so the sun would go down, and then for a few hours
only would the plankton or the algae, you see, have enough energy to
keep on running. And after that, being totally dependent on energy, it
said, "Nnyoooow, bong."

And it was unconscious for the rest of the tumultuous night. And when
the Sun came up in the morning, it started to wake it up by feeding it
energy. It left something running to tell it when the Sun came up, and
chose the easier course of simply passing out. And the body, long
divorced on the evolutionary track from the sea, is still going through
this cockeyed cycle.

If you were to ask a New Yorker what his dependency on sunlight was, he
would look at you quite blankly, since he's probably not seen any since
he was in Central Park at the age of six. If you were to ask a person in
London what his dependency of sunlight is, he'd be pretty blank. It may
be energy can be derived from sulfuric acid fog light. But we've made no
tests of this and so can't guarantee it at all.

But we do know this: That the idea of sleep and unconsciousness came
about when an individual ran totally out of energy. We had to admit in
the first place a total dependence on energy before we could run out of
energy. So you see about where on the Tone Scale these cells were, lord
knows how many millennia ago. And now, today, the body, by agreement
cell to cell, still goes into this unconsciousness called sleep. And a
thetan comes along and he's in the body and closely associated with -
body goes to sleep, a thetan is in total agreement with the body and he
goes to sleep, too.

And then you start to process him. And the processes which you're using
wake up thetans. And he's liable to spend some portion of his time,
during or after an intensive, trying to reconcile the nightmares he has
whenever he tries to go to sleep, his own sleeplessness and so on. And
the funny part of it is, he's struggling to get back to sleep. You got
that? And you're trying to wake him up.

Now, running energy sources, particularly by going around spotting them
and telling the preclear to increase them, or waste and accept them, of
course, interrupts the entirety of the sleep cycle for the thetan.
That's interesting, isn't it? You can interrupt this. We have that
process there, in the second level, right at the beginning of it there,
where you spot these energy sources. And, naturally, when the thetan
discovers he can get energy, he can accept energy, he can have energy
and he can make energy - when he's discovered all these things, why,
he's apt to get over the notion of sleep.

His determinism over energy has increased and he tends to pull out of
energy and go upscale quite rapidly. But until you get him over
something that has to do with energy, he's just going on chewing on old
facsimiles trying to get a few more ergs. And after you've exhausted a
little bit of these old facsimiles, you'll find out he goes to sleep. We
call it dope-off and boil-off, see. That's just dope-off and boil-off.
He's going to sleep because he hasn't enough energy.

So, we could say that any life form, no matter how tiny or how large,
has then come upon a dependence upon exterior energy sources; and that
this dependence results in, inevitably, this horrible fact: that there
isn't enough energy. Unless the chap considers it to be, it isn't. Think
it over for a moment. Unless he considers that it exists, it doesn't
exist for him. So if he goes on and puts all energy on automatic and
then says, "Well, it'll just go on. I'll keep getting energy," he will
become more and more dependent upon something that doesn't exist, and
after a while, he will cease to put it there at all - at which time it
will cease to be there. Sunlight will not any longer touch him. Get the
idea? There won't be any sunlight there at all.

Now, whatever happens at this state, we're not concerned about, but that
would be the absolute bottom of cases. See that? He's developed a total
dependence on all energies that are available, and then no longer
considers they exist, and we have rock-bottom case. In other words,
there is a "how far south." We can describe that "how far south." And
the goingness of going south is marked by greater and greater dependency
on exterior energy sources and less and less dependency on one's own
considerations to bring about energy or energetic conditions to this
final rock-bottom. We consider that we are totally dependent, and we
consider, then, a total nonexistence because the consideration itself,
first and foremost, is what brought about the energy. There are no
further considerations concerning energy, would be another way of
stating that. And that would be, evidently, a nearly total
unconsciousness. But that's certainly as far south as life is going to
go. Hence, the importance of that first level of Level Two. Step (a)
Level Two, Energy Sources.

The individual who says, "I cannot work," is simply saying, "I cannot
accumulate and direct sufficient energy to overcome accumulations of
energy, and things either stay where I don't want them to stay or move
when I want them to stop or vibrate when I want them to go at another
rate. And therefore I cannot work." He is saying, "I cannot control
energy." Well, trying to control something which you have to consider
exists in the first place can become one of the more interesting mental
puzzles.

And this is the enigma of the preclear with regard to energy. And it is
one of the primary things which has to be overcome before an individual
can be asked to work. Now, most of the people who come to you are
worried about themselves. They are tired, they are exhausted, they feel
that they cannot develop sufficient energy to get about their business.
They can't control energy; they can't consider it anymore. They sleep
too long, they're unable to accomplish things, they're unable to marshal
things or get them into order. Things become more or less a confusion to
them. Why is this? Because they have Oedipus of the left thighbone? Or
because they have a neurosis three feet back of their pinball machine?
Or because it's the left-hand square-root of the subverted Tone Scale?
No. All of these answers might or might not be good considerations, but
they don't lead to a solution of this energyless person's case.

Now, the amount of unconsciousness is a direct measure of the
unavailability of energy for the individual. When a person is very
laggardly about awakening or about getting anything done, he, of course,
has not stored enough energy and cannot get enough energy, and so his
best answer is simply to kind of sleep it out so that the last few ergs
that he has there - at least these - can be expended in some happy
direction. And when an individual becomes concerned about this, he will
do a great deal of sleeping. And when he gets on a job, he will do it
hammer and tongs, and then he'll sort of run down and go back to sleep
again. You see what we mean?

Well, energy lack of, space lack of, and livingness lack of, and
consciousness lack of, are alike considerations. That's something to
think about, isn't it? You realize the same cycle can take place on the
subject of space. An individual depends on everything else holding up
his space for him. And he depends upon this very thoroughly and very
slavishly and on and on and on, and then, all of a sudden, one fine day,
his space collapses on him. Well, let's take this collapsed-space case.
He can't strike out in any direction. He can't reach. Why can't he
reach? Well, he can't reach because he has no space in which to reach
and so on. He has run freshly out of space.

So, what do we do with this chap? We could do the same thing that we did
with energy sources. We have the individual spot spaces. Not spots in
space, this would be another thing, see. That would probably make him
sick - spotting spots in space. But we'd have him spot spaces. And then
maybe waste spaces and accept spaces and increase spaces - certainly
that last one. Of the three, that is the most important because that is
create, you see. And the individual, of necessity, is the only one who
is creating at any time.

And so, we would have this problem of no space solved in this fashion.
Now, this process, by the way, simply follows the original theories of
the second level processes. The original theories are being followed
here, because the process itself, due to lack of time, auditors and so
forth, has, at this moment, not been exhaustively tested. But it looks
like one of those things it would be very easy to do. And very probably
belongs there.

And the next issue of SLP is being held up in its issue on the test of
this and a couple of other things. But nevertheless, it should follow
that this sort of thing would work, you know. Here we have a chap who is
awfully out of space. He can't get anything off of him. He can't hold
anything away from him. Well, in order to hold something away from you,
you have to put space between you and it. And all of the Separateness
Processes work because they simply postulate space between the
individual and another thing. Got that? That's why the Separateness
Processes work.

I tell you, frankly, there is no reason why you couldn't have the
individual spot some spaces, one after the other, and then waste them,
accept them, increase them, you see, and get the same result and maybe
even a better result than Separateness. But we do have this implied and
understood in SLP, Issue 5, right there with separateness on objects and
persons and things. He is creating space. We're making him postulate
space. Now, as I say, there may be a better way to run that. But that is
what we are trying to do. He is totally dependent on space. And then he
considers that he can't have any. This is fascinating because he made it
in the first place. Nice little handy jim-dandy problem, isn't it? All
right.

We look at these various aspects of a case and we discover quite
interestingly that the individual is not totally a machine as he goes
all the way down. He isn't behaving totally mechanically except along
this common denominator - it would be: degree of consciousness over
degree of unconsciousness would equal tone of case. And if you were to
take the average - this would be a good way to measure tone - take the
average number of hours the individual was awake and active, and the
average number of hours he was asleep and add these up. And if the ratio
- if the ratio between these two things was a fraction of one, we would
consider him below 2.0 on the Tone Scale.

And if the resultant figure was above one, greater than one, we would
consider him, to that degree, above 2.0 on the Tone Scale. See how we'd
do it? You could very innocently and very smoothly say to somebody who
came to see you this person has been badly put upon or something has
happened to this person and we don't care what, and we had just
discussed things with this person. And we could say, "Now, right
now-during the last week, when have you arisen in the morning?"

"So-and-so and so-and-so."

You just assure him that you want to ensure he's had enough rest and so
forth to have his intensive, see.

And you just ask him what time of the day, you see, he has arisen, and
what time of the day he's gone to bed for the last week or so. And we
find out if this is a habit of his or not. And we talk to him long
enough so he'll finally break down and tell us if he's lying and so on.
And then we would just get this on the average. And we find the
individual normally is dormant, comatose, flat on his back, doped-off in
some fashion or another fourteen hours a day, and he is active,
moderately so, ten hours a day. Number of hours conscious, ten. Number
of hours unconscious, fourteen. Figure, ten-fourteenths. Brrrrt. Below
2.0, Tone Scale. See, just like that, bang.

Now, you will think you discover individuals who do not follow this
pattern. These individuals are doing something else which is very
peculiar. It's higher-toned than this, but they are liable to go like
mad for ten days, two weeks, three weeks, and then collapse for three or
four months. You got it? See what they're doing? But the number of weeks
they're active for the number of weeks they're in a state of collapse
would again give you a figure which would either be greater than one or
a fraction of one, and so you could plot them above or below 2.0 on the
Tone Scale.

Now, that's arbitrary, but because we know behaviors pretty well, and
because they work out very well on the old first Tone Scale there in
Science of Survival, we would have an idea and an expectancy of their
general behavior under processing. We could measure it up in this
fashion. And we really ought to go about it in some such fashion for the
excellent reason that we occasionally get fooled. You get somebody who
looks quite bright, alert, so on. We process him and he goes
nyrrrow-crash, you know. We say to him in session, "Well, how do you
feel today?" and the individual goes, bonk, boil-off. Just looking at
how he felt took enough energy out of the bank to cause him to boil off.
Do you see how this could be?

Now, the way we process the individual would depend a great deal upon
his position on the Tone Scale. And it would be very easy for an auditor
who has been processing people who ran badly, slowly, poorly and went
anaten in a hurry to make a considerable error when they started to run
somebody who was faster or more alert, you see. They would be more chary
of exhausting havingness than they need be. Take a high-toned case, you
don't have to worry too much about havingness. Chew it up, spit it out -
so what, see. And therefore, they are liable to run far more cautiously
or more slowly than they need be.

So, it's a good thing to take a good solid estimate of case. And you
would say a case well above 2.0 does not need any remedy of havingness
while running. Any somatics resulting from it are cross-ups with the
auditor or actual running out of some kind of a physical facsimile. You
just, you know, say this and it'll run out, and it'll run out rather
rapidly. It's not an exhaustion of havingness really, you see. That
isn't going to be the case. But you take a person below 2.0, he gets a
little bit queasy, boy, you better pull for that beach in a hurry, you
know? That guy is going to sink, and if he sinks, you're not going to
get him out of it in any hurry. He's a delicate case on the subject of
havingness. You cross him up as an auditor, and he doesn't just go
anaten, he goes out of sight. You're five minutes late for an
appointment and you hear about it for the next three hours. Get the
idea? The auditor fails to wear the right color of tie, no session
possible. You see how this could be?

So, it's very often true that an auditor is far more careful of some
cases than he need be. And one way to be sure about this is just to add
up hours of wakefulness and hours of sleep and get your fraction and get
that accordingly. Got it? And just behave accordingly with regard to
havingness. Behave accordingly with regard to auditing.

You can audit some chaps awfully fast. They're well above 2.0, they're
in good shape, they don't get their havingness shot to hell very easily.
If they go anaten, it's some kind of a sleep ridge or some kind of a
command level, something like this that's happening. It'll go out in
time. The body is having more reaction than they are, you know. They're
still in command of the situation, nothing's skidding. And if you were
to audit one of these fellows carefully and slowly and so forth, well,
he has to kind of fall in line with your agreement that he must be nuts
or something, see? He doesn't keep on running swiftly. And you could
spend easily five times as much time in processing as you need to.

Now, if you feel unsafe about a preclear, always play it on the safe
side. But if you feel fairly secure about your preclear, and you measure
the various elements, just start playing it a little more dangerously
and a little more dangerously and a little more dangerously and push
your luck a little bit harder and a little bit harder. You're running
faster and faster and faster, and you'll find all of a sudden that you
are just running just too confoundedly long on some preclears, see.
You're just going on and on and on when you ought to wind it up. You
might have sort of pushed the preclear into an auditing apathy. You
know, you're being so easy about it he'll say he feels he must be worse
off than he is.

Well, if you have an idea that a preclear is well above 2.0 - every
evidence you have substantiates this - a little experience in processing
him pushes him along very well, and he's going along fine, start to live
dangerously. Audit a little faster. Don't audit carelessly, just audit
more positively. Be sharper, listen for those cognitions. And switch
your process on him. Swing it along, they'll be real cognitions. And
he'll run. He'll run rapidly.

Now, it's possible with a good preclear to cover all six levels of the
Six Levels of Processing in its totality in ten hours. But your preclear
to begin with would have to be at about tone 4.0. And boy, that's like
driving a rocket ship. That's fast, see? But what business do you have
as an auditor running somebody who could run all six levels in four
hours in fifty or sixty hours over the same course. See, there's no
reason to do that. You're wasting time. You're wasting his time and your
time. If you want to audit him beyond ten, fifteen hours, something like
that, why, by all means, open up The Creation of Human Ability and start
exploring outer space, you know. But just to get to a good stable zenith
and so on, why drag your heels? The individual runs fast, he is alert,
he does well, so why mess him up? Just get in there and audit like mad.

I've had a preclear do Change of Space much faster than could be done by
command, see. He was running faster than commands could be uttered. And
throwing showers of hellos and getting back showers of okays and having
the spot send showers of hellos at him and him sending back showers of
okays at it on each pause over a circuitous course which took in each
star visible from this planet. And this is the way we were doing each
new star.

I'll just give you an example. We ran immediately out of time in which
to utter the command. So, we had an understanding that this command was
going to mean that he was going to spot, go near, throw a shower of
hellos at, get a shower of okays from, have it throw a shower of hellos
at him and he throws a shower of okays at it each time we give him a
finger tap. And this was the rate at which we were going: tap -tap -tap
-tap -tap-tap -tap -tap-tap -tap - tap-tap-tap-tap-tap. Bzzzzz!

Now see, we know that it's impossible for an individual to react that
fast. But just because we know it's impossible, don't restrain people
from acting that fast.

So there are two problems here in auditing, and they both have to do
relatively with caution-not so much speed, but caution. And when an
individual is in very poor condition with regard to consciousness, you'd
better be a lot more cautious than I've ever told you to be. You better
crawl. You better ask him five times if the little code break you just
had affected him any, because he won't tell you the first four. He's not
that much in communication. We notice the fellow all of a sudden goes
anaten, he goes anaten, you know - thetan, body, the works. He just goes
out of communication, see? Anaten.

We say, "What's the matter?"

And "I don't know."

"Well, did I do something wrong? I mean, is something crossed up here?"

"Oh, no, no, no, no. No."

'Anything occur? Anything occur at all?"

"No, no, no, no. Perfectly all right."

We notice however, he's coming out of it.

"Is there anything that I might have said differently that would have
been more satisfactory to you?"

"Oh, no, no, no, no, no. Everything is all right."

"Well, now, tell me, what did I say and what did happen here that threw
the session off?"

"Well, I was about to tell you that - first time I ever told anybody
that my father and mother weren't married, and you interrupted. You gave
me an auditing command."

A little while afterwards you'll say to yourself, "For god's sakes, is
that so?"

And if you've got a preclear who is dropping into - you know, there are
very many conditions of this anaten. A body, because bodies are bodies,
can go anaten. A thetan doesn't go anaten; he's perfectly bright. But
the body fogs out. It goes through a period of anaten, it gets groggy,
it's running an incident, something like this. Thetan stays totally
awake and alert, see. This can happen. Bodies are bodies, you see. Just
because the thetan is a thetan is no reason why the body has wiped out
its complete genetic behavior pattern, see.

And we start running through something like this and we notice the whole
guy is fogging on something, we say he must be running semiconscious or
something. Boy, if you don't start researching and just looking over the
whole session as a unit and going over the thing with a fine-tooth
microscope, you'll miss it. Because he won't tell you the first four
times. Maybe he won't tell you the first nine times.

I used to know a guy whose earlier methods I very definitely do not
approve of. He was a hypnotist, and he continued to be a hypnotist after
he became a Dianetic auditor. It was nothing for this chap to throw a
preclear into reverie back down the time track, and then give him an
implant that he'll feel better after the session was over, you know.
Close it in, occlude it out and so forth. And it wasn't until - it
wasn't until I found out he was also putting in the command that he
would - the preclear would thereafter send him twenty-five dollars every
month for the rest of his life that I dropped him into birth and left
him there.

But anyway, this chap did have one cute trick - which differently
phrased might be very interesting. "What do you hate about me?" he would
say. Anybody he started to process, he would ask them that question.
He'd ask them repeatedly until they finally told him something that they
hated about him. You get the idea?

This, by the way, is an old hypnotist trick. It is not new with this
chap. You use it in order to get the subject to resist you. And the
moment he says he's finally found the things he really hates about you,
you plow him in. You get the system? Well, this system could be used
differently. You could start talking about your relationship with him,
any similarity or difference that you represented from other people, and
get yourself separated out. You'd find it was quite a process. That's
how low you can get. In other words, find the auditor.

One way that was put forward on this particular one - it was quite
interesting - was just, "Look at me. Who am I?" Auditor was running this
on a psycho, who is now doing very well. Psycho went into a break during
the first session. Auditor probably looked human or something, you know
- enough to set anybody off. And psycho went into a break and all the
auditor said after that was, "Look at me. Who am I?" And the psycho told
her she was more people, see. "You're this one and that one," various
members of the family, anything and everything. And finally the psycho
came out of it and said, "Oh, I know you," and named the auditor and
brightened up and had found the auditor and was in a lot better
condition.

Now, you could take this on a gradient scale under that name, Find the
Auditor, and just ask the preclear if there was any similarities between
yourself and anybody else, any differences, any differences between
yourself and your father or anything like this. This might sound odd to
you, but it might be very provocative a thought on a preclear who had
told you his ratio between sleep and wakefulness was well into the
fraction and not greater than one, see. See, it might be a very
provocative process. You'd run this cautiously. You'd run this
courteously. You might run it for hours and hours and hours. But if it
was benefiting, it would then be a good process, wouldn't it? Hm? Then
that would be the process to use.

But where are you? You're at the entering wedge of Level One as, of all
things, a process which you're now going to run for hours. You're going
to ask the chap, "Look at me. Who am I?" You're going to say, "Do I
remind you of anybody?" "Well, let's play a game here. Let's get people
I don't remind you of" You know, any kind of a process you could think
of simply to get, finally, an auditor, you, sitting there.

Now, that's pretty darn cautious. And yet that works on a psycho. During
auditing commands, the psycho is fluttering around the room being a
butterfly and jumping up on chairs and jumping off on chairs and saying,
"Don't I look beautiful? Don't you admire my gauze wings. No, they're
not. They're made out of India rubber. Ha-ha, I had you there." You
know. Duhhh.

And the proper method of handling this in a profession whose name I have
now stopped mentioning, is "Humph!" That's the way they do that, they
walk in, they say, "Humph! Give them electric shock." Oh, I'm being very
nasty, only 90 percent of them do that.

It's interesting that an investigation into the humanity of this is now
being conducted. I don't know how these things get started. Anyway ...

If you were called upon to process a psycho, and the psycho was
fluttering all around the room doing this or that, there's a step lower
than "Look at me. Who am I?" And that's for you to imitate any sane
motion they make, and in desperation, any motion they make. Little kid
is lying on the floor, feeling very blue and very sad and crying and out
of communication and won't answer or anything of the sort. You know, you
can lie down on the floor and start crying, too. Sometimes you can just
lie down on the floor and they'll feel more comfortable, in the same
position they're in. Sounds odd. But you just lie down and they stop
crying. They feel better, they start talking to you. But if that doesn't
work, you'd start crying, see? They're lying there and going
boo-hoohoo-hoo-hoo, and you lie there and go boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo.
They'll say, "What the hell is this racket? What's coming off here?" And
they'd find the auditor. Got the idea?

It's just a method of attracting attention, get their attention a little
bit focused on some part of the environment, and that is the first
entering wedge of communication. See? To get their attention fixed on
some part of the environment, and because you can help them and because
you're going to say something to them, the logical object is you. See,
that's the logical thing they should fixate on at first; not fixate in
the general thing, but they ought to notice. And that would be the
entering wedge of communication, wouldn't it - hm?

So, you can go pretty far south, but I think in all this concentration
of going far south, that many of you have forgotten that you can also go
north; and that you better sure as hell had.

Because here and there, I spot preclears who have been processed very,
very nicely up to tone 3.0 and have then been processed a great deal,
and they're still at tone 3.0. Why? It's the speed factor. It's not the
techniques, it's the rapidity, the familiarity, the quickness of
perception on the part of the auditor, see.

Now, you can get up to tone 3.0 and there they are. Now, it isn't that
the preclear will not go any higher than the auditor. It's that the
auditor is insisting the preclear go no higher than tone 3.0, merely
because he is still cautious, he is still invalidative, he still assumes
various things about the preclear's case, which are no longer true. He
doesn't reassess the case, doesn't reexamine the case, and so he pins it
- maybe at tone 3.0. Why doesn't he cut the case loose? He's trying to
make the guy better. All right, let's roll him on up the line. It really
doesn't require any more tone or address on the part of the auditor,
doesn't require any more.

It is not true that you have to have a Tone 40 auditor to process a
preclear up to tone 3.5. See? Not at all true. In fact, in complete
violation of this, I have seen auditors that, for my money as far as
cases were concerned, ran something on the order of the Albert Memorial.
You know, they just ran beautifully. You notice how it dashes all over
Hyde Park. And they could all of a sudden pick up some kid or - that's
the test - some kid and exteriorize him and blow him through a Grand
Tour and have the kid in terrific condition and so forth and his auditor
is just duhhh, you know?

And I've seen this happen very often, so it's not only not true, it's
not even a necessity, not even vaguely a necessity to stay up there
around tone 1885 in order to get a preclear up to tone 0.5. It's not
necessary. You feel low that day. You could say your acute tone is low.
You've just had a kick in the teeth one way or the other. People have
given you about eighteen times too many problems. You don't feel well
about it. You feel low and your tone that day is riding downstairs.
You're riding there at about 2.5. You can still do a good job auditing.
And you've done it, you know this. And you've kicked preclears up the
line above your own immediate or acute tone level.

Now, all of us, because we are associated with bodies, have a tendency
to get acute tones. We get mad at something or somebody or some
situation, or we run fresh out of this or that, and we decide that we're
in bad shape, and that it's all too horrible and so on, and we normally
are sailing along very well but suddenly we take a dive, see. And all
one afternoon we'll feel grumpy as the devil about something or other,
you know. Well, that's our acute tone. Our acute tone has dropped. Well,
it'll go back up again.

This is a very funny thing to tell you guys, but the thing you don't
want is a chronic tone. The whole idea of Clear is based on not "no
computation" but to compute and uncompute, to be and unbe. Get the idea?
And if all of the emotional conditions and all the conditions which
match up all the problems became blocked to you the instant you were
Clear, you'd be in terrible condition. You'd have no game at all - no
game. It would be like saying, "We're going to clear this fellow," and
put an analogy in about an adding machine, and say, "Well now, this
adding machine we're going to fix all up and we're going to fix it up so
that when we punch five we get five, not fifty. And we're going to fix
this adding machine up perfectly and then we're - because it's in such
beautiful condition, we're going to put it on the back of the desk and
not, thereafter, punch any buttons on it at all."

We're assuming that if a person who is cleared can't thereafter be or
react, we are assuming at once something that the Hindu and the rest of
the boys out in the East have wished on us, and that is we must sit on -
with crossed legs and be terribly serene, you know. And this is our idea
of it. As a matter of fact, that is a chronic tone. And the definition
of insanity is chronic tone, fixed tone. And you will see insanity as it
sets in go on a fixed tone, and then spin in on that tone. Get less and
less conscious, don't you see? You can have somebody in chronic fear.
You can also have somebody in chronic happiness. And they cannot move or
vary off of that mood. They're stuck! Get the idea?

Now you, as auditors, have a tendency to have this wished off on you.
All of your preclears and friends say, "Well, you're a Scientologist,
you're supposed to be able to handle anything." And some Saturday
evening you decide not to handle something - to hell with it. The gas
tank gets empty and you walk around and just kick hell out of it. And
everybody is totally disgusted with you. Never saw such a thing in your
life. You're not supposed to have hot buttons, you know.

No, the whole subject of Clear is can buttons be pushed and unpushed.
It's only the frozen button or the frozen tone which is the danger
point. The volatile is not dangerous. You can get mad and five minutes
later be happy as a clam - much happier than clams. You're probably in
darn good shape. You can just feel like hell about something, you know.
You just find out all of a sudden that, gosh - that the check bounced
and everything is chaotic and so forth, and you say, "Dahhhh." And feel
like bawling, you know. And then say, "Well, let's see now, I'll float a
loan here and I'll get Joe there and try a little blackmail with ... and
get by somehow." And about ten minutes later, why, you're down drinking
a cup of tea looking perfectly happy, and somebody saw you about three
minutes ago, you know, and said, "What's the matter with you?"

"What do you mean, what's the matter with you?"

Well, the matter with you is the fact that you didn't stay predictable
within their foolish little grasshopper ability to predict. They
couldn't predict this sort of a change or variation in anybody's tone.
People when they get mad are supposed to stay mad, evidently, for months
or years, you see. And when you start crying, you're supposed to keep on
crying for days.

Well, I felt real bad one time on the loss of - very relatively short
time ago felt real bad about some loss of things and boy, was - did I
get mad! I just got desk-splitting mad about this whole thing, you know.
And there were a couple of people around who weren't close in to
anything at all. I was just real mad, you know, with volume. Bang! These
people - you could see them get real nervous, real upset, see. Real
nervous, real upset. They were sitting outside in the waiting room. And
I came out a couple of minutes later, and, of course, I was happy and so
forth. We'd gotten that all straightened out. Perfectly cheerful about
the whole thing. And these people kept stretching their necks trying to
peek into my office, you know, to find out who else was in there.

One of the big mechanisms and operations in existence is the fixing of
tone. People try to fix your tone and hang you with a fixed tone. Now
just because you're trying to help them is no reason they have the right
to fix your tone. Got that? Don't get yourself mixed up with the Little
Brothers of Saint Francis or something of the sort and think you all
have to go around with a tin-plated halo on your head, in a chronic
serenity. Dahhhh. I ask you, what would you do sitting there with
chronic serenity at a leg-show. Hm? Hampers you, doesn't it - hm?

All right. An adding machine, a mind, any operation that is in good
shape can have any combination punched on it and come up with the right
or a wrong answer at will. Now an adding machine is under the compulsion
always of coming up with a right answer. But a person who is cleared has
his choice! Not only can any combination problem be punched on the
adding machine but he can come up at will with the right answer or the
wrong one. And sometimes it's a great benefit to have a wrong answer. A
fellow comes in who's trying to do you in, he asks you for the solution
to the problem and you give it to him. Ha-ha. He goes away not with the
conviction that you're infallible but not in good shape either. You get
the idea?

You would also be fixated if you always had to give the exact right
answer. And the funny part of it is only when you obtain and retain the
liberty of giving wrong answers, do you then find yourself capable of
uniformly coming up with the right ones. There's no strain on coming up
with the right one. If you would just as soon sit down for your final
examinations which was going to make you an e cum laude laureate in
liceology or something of the sort, you know, and just happily write
down on alternate lines as answers, "I see a pig," see. If you'd be just
as happy to do that on these brain-cracking things, why, the dean might
turn you in, in a less enlightened area, as a nut. But you know that if
you could do this at will or give the right answer at will, you'd really
be able to use the information. It's only when you always have to give
the right answer that you get in trouble. Got it? All right.

If fixing of tone is therefore an operation, then - and if fixing your
tone on the part of the public or preclears is an operation, then of
course it isn't so good for you to fix a preclear's tone, is it? Not if
you're trying to raise his tone. You're trying to change his tone, don't
you see? So, you've got to assume that the tone change exists. And so,
your lower levels of processes or your higher levels of processes should
be run in accordance with the individual's tone. Doesn't matter what the
process is, any process will work at any tone level - which is quite
amusing today, quite amusing.

Now, you take one of the processes which has just come up - handles
chronic somatics. I know it does. You merely say, "What specific problem
could that medulla oblongata be to you." And it handles! But you could
run it at any level of the tone. Now, what allowances would you make?
You'd run it cautiously low-toned, and you'd run it like lightning
uptone, wouldn't you? Hm?

A high-toned case, you'd run the same process as the low-toned case, but
the attitude, conviction, belief and handling of the auditor would be
the difference in the auditing. Right? So regardless of processes, this
is the thing that you should master. The estimation of where the
preclear is now. He might not have been there five minutes ago. He might
be someplace else in another ten minutes. But where is he now? And you
audit him wherever he is now. Keep the session in present time, in other
words, not just the preclear. Make allowances for what he's doing and
where he is. And if you do that, why, you will just save enormous
amounts of time in auditing and get enormously greater results than you
would otherwise.

There are ways to measure preclears, there are ways to run them fast,
there are ways to run them slow; there are ways to run them cautiously
and there are ways to run them dangerously. But before you really go in
and test all these various ways, the first thing you should do is
recognize that the preclear can change. And just think over or look over
the situation and see these great tonal differences and compare them to
the amount of wakefulness and slumber, alertness and comatoseness of the
individual, and you will learn a great deal about this problem of how to
audit him, where, when. Got it?

Audience: Yes.

Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you, Ron.

[auditor]

SOLUTION TO BODY BEHAVIOR, PART I

A lecture given on 3 January 1956

This is a - evening prep course lecture here at the HASI, and the whole
lecture I'm going to give you is an overt act to you. Everything I'm
going to tell you is actually an overt act against you. I want you to
get that plainly and clearly, you understand. The reason I am saying
these things right now is totally, entirely and completely to do you in.

Everything I am saying has malice behind it, no matter how kindly it is
actually put. There's a certain malignancy in the propaganda itself that
I'm about to give you.

Now, if you understand that thoroughly then this lecture won't upset
you; but if you only halfway believe me when I tell you that, then I'm
afraid the lecture will sit out in front of you and you'll have pictures
of it. And if you believe that the whole thing is kindly meant, you'll
remember it.

So, we wouldn't want you to do anything like that, remembering this or
something of the sort, and so, you just understand that this is entirely
malignant, that every size part of it is malicious.

All right. And we got that now?

Audience: Yes.

Got that real good? Fine.

It's just this one lecture, not what I always do. You know?

Now, for a very, very long time, a very long time, we have known about
the overt act-motivator phenomena. We have even gotten very technical
about it, and we have said that an unmotivated act against another was a
DED, d-e-d, and that an act received in response to a DED was a DEDEX In
other words, there were various kinds of overt act-motivator sequences.

Now, what do we mean exactly by a motivator? It means something one
receives in the way of pain, punishment or duress which then,
thereafter, permits him to execute the same pattern and design against
another without being guilty.

And an overt act, actually, is any action done against another. We use
this sloppily too. We say also, "He is overt-act hungry." Well, that's
just our pandering to people who don't know terminology. Actually, he's
motivator hungry. In other words, he's done more to others than has been
done to him, and therefore, he is left in a spot of being minus on the
subject of motivators.

Well now, an overt act, for the purpose of this lecture and in
Scientology, really means anything done to another, but because people
understand an overt act is an overt act, we could say the individual
wants overt acts done to him, see? He wants others to act against him.
But we're going to use it in this wise: We're going to use the word
motivator. He wants a motivator.

And, from here on in Scientology, the word motivator gets very, very
technical: motivation for "separation from." A motivator would be an
action received by an individual which thereafter permitted him to
consider all obligations cancelled from that sort. You got that?

Quite important. We have changed the definition of motivator because the
old definition is not factual. We weren't wrong, but we were not basic.
And the basic reason, it turns out, why an individual wants or has to
have these motivators is to permit him to then consider that he has had
cancelled out for him any and all obligations which kept him connected
to anyone or anything.

And so, we run in immediately into the splitting of universes, and we
run into that mechanism most subscribed to by the body - that mechanism
most subscribed to by the body, but usually unsuspected by the thetan.
And we get the difference between a GE and a thetan. The GE's idea of a
motivator is an action occurring to it, a body-genetic entity (merely
meaning "a body") - an action happening to it which then permitted it to
no longer consider binding any former ties to a certain sphere, activity
or person. Got it?

How does the body feel it could separate away from others? By receiving
enough motivators. It's the motivation for separation. Got it?

Now, the thetan gets into this because of his association with the body
and expresses it most arduously under these circumstances, and you will
see, at once, what I'm talking about and be able to get this thing
turned right-side up, even though you've had it upside down for a long
time.

You'll think an overt act is bad, that a body doesn't want one. That
isn't the case. A body is so motivator hungry that if you just sat and
conceived everybody to be entirely motivator hungry for a while,
probably the whole puzzle would come apart. It would explain or
rationalize each and every part of life's activities. They seem to be
inexplicable. That's because there's a basic lie.

Everybody and anybody is apparently starved for good things to happen to
him, and each action he takes, each and every action he takes, is
apparently because he wants something good, and is actually because he's
dying and is starved for something bad.

Horrible condemnation, but you'll understand this much better when I say
this: Exteriorization and death are synonymous. Death is a sufficient
motivator to permit exteriorization from a body. Now, just look at death
that way: It's a sufficient motivator to permit exteriorization from the
body. Right up to that moment, the individual felt himself so obligated
to take care of that body and the other bodies associated with it and
the environment in general, that he could not go off and leave it. He
was bound there by contract, by agreement. His own high ethical level
somewhere back on the track or at upper levels was such as to prevent
him from breaking these ties, but death comes along and is a sufficient
and adequate motivator to permit him to go off and do what he pleases.

He is not permitted to forget the whole thing unless the whole thing has
done enough to him to cause him to break his contract. The basic
agreements of tie, then, are ARC of one sort or another; and the body's
mechanism for separating these ties and breaking off these contracts,
these agreements, this ARC with life, of forswearing all of its
responsibility, is to receive enough motivators. And if it can receive
enough motivators, it then feels that it can shove off and do what it
pleases.

The body feels this; the whole body is built more or less on this
principle. And a thetan going along is only skating on the surface of
this principle. He's skating so thinly on the surface of it that
although he occasionally obeys it, he is not cognizant of it; he is not
aware of it, but the body is aware of it.

And you have, then and there, the totality of the phenomenon known to
Freud as the subconscious or unconscious mind. He was trying to account
for this unconscious, this unknown, yet thinking reaction, which lay
below the surface of knowledge of the individual, a thetan.

There was some rationale which a person couldn't quite grasp. There was
a rationale of some sort which lay beyond the consciousness of the
thetan which he couldn't quite grasp and, having grasped it, he couldn't
quite credit. The body had gone along so long using only this mechanism
of enough motivators to separate, that it had one method of
exteriorization from any group or situation: Get some motivators. And if
it got some motivators, it could leave; but if it didn't get any
motivators, it couldn't leave. It was bound by contract, by agreement,
by ARC, by responsibility.

So, we have the teenage child-give you some very practical examples of
this-we have the teenage child demanding from Mother and Father a
sufficient number of motivators. Mother and Father must do something to
the teenage child. Actually, the teenage child wants to separate from
the bosom of that family, wants to go out and get married, raise a
family and go off on his own. But he can't do this unless somebody has
been mean to him. Get the idea?

So, he's got to accumulate, one way or the other, some motivators. So,
he finds this or that wrong with his parents. They're doing this or that
to him or her. And if the parents just went on being noble, the kid
never would leave. So, a failure to grasp the situation gives us
familial difficulties with children. The parents don't grasp this at
all.

Actually, you could tailor up some customs which would match this
reality and which would vanquish the actions of this - you can't call it
an "unconscious mind," because it's not an unconscious mind; it's a
totality of impulse on the part of a GE.

How does he get out of things? He gets motivators. He holds down the
number of overt acts he does and accumulates motivators, and when he's
got enough of them, he blows. Got the idea?

So, he'll go out of communication. He won't talk to anybody. You see,
that's reaching, and it might be an overt act. And he'll just sit there,
quiet, you know, waiting for somebody to gouge him. Of course, he'll
occasionally look with a certain way or quite by accident do a certain
thing, all by accident, which will then cause somebody to give him a new
motivator. And if he's got one, he can shove off.

The preclear, who is eternally blowing the session, will conceive
anything to be a motivator. This person has almost got enough to leave
life, you know, almost got enough; and if they just see an auditor, a
bad auditor preferred ...

You haven't started the session yet, you just walked into the auditing
room, and you drop your handkerchief. And you start to pick it up again,
and right away they're going to go. Incomprehensible. Worse than that,
you're three minutes late for the session; they're five minutes late,
but they know you were three minutes late. Get the idea? And they're
going to blow.

Now, you, in your interest in the case or something like that, hold up
and don't give an auditing command promptly, you give them a two-second
comm lag or something like this before you give them the next command -
they're off. They're already going to walk to the door, you know? What's
happening here? They're looking for it.

Do you know - here's the great oddity, here's the great oddity: If you
were to actually tell this person brutally something very harmful, you
know, then they could leave with a clean conscience. They would at least
be able to exteriorize from life - they see it.

But they would get out to the sidewalk, and they'd find they were still
in a body - the body was still there, the body was still connected to
this universe that it wasn't enough of an overt act. So, now they've got
to go tell somebody a bunch of lies about you in order to at least get a
general agreement on the part of the society that they have received
one. Got it?

Now, the thetan ordinarily isn't, as we say in the US, isn't "hep" to
this. A thetan doesn't really know this is going on. He will obey it
sometimes because it seems to be so much the thing, on a sort of a
response mechanism, but he will not at once recognize what his body is
doing. Therefore, he will find himself going into sudden little flurries
of upset that he doesn't quite understand, and he'll find suddenly that
he's said something or done something that has a whole roomful of people
very upset with him.

How did this come about? And he'll say, "Well, it's not because I - it's
because I - I'm not so good. It's because of this, because of that."
He's just cut right straight across into one of these things. The body
for a moment, or one of its entities, has suddenly made an expression or
done a thing which says, "Please, please, come on. Give me some
motivators," see?

Everybody says, "Rrrhhh."

Well, that's enough. See, then the fellow can leave the group, leave the
party. How do you get out of a trap? You accumulate some motivators.
People have got to be mean to you. That's the way you get out of a trap
if you're a body. See this?

Well, that isn't really the way a thetan does it, but a thetan is
overtly interested in reaching. He's overtly interested in looking at
this, looking at that, reaching here, reaching there - in a mechanism
which is covertly interested in being reached. Different thing, see:
being reached by anybody and everybody - a mechanism which wants to
withdraw. Thetan is reaching, body is withdrawing.

And between these two actions you get a continual enturbulence between
the thetan and the body. You get a miscomprehension. They're going in
two opposite directions. At length, the thetan goes into apathy and he
says, "All right, I won't reach anymore." He's just in total agreement
with the body, see that? Just as easy as that. "Well, I won't reach
anymore. I'll wait until they kick me out."

And this is the preclear that you stand in front of him, and you say,
"Be three feet back of your head." He can't. But I - in the field of
research you're liable to do almost anything. I have done this; I have
done this: I have said to a preclear, "Well, it's all right with me, of
course, but if you stay in your head one second longer, I'm going to
take this fist right here and I'm going to knock your silly head off."
And the guy will be very sad about this and back three feet back of his
head.

Now, sometimes they try to kick themselves out of a situation by getting
a picture of a motivator, see? They get a picture of one in front of
them. And they say, "Well, that's good enough," only they can't quite
convince themselves that it really was intended wholly for their
destruction. "That was good enough," they say. "Look - look what - look
what this person did to me. That's enough. I can shove off. I mean, I
don't have to be responsible around here anymore. I can shove off, I
guess, I hope."

And they get obsessed on the subject, and they tell you all about how
horrible this person was to them. They're trying to build it up - build
it up, until at last they, themselves, are convinced through having
convinced you, that they can now shove off from any situation or
responsibility with regard to that.

Some people have never exteriorized from their families, although they
have left. And as the years go along, they'll feel sadder and sadder
about the whole thing. They're not living up to their obligation, you
see. And then one fine day, out of nowhere, they will suddenly conceive
all the horrible things their family has done to them. And they'll start
to dream up things, or they'll start to kind of rake at them, you know?
Scratch at them a little bit, you know? And there will be an awful
uproar going, terrific uproar going on, that they didn't really start,
because that is the condition of the motivator: They didn't start
anything. There they were standing there, perfectly innocent, and all
this happens.

Well, that's the way a motivator must be and so they rig it up that way,
and away they go. Now, just exactly why or how they can receive as many
motivators as they do and still not be convinced is simply a matter of
consideration. "How many motivators do you need?" is some kind of a
process, untested, see.

You've known one human being that you - one morning, weren't feeling too
good, and you walked into the dining room, or something like that, and
you just didn't say anything. As a matter of fact, it was beyond your
capabilities to have talked to anybody. And they look at you and
suddenly say, "Well, if that's the way you feel about it!" and leave.
Well, that's their consideration of how much motivator they need in
order to leave the dining room.

Now, you understand that a thetan falls into this. He falls into this
only by example and stimulus-response and not by his understanding. His
understanding is very hard to match up to this. Actually, you have to
sit down and think for a long time before you get this thing entirely
measured out, and then you'll never have it in the frame of reference of
a body, because the body is just plain starved, and starvation isn't a
thinking process. It begins with a consideration that one needs
something. All right.

Now, how did it ever get in this condition? How did it ever get in this
condition? If you took a highly ethical being and tried to trap him,
what is the first condition necessary to the trap? Supposing he were not
only highly ethical, supposing he were highly athletic and penetrative.
Supposing this being could walk through anything, anywhere, at any time,
be anywhere at any time, and you wanted to trap him. How on earth would
you go about doing it?

There'd be one condition necessary to the execution of this design. Do
you anticipate it?

Audience: Yes.

You'd have to get him to agree that he was under some sort of an
obligation. No matter on what flimsy excuse, you would still have to get
him to give his word, his contract, his bond, that he was under some
sort of an obligation, see? This would be the first condition.

Now, because he gives this at a time when he is highly ethical, as he's
punched around and thrown downscale, he doesn't ever change it, because
he can't as-is it. He isn't at the same position of the Tone Scale, and
it's always out of his reach.

So, the way we would go about trapping a thetan or a livingness that we
wanted thereafter to move along certain definite patterns, would be to
make a bargain about obligation. We would claim this individual had
responsibilities. We would claim he had certain debts to pay.

Now, thereafter if the individual were highly ethical, he could not
conceive himself to be absolved of these contracts since the contract
maker suddenly becomes evaporated or unknown or unreachable, you see,
and he would be left with this mechanism, then: The other person would
have to break the contract. It would be up to somebody else.

But how would you ever get the contract really broken? How would you
ever get it broken? The other person would have to break it, right? And
that would have to be by pushing away, by doing something against, by
saying, "We're no longer operating in the same frame of reference," that
"We are some other being," you know, something else would have to occur.
And out of all possible chances, evidently the one that the body has
adopted is motivator: "You do enough things to me, and I am no longer
held or bound by this contract; therefore, I can break the contract."

Death by violence, which can, to some degree, be traced immediately to
an intent, is of course desirable over and above a nice quiet death
where everybody is being very kind. If you really looked up and down the
time track, you would find the individual stuck in incidents,
situations, environments and places where everybody is being damned nice
- the weak universes, the nondangerous spots. Got the idea? Because
there's no motivators possible, and the individual will hang on to these
pictures. Quite fascinating, quite fascinating.

I used to run into all kinds of violent deaths when I was researching
past track deaths. Oh, my, you talk about violent deaths, you just run
into them by the ton. You can take an E-Meter, and you just turn them
up: death by shooting, death by drowning, death by this, death by that,
you know. And they're just endless, it seems. And so, you run them. You
run them out, and you erase them, and you run them out, and you erase
them, you just ... You say, "Well, this guy isn't changing. Where the
devil is he stuck?" Well, he's stuck with everybody being nice.

One notable case was stuck in the last life as a miller somewhere in
Europe. And he had about seven or eight kids and they were all standing
around and they were all crying. And his wife was there and she was
crying. And he was dying rather comfortably in a very, very comfortable
bed.

And when we spotted this one, the E-Meter didn't jiggle. It was just
stuck right there, straight up, nonbudging. He had no reason whatsoever
to exteriorize from this situation. All right.

With this new understanding, running that same incident, what would I
have done? I would have conceived that he didn't have enough reason to
separate, and I would have had him mock up the bed, the wife, the
children, each one, one after the other - mock them up, not run the
original engram, see, so as not to upset his havingness. And we mock up
each one of these things, each time, as totally constructed to do him
in. Each one of it was born and raised and placed there with no other
intent or motive of any character than to do him in, see. Total
intention. And the whole incident would have blown, just as easy as
this.

And we would not have forgotten the space or any shadows in the mockups.
The space was made to do him in. The shadows were made to blind him or
do him in. And we'd only have to get him, with his mock-ups, to get a
conviction on each part of the scenery and every part of the scenery,
selectively, and so forth, to blow him entirely out of the incident,
swish. You never saw an incident disappear so fast in your life as one
that is run in this fashion.

And what I'm telling you tonight is a solution across the boards for
Dianetics and the running of engrams and also of an understanding of
these strange motives that people have - you mean, strange motivator
hungers they have, not strange motives they have. All right.

Now, let's look at this and realize that we're dealing with a nice
scale, interesting scale, which at the bottom is solid - real life; and
a little bit higher on the thing is mock-ups, pictures; and a little bit
higher on the thing is problems. Problems are motivators - problems are
the considerations of motivators. I'm sorry, but that's the way it runs.
This isn't a theoretical stunt, this is just it. And just above that you
have contracts, and just above that you have pure agreement.

In other words, proceed from the top: The thought "I agree" can be seen
on this scale to become more and more solid; first, in the form of a
complicated agreement, known as a contract; and then a little bit more,
as a problem, which is a non-isable contract, you see? I mean, a good
problem is one that just never solves. It's just - it's got lines in all
directions. And just below this is the mock-up, you see, the solid. And
just below that is the solid, real universe, which is the time agreement
of us all. You see what that scale is?

And the odd part of it is that almost any part of it runs, but for cases
in general, you have to pay attention to it as a scale. So that you
might be able to run it in mock-ups; you might be able to run it in
mock-ups, or you might have to go down into real life, sort of thing. Or
you could run it as problems, or above that you could run it as
contracts, or above that just as plain agreements.

But of all these theoretical things, the oddity is this: that there are
two parts of the scale, so far as Homo sapiens are concerned, and they
run on almost any level you can conceive. And the first of these is
mock-ups with intent to harm; each part of the mock-up has an intent to
harm.

This causes a great deal of careful auditing. You must get every part of
the mock-up the preclear made to have an intent to harm, see - every
part that he made. You don't leave scraps and bits and pieces lying
around, such as the space and the bedspread and the clothes and that
sort of thing. The shadows, and so forth - you don't leave them, because
they'll just stay there, on this system. See, they don't go away. You've
got to take up each part of the mock-up.

You tell him to mock up something which would intentionally harm him,
and he'll get all sorts of things, and the landscape and so forth, and
all of a sudden the central figure will come out of the landscape. Now
you've got to dispose of the rest of the landscape. You get how each
part of it intended to harm him, too, and was created just to harm him
and so on. All right.

Now, whatever commands are used or how this is done, that is what you
are doing. Get that? And when he has enough of these motivators mocked
up and vanquished, as an auditor said it, this ought to be SOP Sschlup,
because the way these mock-ups, when they're rigged in that fashion, go
into the body is horrible to behold. I mean, they go in so fast, they
are digested in its entirety so quickly, that they almost make it
impossible to trace them, where they went.

And your preclear, the first few of them, will say, "I wonder where that
went." He doesn't even realize that it moved from out there to in there,
see? The whole mock-up goes that fast. And it doesn't matter how much
trouble your preclear has getting rid of mock-ups or how much difficulty
he has making mock-ups, you can still do something of this with this
process.

He gets nothing but blackness. All right, have him mock up nothing but
blackness which is totally intended to harm him. Don't let him as-is the
blackness he's got sitting there already. If it's there, he hasn't
enough motivators yet. You've got to create some more. And the body best
communicates on solids - solid objects. You have him mock up some more
blackness and mock up some more blackness - each time the blackness and
the space in which it's located. He gets the idea about that, that it's
totally intended to harm him, blind him or do something wrong for him.

An auditing command suggested on this, is you just ask him after he's
made the mock-up, about each part of the mock-up, is "What threat could
that be to you?" And, the second he gets a threat that could be to him,
it'll come in, swish, and away it goes. The next thing you know, his
field clears up because he's had enough of this sort of thing.

And this is body havingness. The body's idea of real havingness is
something that does him in. Hence, we find the avidity of little boys to
go around carrying dynamite caps in their pocket. That's real
havingness. Now, wherever we look in life, we find this principle being
pretty well obeyed.

We get another, higher level on this in just plain problems. We say,
"What problem could that be to you?" There's only one proviso here, is
that you never address this to a condition; you always address it to a
communication terminal. You be sure you do that.

Now, what I mean by that is, you say, "What problem could (blank) be to
you?" Let's say that this fellow has a bad leg, he's lame. Now, this
runs out a chronic somatic, by the way; it just does that. And that's
very interesting, because we've been trying for five years, one way or
the other, and for a long time we didn't even touch one because we'd
make it worse. And certainly enough we'd make it worse: if we took away
that problem, why, there wouldn't have been any other problem to replace
it, and our preclear would have been in the soup.

But we can now, with this, run a chronic somatic. So, it becomes the
responsibility of the auditor in Level One, just in starting the case,
to clear up any chronic somatic the fellow has. He has TB or two heads
or something like that, and you clear this up, just to get the case
rolling. All right.

Now, this fellow has lameness. Take this "condition versus communication
terminal." All right. This fellow has a lameness in his leg. And we
don't run, then, "What problem could lameness be to you?" See? That's
the problem. I mean, we're running "What problem could the problem be to
us," see? That's wrong. A condition, that's off. You'd say, "What
problem could your leg be to you?" or ". . . could legs be to you?" Any
way you want to put this, see. But it's the terminal that you're
running.

Now, the wording of this is very important, very important. The exact
wording, since we have had problems - we've had lots of commands that
ran problems; but we'd better make the wording of this, for just the
classic example of the wording, exactly what we mean, because all of
this, you seewe had it, but we just didn't quite have it. You get the
idea?

Well similarly, on this problems, we had problems as processes, but we
just didn't quite have problems as processes, you see?

So, it's "Invent a specific problem (blank) could be to you." Boy, that
communicates exactly what you mean.

Now, we don't have a process here that we're going to use. We do have a
process here that does have some workability, but we're not necessarily
going to use this thing, and that is, of course, "Invent a specific
problem you could be to (blank)." We're not going to run that side of
it.

Why aren't we going to run that side of it? That's the overt act side of
it. And we're just going to cut his motivators to ribbons, and we'll
just pin him down all the tighter on this same thing.

So, we're going to run just this one side on this lopsided thing, and
we're going to say, "Invent a specific problem (your aunt) (grandfather)
(legs) (ears)," whatever it is, "could be to you." Always a terminal,
never a condition.

Now, do you know why, in SLP Issue 5, we were not getting the gains on
the first level, we weren't getting psychometric gains, and why
preclears were hanging up a bit? It's because we were solving some
problems? Uh-uh. You just solve one problem for the preclear and you've
solved one too many. Therefore, you must never evaluate for the preclear
or solve his problems for him. He must always solve the problem himself,
after he has a sufficiency of motivators to be able to leave or stay
there at his own choice.

So, we just don't solve people's problems for them. We don't come in and
say, "Well, I don't know what I am going to do because so-and-so and
so-and-so and so-and-so."

We can communicate, we can forward a communication line for them, but we
certainly can't solve that problem. We're liable to make them quite ill.
We're likely to make them quite antagonistic, quite upset. No, we must
give them some more problems. All right.

Now, this individual will actually hang up every time you lessen his
havingness in terms of problems, and his case will not advance. You've
got to increase the number of problems because this is body havingness.
And he'll never be able to get out of any situation; he'll stick all
over the time track, if you solve any of his problems.

So, that is what we were doing in SLP 5. We were too intrigued with this
problem of comparable magnitude and "Solve it," see? And we could do
that, bang, bang, bang. Didn't increase his havingness at all. We're
liable to stick him right there. We took one problem away. Ha! Ha! He
can't leave now; he hasn't enough motivators. You got the idea? So, we
just keep asking him about the problems.

Now, one way to go about this would be quite interesting. We take what
he conceives to be the weakest universe. This would be, by better
definition, that universe - by universe we mean any person, which is
also a communication terminal, so on; any body or environment could be
called a universe. We take any universe, and we ask him - and we discuss
weak universes, and we get a universe; let me state it that way, see. He
finally tells us the weakest universe he'd ever heard of.

We've actually gotten that universe which gave him the least number of
motivators; that's the weakest universe. And that's the way it'll turn
out after a while. It really isn't the weakest universe; it's the
universe which has given him the least motivators, and he can't
exteriorize from it. He's liable to have all the chronic somatics of
that universe and everything else. He can't get away from it; he can't
get out of it. He's stuck.

And you say he's in Mama's universe or Papa's universe? No. You'd better
find out the person he's really stuck in. And he's possibly not stuck in
Mama's or Papa's universe. You say, "Did your papa ever say a single bad
word to you?"

"Oh, well, yes, many times."

He's not stuck in Papa's universe.

"All right. Was your mama always good and kind to you?"

"What, that old bat?" You know, yap, yap, yap.

No, it wasn't Mama's universe he's stuck in.

Well, we go on talking either about the weakest person he knows or the
person who was best to him that he knows, and we're liable to wind up
with the same person. It's the person he has no excuse to back up from.

And then if we were to ask him what problems could that person be to
him, invent a specific problem that person could be to him, over and
over and over and over and over and over and over, he'll all of a sudden
sigh with relief and cease to have that person's somatics, and all other
sorts of interesting things could occur.

Now, when you had that totally remedied and he was really in good shape
and he had an enormous superfluity of problems; he just dreamed them up
(he has lots of them) you could possibly ask him, if you wanted to,
"What problems could you be to that person?" You just give it an
additional push; but it's really not an essential part of the process at
all.

You see how this is? An accumulation of motivators permits him to
separate.

Now, you could run plain separateness and as a thetan he would happily
go along and try to separate from that person, see? And as a thetan he
might make the grade. Body's still stuck. Got it?

So, that was a happy strike when we made it; and when it was tested and
so forth, it looked good because the thetan was separating from that
weakest universe; but with experience, we found out that the individual
body was not. It was still stuck. Got it? So, we had to run problems
that could be to him. All right.

Now, we can take anything under the sun, moon or stars and either by
having the individual mock up, create solidly, items of that character
dangerous to him - let's say, for example, he has a bad leg. We just
have him mock up legs and have how they could be a threat to him, menace
to him, see? Legs that are totally dedicated to his eradication, if you
want to get very possible about it; and all of the scenery, then, and
the ground it's standing on - that all has to be dedicated to his
eradication too. Don't leave bits and pieces around there.

Or we could simply ask him this question and get more or less the same
result, more or less the same result-variable: "What problems . . ."
"Invent a specific problem . . ." Of course, just the statement "What
problem could legs be to you?" is the process and the wording of the
process is "Invent a specific problem legs could be to you" or ". . . a
leg could be to you," see?

He's got two bad legs, or he has trouble with his legs, why, let it be
"legs." If you've only got one bad leg, better make it "a leg."

And make sure that he invents one. Don't let him go as-ising the
problems already in the bank. Hound him. And we come up with this
fantastic thing, we come up with the complete understanding of the
situation. He'll eventually tell you exactly why he's got that leg that
way and so on. He'll cognite on it, one way or the other, and he'll get
rid of it.

Now, we could do it another way and still cure him. We could talk about
weakest universes; separate out and find a weak universe of one kind or
another, locate one, nice as you please, and then ask him what problems
it could be to him. And if we were really searching and we were real
clever, we'd never have to ask him, "Did that person have trouble with
his leg?"

That person did; or if that person didn't, then the weak universe
married somebody or was connected with somebody that had a bad leg. Got
the idea? There's two connections possible: Either the weakest universe
had a bad leg, or the person the person married had a bad leg, and there
is where the somatic is buried. And there is the way and the part and
the place and the source of the service facsimile, of which you have
heard a great deal, and there is its basic anatomy.

All right. The individual, having to create motivators, then stuck in
places where he didn't have any. And not only stuck in these places, but
tried like mad to dream some up; the body dreamed them up for him. Bad
leg? Well, this person got a bad leg from Uncle Josie or something, huh?
Person's got a bad leg, and so therefore, Uncle Josie has done him
wrong.

Get the rationale that goes on behind the service facsimile? Totally
unworkable. Getting away from Uncle Josie by having Uncle Josie's bad
leg is not good sense to anybody, but it is to a body. Body thinks
that's real smart: "That's the way we do it."

"The way to get away from sickness is to get sick, and that makes
sickness a motivator, and therefore I can get away from sickness," see?
It's good logic, wonderful logic. But whether it's logical or not is
beside the point; it happens to be the function. That is the way it
happens. All right.

This opens up to us, this opens up to us a considerable vista, a
considerable understanding, which was occasionally entangling our
processing and preclears.

Now, the usual course of action is, in walks Mr. Preclear, here he is
and he's saying, "Look at this horrible leg, see. Well, I've just got to
get rid of this horrible leg. I'm chronically, somatically ill. I had
poliomyelitis ever since it got advertised so well."

And you say, "That's fine," and have him start locating the walls. He
just doesn't belong there. He knows he doesn't belong there, not him.
They came to the wrong place. He's trying to show you.

Now, very oddly, this would work as a sort of a freak sometimes. You'd
say, "By golly, you know, that is just about the worst bad leg I ever
saw." You know, he's liable to exteriorize out of the bad-leg universe.
See, that's a freak.

That happens often enough in a medical doctor's office to give him an
odd idea concerning psychosomatic illness, see? He believes that a
spontaneous remission can occur which is unassisted by anything. He
doesn't look at the fact that he was there, and he looked at it, and he
agreed it was an awful bad leg. He said, "My, isn't that a wonderful,
horrible, terrible, fear-shattering motivator you've got! My god, did
they do that to you?" is what he's said, see?

And they say, "Gee, you know, maybe this is enough. Okay, I'll
exteriorize."

But there is no such thing as an unassisted spontaneous remission. See,
something had to occur in the thinking or talking line in order to make
this thing happen. Well, that is exactly what happened. You know the
mechanism now of a spontaneous remission, so-called.

You can play this trick. It's a fantastic trick. You take some guy - you
take some guy, and he's got a bad scar, let's say, down the side of his
face.

And you say, "Good god, man! Hoo! What a horrible scar! What a dreadful
accident that must have been."

And he starts to tell you about it, and you - "Oh, I'm sure that it was
worse than that. You're just minimizing it. You're just making nothing
out of the whole thing. It was worse than that."

And you see him a couple of days later and the scar will have diminished
or disappeared. You get the idea? You see, it's just a stunt, with
workability, oh, I don't know, 20 percent, 25 percent, you know. It's
minor workability, but it's something you might expect to have happen
occasionally. See, you convinced him that the motivator he already had
was good enough. You get it?

Now, if you walk up to him and say - did you ever do this with anybody?
This is the reverse way. This is the way to make him sick. He walks up
to you, he's got this scar. And you say, "Oh, I don't know. That will
probably heal up; probably be okay."

And if you kept this up with him enough, the thing would probably become
livid, and he'd probably go out and get cut again. See how it'd be?
You've told him, "That's not a good enough motivator. Whatever universe
you're stuck in, it isn't good enough to get out of it." Do you see how
it'd work? Both ways.

Now, if, when you're talking to - within a body's hearing - you're
talking within a body's hearing, you're talking on one or these others.
You're either saying, "You can have more motivators" or "The motivators
you have are plenty good enough" or "They aren't good enough," you could
produce some interesting results.

Now, if you said, "You can have more motivators; there are more
available" (not "more necessary," but "there are many more available"),
you'd probably not only exteriorize him out of this one obvious
universe, but you'd probably take him out of five or six more and out of
his body.

And if you went along a little bit further and said, "Look, you can have
even more than this," you could probably take him right on out of this
universe, see, or he could be in and out of it at will. See how that
would work? All right.

That's one system. Another system would be to tell him the ones he has
and these are not usable systems, you understand. I mean, they're just
illustrative.

You could tell him, "The one you have - or the ones you have are plenty
good enough." You've had it. "You're in terrible - I never heard of such
an awful accident. God! You know, last night I went home after you told
me about that and I dreamed about it all night long!" The guy's liable
to blow out of that particular type of incident.

And the other one, reverse, which would just pull him in right tight up
against - into that universe he's stuck in, and stick him somewhat in
yours, would be to say, "Oh-ho, that thing. Ha! You mean, you rolled off
the mountainside, and there were only twelve people killed in the bus?
Well, I knew a bus accident one time in which there were . . . " And
he'll start dramatizing the incident.

All three of these conditions you should understand in order to handle
this particular mechanism. All right.

As we look over the Six Levels of Processing, Issue 7, we find out that
we're really handling very little else in there but these two factors:
We're trying to make sure that he doesn't receive or get a thirst or get
the idea that we're the executioner he's been looking for, see?
Therefore, we follow the Auditor's Code, we use two-way communication,
we give him communication bridge. You got the idea? And all of these
things tell him "We're not the executioner. Wrong party." Get the idea?
So, then he doesn't suddenly alert.

Now, if we do something wrong, the body suddenly wakes up and says,
"Gee, maybe I'm facing the best executioner yet. Maybe this guy Will
just cut me to ribbons. Of course he could cut me to ribbons! He knows
all about the mind; he's an expert. Oh, boy. Now, if I could just get
him good and mad at me. . . " And away we go, see? And we just now can't
have anything but Auditor Code breaks and "Scientology is horrible" and
we're all doing her in and ... You know, this kind of thing is the only
thing that can happen from here on out, because the person's got the
idea that you're the executioner or that we're executioners, see?

Now, it's sometimes lucrative and remunerative to be in the role of an
executioner. You could hang out your sign and say, "I ruin everybody,"
and you would probably have the darnedest business that you ever heard
of. And this is quite fantastic, but it'd probably occur. Probably be
one way to exteriorize everybody.

However, the odd part of it is that by pandering entirely to this thirst
for motivators, the society would eventually get the idea that you were
guilty of too many overt acts, and it would say, "Look, we have an
excuse to play the other side of the drama. This person is guilty of
enough overt acts, he is sufficiently bad. He eats babies alive, you
see. Every day he goes down and monkeys with tram switches and makes
things go wreck, and he has a steady contract with BOAC to interrupt
their turbojets and so forth, in midflight over unpopulated areas of
wilderness.

"This individual has all sorts of horrible and terrible things that he
does, and so therefore, we might be able to get up to an overt act - in
view of the fact he deserves it, you see, we might be able to get up to
an overt act of actually walking along and frowning at one of his
footsteps," you see?

That's what it would take to get an overt act against you in a society,
see? Got it?

Now, eventually you would work yourself up to a point, though, where a
few guys who had a lot left over, you know, they'd say, "Gee, there he
is," and shoot you. You see how it'd work? How it would work. The other
mechanism is, then, that in a society which is motivator hungry, only an
individual who is agreed upon to be totally bad will ever be even
vaguely attacked, see? And he'd have to be really totally pluperfectly
bad.

The newspaper, actually, is - used to be something which released events
of note and so forth. The newspaper today is really just an
advertisement sheet of people who could have an overt act performed
against them. That's about all it is; it's an advertisement sheet this
way. Or "These motivators are now available in this society." It talks
about one or the other, and this passes for news.

Now, your preclear, remember (and this we must have very clearly) is a
thetan. He doesn't know this any more than any of us really knew this,
see, as such, in articulate fashion; but it is happening as the
mechanism on which his body does its exteriorization. And the second you
talk about exteriorization, it starts thinking in terms of motivators.
See, any thinkingness the body has on the thought of exteriorization
thinks in terms of motivators. You get how this is? It's just an
identification.

So, you have a thetan that you're trying to do something for, being
pinned down by a mechanism which we did not entirely recognize or have
the anatomy of. Well, we have the anatomy of this thing now; and it's a
fantastic thing, how fast and furious that you can kick out of existence
such a thing as a chronic somatic. You ought to try it.

Now, naturally, an individual who is out of communication with you as a
thetan and so forth, is not going to be able to handle his body very
well. We, therefore, have to start into some sort of a session there
which is careful, which builds up a good ARC level, which eases in on it
gently, because the individual isn't very strong in handling this body.

The body has totally run away from him, so that everything you do to the
guy, he will then concur, in that it's an overt act, you see? He's just
gone downhill to a point where he's almost totally agreed with the body
and is following and falling right in with, without understanding, its
motivator phenomena. All right.

This curiosity, then, is that you are trying to make somebody well who
is somehow or another being impeded by something from becoming well.
Something is impeding him. And it has been my task for a great many
years to find out what impedes the bulk of these cases that don't
improve, and I have tried to locate this and isolate it one way or the
other.

There are many, many mechanisms which can release cases, that do well
and so forth, but there has always been a little something hanging
around the fringes, you might say. There is something that's not been
quite understood about the exact mechanism of why the guy did it.

We know and have said that if we take away too many of his problems,
he'll get some new ones. But that's an old remark; this is not even new
with me.

We have said, well, some guys just are ungrateful. They're just
completely unappreciative of anything, you know. And we've said that,
and that sure didn't solve it. Recognizing that some guys just ought to
really have had their teeth kicked in was the truth of the matter. They
wanted their teeth kicked in. They were sitting there to get their teeth
kicked in. That was the way they wanted to exteriorize, you see?

Now, almost anything that you know that would straighten out these
things, would straighten it out if you straightened it out within this
rationale, understanding this about people: that a thetan goes along
doing his best, trying to reach out, trying to get something done,
trying to guide these various things along the line, and that he is
running something which has this deadly germ of its own destruction:
that it must have more motivators and more motivators and more
motivators.

Now, when a person is in very, very, very good condition physically, so
on, this mechanism is not very apparent. It's only there slightly, you
see? But after a person has been beaten around for a while, the
mechanism works both ways. Logically, the thetan no longer conceives any
reason to hang around the environment because it's no fun, see? This is
"Daahhh, why hang around here?" which keys the body in instantly. "Oh,
we're on this motivator kick, huh? And now we'll collect them."

Get the idea? So that this, in a person who is in fairly good condition,
is not very apparent. But in a person who has started to go downhill,
where the thetan is really stuck in and doesn't want to stay there, and
he wants to exteriorize, he wants to get out, he doesn't find the thing
very well in keeping with his ideas of how life should be run - this is
all rational. A thetan is rational to this degree, you see.

He doesn't want to stay there. All of a sudden he keys in this other
phenomena and mechanism that he really doesn't know anything about. And
from that time on, he's going to take it. He's going to get it from left
and right. He's going to go around, and he's going to do the darnedest
things. Boy, is the body helping him out. You get the idea.?

So really, from the first thought that an individual wants to go his own
way and chuck it all, his body is assisting him by accumulating
motivators. And therefore, he gets psychosomatically ill, he gets
aberrated, he gets this, he gets that. He starts to throw his abilities
away. One of the best ways to do it is say, "You know, I used to be able
to paint, but after Grandma got through with me, I can't paint anymore."

In other words, his lack of an ability to paint is the evidence that he
has had something done to him. You see that? Just that. That's a
negative proof, you see? Now, that's as bad as a chronic somatic. It's
an absent talent. Who cost you painting? Mama, see? Grandma, somebody -
your opposite talent. All right.

We look on the other side of it, and we see the individual there with
all sorts of, oh, shoulder deformity, something like this. And he's got
a bad shoulder and he can't raise his arm or something like this. This
is just reverse evidence: "I have received a motivator." Now, he's
undecided. He doesn't know whether he ought to leave or shouldn't leave.
And there he is, see, stuck right there. All right.

So, we say to the guy, "What problems could shoulders be to you?"
something like that. The universe, the condition, and so forth, is
liable to show up quite rapidly. He invents new ones. He gets enough
motivators. He feels, then, free to leave these situations. And
actually, the body is so childishly easy to handle that it doesn't take
much stressing. The thing is not a difficult thing to handle, if you
understand it.

Now, the thetan, he'll comply with you. He will try to go along.
Something is interfering with the processing; you're not quite sure
what's interfering with the processing. It's probably the body and its
motivator hunger. But it could also be the auditor and the auditor's
hunger for motivation.

"Preclear refuses to get well. All I did is keep dropping ashtrays and
change the auditing command twenty times an hour, and I didn't do
anything wrong. And the fellow has really given me an awful overt act.
Here I have sweated and slaved. I've just worked my brain to the bone,
trying to help him out, and he treats me this way." You get the idea?

Well, if you find yourself breaking the Auditor's Code and that sort of
thing, just stick out your - side of your face, something like that, and
practice some Christianity, which is "Sock me!" And just have the
preclear sock you two or three times. He won't know what it's all about,
but after that, you'll handle him fine. You've got enough motivators as
far as he's concerned; you could leave him anytime.

Well, now, this rather puts a new light on what we're doing, which is,
really, kind of an old light too. But if you still think it's an old
light, then you better take a look at this new light, because it's used
a little bit different.

And if you want a little indoor sport, and if you want to do something
in an idle moment or during a bus ride or something, sit down and try to
conceive how every body (you understand: not "everybody," but "every
body"), in the world is trying to run on this basis of being motivator
hungry.

I'm sure you'll understand a great deal. I've been trying to do it and I
haven't quite made the grade yet myself. I only know that it works in
processing - but maybe some of you will.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[auditor]

SOLUTION TO BODY BEHAVIOR, PART II

A lecture given on 3 January 1956

The material which we're covering in this prep course is interesting
material, very interesting material. It is a great oddity that man would
be liable to so much in the way of quirk or oddity. The fact of his
overt actmotivator opinions, the actual attempt on the part of the body
to achieve, evidently, as many motivators as possible, the attitude of
puzzlement on the part of a thetan, wondering just why this body doesn't
get along so well, how the thetan has been rather blanked out concerning
the actual attitude of the body, makes a picture of complexity, if not
perplexity.

Here we have people trying to get a job done, trying to get around and
straighten up things and live a good life, and all that sort of thing,
and they're using a robot which is obsessed. The human body is a
biological robot. I hope you don't mind my taking that interesting
attitude toward it. Nevertheless, its muscular-mechanical arrangements
are not much different than those of an electronic doll, except that it
is intensely destructible, and it is capable of a great deal of feeling,
and it seems to be capable of independent thought and opinions.

I know the last time I had anything to do with a robot, I said, "All
right. Now, let's walk through this fire here," and the robot did. And
its legs got warm, and they cooled off, and that was that.

But the last time I said to a body, "All right. Now, you stand here,
good and solid on this bridge, while we run in under the counter of this
burning freighter," and the body said, "Aaahhhh, no, you don't!" And I
said, "Yes, we do," you know, and it's - argument. So, we might say that
the body is a biological robot capable of argument.

Now, in handling this, a thetan gets rather serious. He gets the idea,
after a while, that this problem is serious. He's been trying to handle
it for many, many generations. He's been miscuing and, he feels,
misdirecting these biological robots, and he has found that the
direction of them leaves a great deal to be desired.

He doesn't know all there is to know about this. Nobody ever gave him an
instruction book. He took one over at birth sometime or another, picked
one up, and he looked in vain for an instruction book on how you ran
this thing. And he was quite sure that it did not have any opinion or
goal different than his own or the physical universe. He was quite sure
of that. The goals of this thing were quite similar to his own, and they
were quite similar to the physical universe; this he was sure of.

And therefore, any error which he made was his fault. Any error which
was made in his running of this biological robot became his fault. It
didn't run right because somehow or another he wasn't good enough, or he
wasn't bright enough. It was quite a puzzle to him.

Now, we do not, must not and cannot assume that every thetan in this
universe, or in any universe, is dedicated totally to the receiving of
motivators. We must not assume that, because it's not true. He could
align himself with this, he could get into this frame of mind, he could
adjust his considerations this way, but he doesn't necessarily do so.

And by and large, those thetans that you will run into and say hello to,
in the largest majority, are not subscribing to anything like "I must
pick up as many overt acts against myself as I can." They just aren't
doing this, that's all.

They're saying, "I'd like to have a good time. I would like to know a
few more people. I wonder what kind of a game we can make out of this,"
you know? "A lot of people need help. We'll help them." He's doing this,
and he's doing that. And somehow or other, however, we find - at least
on this planet, at this time - a great many who believe utterly that
they're failing in some fashion and cannot exactly tell us how.

Nobody gave them an instruction book, you see? They took over this body,
probably a Mark I barbarian-type, and juggled it around and tested out
the levers and so forth, and it apparently worked. When they said,
"Walk," it walked; when they said, "Stop," it stopped. When they said,
"Eat," it ate. And you know, it worked all right; worked all right. But
it kept going wrong somehow, you know. It just kept running off of the
rails in some fashion. They would say, "All right. Now, this is a worthy
cause. Attack that palisade you see here." And all of a sudden, it'd go
collapse.

"I didn't tell it to go collapse, " the thetan says. "Now, what's the
matter with it? There are plenty of bodies. They're being made all the
time and so forth. And it seems to me that it'd be a better world to
make another body into if we attacked this palisade and wiped this thing
out. And so it gets nicked, so it gets clipped, so it gets knocked off.
Well, it can always get another mock-up. This is not tough. This is not
hard to do." And yet it didn't do that.

So, he says, "Well," (and this was his mistake) "the body is cowardly.
It doesn't like to use itself as a backstop for cold steel. Well," it
says, "therefore, I am driving this thing harder than its courage level
will tolerate. So, the thing to do is just drive it a little less - high
courage level, you know. Just let's not be quite so adventurous."

And having been a little bit less adventurous, then, in driving it, it
said, "All right. Now, let's attack the boss's office," and the body
goes, "N-a-a-a-a-a-h" collapse.

The thetan says, "Oh, I guess we'll just have to lower its courage level
a little bit. We just can't expect that much of this body. There's
something wrong in the way I'm handling it. I'm probably mocking up on
this switchboard the wrong combination. Something is odd here."

And about this time, about this time - in any era, when he has dropped
down below the point of "Soldier, attack the palisade" and then dropped
down below the point of "Worker, attack the foreman and get a couple of
grapotniks more pay" - when it's dropped down that low, why, the thetan
begins to worry about himself, in any era. And we find him calling on
the gods or doing strange and peculiar things - entering into unholy
rights, such as going to the local spa and getting some chuckupnuk water
or something to remedy this situation.

And some of them even have gone so far as to dip into philosophy in
order to discover something about this. And this, you could see, would
be likely to happen in any condition where nobody had ever furnished an
instruction book.

You see, if you were trying to run a car without any instruction book
and you'd never had any experience with another car, you'd be having
some interesting experiences; but they wouldn't even compare to the
experiences of handling a body. See, because the body had, evidently,
another built-in mechanism which says, "I must have motivators. I must
have things done wrong to me. I must be abused. I must be put in a
position of sacrifice. I must be offered up to the gods in some way or
another. I must have enough people mad at me so that 1, myself, can then
continue to exist in a calm state. I must get killed in enough bizarre
ways to make life justified" - all these peculiar things.

Here's a thetan running something, and as far as its reaction is
concerned and all the reactive mechanisms in it are concerned, he
believes that he must not tell it to walk through a live fire. And here
is something that although it is protesting against walking through a
live fire, it feels it absolutely must have a nice overt act, like a
burn.

Witness: It walks through the fire. Does its legs heat up? Even if
they're not badly corroded or burned, the burn will hang on for a long
time; the burn will stay there for a long time. You mean this biological
machine is incapable, with its many capabilities, of healing up a burn
rapidly, of building up a certain amount of skin area?

That's not true. It is capable of doing these things. It can heal
itself. You mean to tell me that if it breaks a bone, that it can't put
the bone back together again? Well, all right. You take a robot. A robot
can't put the bone back together again, either - a metal robot.

But if you take a bent leg on a metallic robot and straighten it up and
solder it in place, there is no aftereffect; but if you do that with a
biological robot, there is an aftereffect. It now has something called a
psychosomatic illness. It can't have another broken leg, so it keeps the
old one. Get the idea?

So, a thetan unaware of this, is - and believe me, you - right here in
this generation, he was unaware of this. He's walking down the street
one day, and he has a twinge. And he says, "What on earth is this?" And,
"Well, I guess I've just been pushing this body too hard. It's my fault,
again, in some fashion or another. I've been pushing the body too hard."

And he's got another twinge. And he goes home, and he's got arthritis.
And he calls in a doctor, and the doctor looks it over and says, "Well,
this is caused by this or that or something or other, and we must put it
in mudpacks or do something with it. And you must lay it up here for
another two or three weeks, and you'll get over it."

Maybe he does. But having gotten over that, he's out walking again -
this time it's a bright, sunshiny day, not a rainy day like the other
time - and he has a twinge. And nobody right here in our generation
actually, positively knew that it was simply an old broken leg, you
know. They didn't know that it was an old injury. There was a suspicion
that it was an old injury.

Freud, with his theory of trauma, was doing some mighty fine
speculating, very, very fine speculating; but remember, he was
speculating. It was an oddity that the medical profession accepted the
theory of trauma, that some kind of a psychic trauma could occur, and it
was an oddity that psychosomatic illness could arrive and be established
without ever any slightest proof of source.

This is the wildest buy of this century, by the way. Nobody could prove,
trace or do anything to actually demonstrate that such a thing as an
arthritic swelling was traceable to mental causes. People suspected
this, but they accepted this thing called "psychosomatic illness"
without proof. We came along; we have the proof that there is such a
thing as psychosomatic illness.

But we look a little bit further than that, as we're just now doing, and
we discover that it isn't an accidental stimulus-response, unintentional
thing. We discover this great oddity: that so far from the body being
really victimized by the fact that the broken leg recurs - that's the
original trauma, the broken leg, which recurs as arthritis - so far from
this, is the fact that the body doesn't ever want to give up that lovely
broken leg. You see?

There is actually, evidently, not just a stimulus-response mechanism
here, but an actual desire on the part of a body (which, of course, goes
through many inversions, and so forth) to continue to have a broken leg.
We won't worry about the number of reasons it can have a broken leg or
how it justifies this. We can immediately arrive at forty or fifty ways
of justifying the body's state of mind concerning a broken leg. You see,
we can really do that.

We can say, "Well, a broken leg gets attention; it got sympathy. There
were certain rewards for having a broken leg. The body didn't have to
work; it could take it easy." We can do all these various
justifications, and believe me, if you want to go over the whole list of
them, there are probably fifty, sixty of them. They're good and solid,
but they're only rationale. They are after this interesting fact: The
body wanted a broken leg. The others are just "why a body wanted a
broken leg," you understand. First and foremost, it wanted a broken leg.

So, here's a thetan, he decides that he'll have a good time. He'll have
a couple of drinks of beer, and he'll go home now. And he takes his
attention for one moment off this robot. He thinks he has its automatic
pilot nicely set, you know. It's going to walk right on down the
sidewalk. And he takes his attention off of it, and it steps off the
curb and bumps into a truck.

And he says, "Isn't this careless of me." He's been taught, sort of, by
the body to blame himself. The body never blames itself - never! Has
never been known to blame itself about anything. It always has to blame
the other guy. Doesn't operate like a thetan, then. Thetan can blame
himself

He says, "Look what I did. I got careless." He doesn't even go so far as
to say, "What a lousy automatic pilot this thing's got!"

If you were to take your directional control off of a biological robot
anywhere in London, outside of the house and so forth, you wouldn't have
any biological robot left, that's all. It'd be gone - squash! All right.

Now, if you had, you might say, a metallic robot or some chemical robot
walking along and you set it to walk in a straight line, it wouldn't get
any other ideas; it'd just walk in a straight line. Maybe it'd strike an
unevenness of ground which would tip it over, but you could have seen
that in advance. You'd say, "Look, there's an unevenness of ground down
there. I'll set this thing to walk a little bit shorter with the right
leg than the left leg when it hits that unevenness, and it'll get over
that," see? In other words, you could predict the course of this
metallic robot.

Oh, you set up a biological robot to walk over this course: You're lost
in the woods, so you set the automatic pilot. You say, "This thing must
have some homing instinct or another; even pigeons do that," and you set
it to walk home. The next thing you know, you notice some curious
footprints. You say, "There's somebody else lost in the woods." A little
bit later you notice another set, and then you say, "Good lord, they're
mine!"

Well, this, of course, makes you wrong. So, it looks like the body has,
as part of this thirst for a motivator, an obsession to make something
else or somebody else wrong. It looks like this is just a straight-out
built-in mechanism. It doesn't have a good automatic pilot, but it
certainly has a good make-you-wrong mechanism.

And when a thetan agrees too long and too hard with a body, he begins to
pick this up too. He begins to look around for somebody else to blame.
He gets tired of blaming himself; that was all he did for several
generations, and now he's decided to blame something else for a change,
he says. But he's actually learned the mechanism one way or the other,
usually, from the body.

And when he does this, he's in too close in agreement with the body. And
you, an auditor, come along and you start to process him. You say, "you"
to him, and he thinks you're talking about and to him, a body. Got it?

So, this condition of "I am a body," is a state of beingness attained by
thetans who have failed for too many generations to understand or run a
biological robot, and that's just the totality of it. He just failed too
long, too often, so he adopts other means of rationale. He says, "I am a
body. I will die." He just adopts the philosophy of this thing, because
it has been a champion, as far as he's concerned.

It was incomprehensible. Starting from a state of no instruction book,
it arrives at a totality of bewilderment, as far as he's concerned. But
the only bewildering factors in the mock-up - and I will put this very
strongly to your attention: The only actually bewildering factors in it
were, one, "Somebody else must be wrong; I can only receive injury."

Now, those two factors are completely bewildering to a thetan, because
both of them say, "Don't get any job done, if you please. Don't get any
job done." It says, "In order to correct the fortunes of Earth, we will
have to attack Russia. Russia can be wrong; we can't be wrong.
Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to straighten out our own
household; there is every reason to attack somebody else's household."
Do you get the idea?

Which is the very germs of war. "We must always straighten out way over
here someplace or go way over thataway in order to get anything done,
because they're wrong; we're never wrong."

Now, if a fellow has a number of factors sitting right in front of him
which are rather easy to adjust, and he never takes a moment to adjust
these factors, he's going to get into an interesting condition. He's
going to run into the wrongness of somebody else, but he's going to be
tripped by the wrongness which is in front of his own face and in his
own house. You get the idea?

It isn't necessarily true that he should correct everything that is
wrong in his own house before he corrects somebody else. See, that's
fallacy too. You can correct both of them at the same time. But don't
become totally unaware of the fact that there might be some factors that
need shifting around close to home.

With what wonderful aplomb can a nation adventure upon war, to correct
some ideological eccentricity on the part of some other nation; itself,
all the while, worshiping mud turtles. This is the kind of thing that a
thetan will do, by the way, because there really isn't anything wrong
with him, except maybe a little lack of understanding. Got the idea?

But a thetan is still capable of saying, "Boy, there's an awful lot of
this machinery we're using right here that needs fixing, and it's a good
game to go over and run into some of their machinery too." But that's
the way a thetan would look at it. He could look at it rationally unless
he's driven blindly by these impulses of "We're all perfect here, see,
and therefore we're going to attack over there because over there is the
only area that needs any straightening out," see? A thetan would be nuts
if he did that, and a body is that crazy.

It says, "I'm perfect. They're wrong." At the same time, it is saying,
"I can only receive injury and be put upon. My total goal is to be put
upon or to receive injury." It's utterly mad. It is not a logical
sequence. And an understanding of that, of course, does make it a
logical sequence.

You can always understand an illogic. And there's where the body could
lose 100 percent: You can understand an illogic. You can understand that
something thinks that kiddies' blocks and tank cars are identical.

Now, you might at first protest against this, but you could say to
yourself, "Well, I can understand how that thing believes that kiddies'
blocks and tank cars are identical. I understand that it does so. It's
not logical; it's illogical. It is stupid. But I can still see that it
does so."

Therefore, you could say about your body, "I still understand that this
body can never do anything like straightening itself out. It's always
got to wrong or find wrong somebody or something else. Somebody and
something else, you see, is the wrongness, and the only intention which
the body can accept is, of course, injury to itself."

You can understand these two things as a modus operandi, but it
certainly doesn't run like a thetan, does it? It looks like a big overt
act on the part of somebody who mocked them up, see? It looks like a
nice swindle, it looks like a nice problem of some kind or another.

It's an interesting problem right there, if you want to look at it as a
problem, is how come they got built this way? Because if you were a
thetan building something and you wanted to play a good, solid practical
joke on somebody, you are actually not above giving them a gimmick which
makes their switchboard short out every thirty-sixth hour of its
operation; you're no above doing that. It's a good gimmick to do
something like that, but you don't expect it to go on like that forever.

You expect that sooner or later they're going to find out that their
switchboard is shorting out every thirty-sixth hour and then, having
found it out, will find out you did it, and then realize they've been
had. Otherwise, there's no cream to the jest, you see? There's no reason
to do anything unless somebody is going to discover it sooner or later.

And I don't think that the biological robot's mechanism of motivator
hunger was ever intended to be discovered. I don't think so, for the
good reason that - I've been working on this problem for a quarter of a
century, and during the last five years a lot of you good chaps have
been working on this problem right along with me, too. And it wasn't
until very recent - we even had the principle of the overt act-motivator
sequence. We knew that if you did something to somebody, you expect it
back. The body doesn't do that. It is simply motivator hungry. And to do
an overt act is unthinkably horrible, see?

Well now, maybe you could justify this, but only on the basis of
complete distrust of every life form that ever lived. You could say
therefore there is no such thing as an ethic or moral principle or
factor anywhere in the world or anywhere in the universe. You could say
that no life form is capable of an ethical act.

If you believed that badly, you could rig up a mock-up to keep him in
line, but listen, that mock-up wouldn't keep him in line. It'd make him
a criminal. So, the goal of it isn't justified, either. So, we look in
vain for a good reason for this condition to happen with regard to this
biological mock-up.

If it were a practical joke, it would have been discovered a long time
since. If it were done to make you moral, ethical and fall into line,
there are just too many other ways of going about it which are rather
practical. You don't put every doll you have out of action in order to
have a well-arranged and obedient horde of dolls. You don't knock them
all flat, you know.

So, we could wander around at great length in the midst of a logical
labyrinth of contradictions to say, "How did the body get this way?" We
could say, "Well, it got hit and hit until it finally developed a thirst
for being hit."

Oh, now wait a minute. That's fine. That's good. That's one of my
explanations, real good; it's real sharp. I thought of it myself. But
you'd have to have a patterned consideration in order to make that
happen, you see? You'd have to consider that this was going to happen
before the condition would happen. So again, it's not a logical sequence
of events but is an expected sequence of events.

One would have to say, "This mock-up, after it's been hit so often, will
develop a thirst for being hit." Ah, that's no good. You mean, the
thing's going to develop such a thirst for being hit, it'll gradually
vanish.

All right. Let's get over into something very new and very sharp and
very practical -Axiom 55. Do you want to hear a little bit about Axiom
55, hm?

Audience: Yeah.

All right. Axiom 55 could be stated with very scholarly words. It could
probably be stated with great length and unctuousness. But the fact of
the matter is, Axiom 55's sense is as follows: Any cycle of action is a
consideration. Any cycle of action is a consideration. It's not an
inevitability.

The cycle of action of this universe, which is create, survive, destroy,
is a consideration and does not necessarily hold true, is not
necessarily true for any part of this universe at any given instant, but
is simply a consideration.

It's interesting because it wipes out what was to be Six Levels of
Processing, Issue 6. Now, you're sitting here looking at Issue 7, you
wonder what happened to Issue 6. I'm always doing that to somebody. But
the goal and modus operandi of Issue 6 was stated; it was stated very
clearly. It was stated in just so many words in a recent Operational
Bulletin, which is circulated to HAS staffs from my office.

You're not missing anything. It's mostly gossip and my general bad
temper. I have to make everybody think I'm good tempered, you know, and
a nice chap; but it gets to be a strain after a while, because I'm not,
you know. And so, I at least issue these Operational Bulletins, with all
these catty remarks and so forth that I dam up, to the staff.

And anyway, the Six Levels of Processing, Issue 6 was advertised in this
Operational Bulletin to be something which put the stress on create so
as to get the chap over to the earliest portion of the cycle of action.
And that was fine. And so, I then proceeded to make a series of tests
and investigations concerning the exact processes which would do this.
And I found out they were just fine, and I found out they were all
limited.

And I said, "What is this?" see? Wow. They're just fine, and they're all
limited. They run just so far, they improve just so far, and then they
cave in. Why?

Looked it over closely and found out that the second you ran out the
consideration or tampered or monkeyed up the consideration of "create,
survive, destroy" by running "create, create, create," you were no
longer taking the fellow to the first part of the curve; you might be
taking him to the end of the curve. You get the idea? You might be
finishing up his time for him as well as starting it, you see?

So therefore, they just ran just long enough to unsettle the agreement
of the cycle of action. And without his cognition of the fact that this
agreement had been unsettled, we then discovered the unworkability of a
cycle of action. It's quite interesting.

So, I looked this over a little closer and got a little smarter and
realized where I had first heard of the cycle of action. It's Vedic hymn
number 4, "Hymn to the Dawn Child," the oldest piece of writing man has
any record of. And it says that all things follow this curve. It isn't
very flowery language, but it says they get born, and they grow, and
they - so on, and they finally kick off.

But that's about the earliest piece of stuff that man has. It was
traditional for thousands of years before it was written down; and
having been written down, it's still the oldest piece of writing he has.
See, that's pretty ancient.

So, I became suspicious. It looked to me like anything that would
survive that long would be the least admired thing around. It's using
our old law of "Those things which are least admired persist."

And then I looked over a chap by the name of J.C. and realized that
there's a rather large organization dedicated to having us believe that
a fellow was born, lived a life of the greatest piety and service, and
was then crucified like a miserable criminal and then was born again.
And this sure looked to me like a cycle of action, advertised. It looked
to me like an advertisement much better done than the Bovril
advertisements, over a long period of time.

Here you had a chap stuck on a cross, like a common criminal, that
people were supposed to worship. Do you know that Christianity was at
once - one time was actually booted out of an Eastern nation because the
head of that nation could not understand why anyone would want to take
its headman and disgrace him to that degree? And he got such a poor
opinion of anybody who would display his headman on a cross with spikes
in him that he disallowed Christianity throughout the whole of his
kingdom and wouldn't let anybody come in or talk about it anymore,
because he said it must be awfully degraded.

Well, knowing these little odds and ends and these little items and
having some good idea that we might not be dealing with the purest of
the pure - this has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ or whether he
really lived or anything of the sort; but it does have to do with the
fact that we have an advertised cycle of action for the last two
thousand years of "He came to grief by being a good man," you know?

"He was born, he survived for a while, and in spite of all that power,
they still did him in. And of course, that will happen to you, too. Ha!
You know, that will happen to you, too. It doesn't matter how good you
are, how much good you do, or anything else."

And then we get this chap:

"The boast of heraldry, and the pomp of pow'r, / And all the beauty, all
that wealth e'er gave, / Await alike the coming of the hour: / And paths
of glory lead but to the grave."
(Part of a poem entitled "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard,"
written by English poet Thomas Gray (1716 - 1771).)

Cheerful little piece, you know? Looks to me like this is a swindle.
Does seem to me that it is, because it doesn't hold true.

There are numerous incidents in this universe, in terms of absolute
mechanical, chemical things, where this principle of "create, survive,
destroy" does not hold true - just doesn't hold true.

Take the cycle of matter. Matter is quite interesting. It comes from a
sort of a radioactive point, which is hardly a creation; it's a
nothingness. And then we seem to get some matter in a radioactive form.
And then as it exhausts itself, we fall into a solid. Doesn't look like
decay at all. It looks like survive is on the end of the cycle. No decay
occurs.

As far as the radioactive material is concerned, there's some decay with
it, and as long as we take a partiality to one item that we're studying
and saying, "radioactive material," we can see something vaguely similar
to a cycle of action there. But if we look at the actual energy of this
radioactive material, we find out it sets itself up and survives and
then goes on and creates things. Isn't that cute? I mean, there's
something wrong.

You have to think it over. And don't worry too much about thinking it
over, because there isn't any real cycle of action there, anyhow. So,
the whole thing gets kind of slippery under your hands.

We can then consider, and with ease we can consider this, since it is
our earliest consideration and one which is with us all the time,
because it is the fundamental of the biological robot. You got that,
now? A thetan doesn't believe this. He couldn't possibly believe this
100 percent because it's not workable.

You mean to say that after he studies how to become a bricklayer, age in
and age out, he will eventually decay? No, he'll be a good bricklayer.

Yeah, but you say, "Then if he lays bricks for a while, he'll decay."
Why? He run out of bricks or something? He can determine that he's now
tired of bricklaying and do something else, or he can become a master
bricklayer, or he can do other things with regard to bricklaying, but
it's not necessarily true that everything he picks up is going to bring
him to destruction.

And that is what the cycle of action seeks to teach you: that anything
you pick up or anything you do will bring you to destruction; that if
you begin to write, you'll go stale in two or three years, and that will
be the end of your writing career.

You understand that? That if you join a circus and become a performer,
after a while, you will come to grief. Your tightrope will snap. Not
necessarily true at all. It might snap and you might land in the net and
build a better tightrope.

But it is laid in as an almost unarguable fact in these biological
mock-ups. They are born, they grow, they decay, they die. And boy, we
just watch that cycle, and we watch that cycle, till the best thing we
know, as we see John Jones walk down the street, is someday we're going
to bury him. That's the best thing we know about John Jones.

We see a little boy, we know that he'll grow up. Of course, in this
Atomic Age, we don't know that as clearly anymore. But we see him, and
we know he's going to grow up and he'll get married, and then he'll slop
off and he'll die.

Why? Why? We know that a mammal grows one-sixth of its total life.
That's another law that comes out of all this. It's quite interesting.
Nearly all mammals except man grows one-sixth of its normal life span.
It's an interesting law. For instance, if you grew for ten years, you
would live to the age of sixty. That is one of the little laws that
comes out of this.

It applies to every mammal but man; it doesn't apply to man. Man grows
for eighteen years and lives to be' seventy. But it goes - it even
applies to sharks and elephants and snakes and all kinds of bric-a-brac,
so that we have here an interesting thing. We have, with the animal
kingdom, we seem to have a certain law of growth and death.

And we say, "Well, this is a good thing because the whole world would be
populated by sharks if sharks didn't die sooner or later." Oh, I don't
know that it would be. How about getting a cycle of action for sharks
that they were born and created in full maturity and then dwindled
gradually away, you see, to birth, and then disappeared. You don't have
to have them destroyed; you could have them becoming more and more
active and younger and younger.

Now, it takes a little consideration, rather than persuasion from me, to
look over and discover the falsity of the cycle of action. There's no
reason why you, right at this moment, could not advance in time up to
the age of twenty-one years and look it and then stay there. No reason
why you couldn't do thatexcept the consideration that "All things are
born and survive and then die."

And if you're sold on that one, as a thetan, and if your body continues
to be sold on that one all the way along, of course, it will be true.
But Axiom 55, a cycle of action - any cycle of action is only a
consideration. And you start fooling around with this, and it gets quite
interesting as you find out that there are an - infinite numbers of
cycle of action. They can do the darnedest things, and they don't
necessarily have to follow this body curve.

So, there was another little gimmick to know about this biological
mockup that should have been in an instruction book you should have been
issued. It should have said, "Mark I Barbarian is furnished with a
series of beliefs of which this is one: that there exists such a thing
as a cycle of action, and that anything which is born will then grow,
and anything which grows will then decay and anything which decays will
then die.

"And this is an installed mechanism, which you find just two centimeters
south-southeast of the medulla oblongata. And this is installed so as to
keep the Malthus theory from working out; but in times of stress, when
you are losing your husband, it is two centimeters south-southeast of
the medulla oblongata. And the age scale on the cycle of action can be
reset to sixteen."

See, that's different - different sort of thing. That would be the sort
of thing if somebody had played this fair. They issue you a mock-up, and
then they don't tell you how it works. Well, you don't even know who
issued you the mock-up. That's the least its instruction book should
say, "Made by the War Ministry First Roman Legion," something of the
sort, "Issue: Speed: 130 paces to the minute."

Well, when something defeats you as often as a body, in that you have
certain goals and predictions, and then you're unable to reach them, you
begin to get superstitious after a while because logical has failed; and
religion and all sorts of other things start to enter in. That's the
long and short of it. You begin to consult the gods because you didn't
have an instruction book. Somebody has to know.

And this has nothing to do with the fact there may or may not be gods.
There are gods; there are plenty of them around, but I don't think
they're watching the sparrows fall. I think that was another piece of
propaganda.

Now, here we have a condition where an individual is defeated. And so,
yes, he's defeated because he does not predict well. He says, "I am not
predicting well."

He said, "This mock-up is going to walk from point A to point C and is
going to arrive at point C." Biological mock-up doesn't do that. It
starts at A, and unless it is readjusted, guided, and predicted with
every step, it doesn't arrive at C. It arrives over here at point X,
see? X marks the spot where the body was found.

You set it up to go in any particular direction. You say, "Now, I'm
going to teach this whole thing how to lay bricks," and it winds up to
be a very, very fine ditch digger; somehow or other can't lay bricks.
You don't know why, but it just can't seem to lay bricks. You know how
to lay bricks, and it just doesn't lay bricks, that's all.

You say, "Well, I'm going to teach this thing to become a piano player.
Fine. We're going to play the piano. Everything is going to be fine. And
we're going to run along and it's going to be a good piano player." And
it goes just so long, and it ceases to be a piano player. You invest
seven, eight, ten years at the piano, and at the end of that time you're
a complete failure. And you say, "What on earth is this all about? I
mean, naturally, the more I practice on the piano and the more used I
get to playing a piano, the better piano player I'd be," but it doesn't
work that way with a body, because a body is following a cycle of
action.

You create a new skill, the skill will grow for a while, then it will
decay, and then you can't play the piano anymore. Well, this is a wild
thing to have happen. You mean, the mock-up has got a say in this whole
thing? Well, that's all right. It's perfectly all right for another
mock-up to have a say in the whole thing, as long as you're a mock-up;
but you're not a mock-up.

You try to use a body along a certain ethical pattern, you try to get it
into good shape, you try to straighten it up and make it survive and
live and somehow or other carry on and be a credit to all hands, and
when you finally get up, why, somebody drops it in a box and pats it in
the face with a spade. Doesn't seem to be much of a reward for all your
activity.

And this seems to be the inevitable fact. This is something from which
you can't escape. This is it. Well, it looks to me like it's a strange
and peculiar little rat race a guy gets into. That's the way it's going
to be; that's the way it is.

Well, I don't know any reason at all why it should be that way at all
because, in the first place, I have occasionally looked at some kind of
a machine that was very difficult to run. I remember a monocycle - you
know, monocycles are quite interesting. Did you ever try to run a
monocycle? Just one wheel and a crossbar across the top of it, and it
has a couple of pedals like a tricycle, you know. And if you balance the
pedals just right, this monocycle will stand up on one wheel, and you
sit up there and go round and round in circles and so forth.

I took a look at this monocycle and got up on the top of it and ran it
round and round in circles and stopped and stepped down off of it.
Fellow came in and said, "What are you doing? It takes a long time to
learn how to run one of those."

And I said, "Oh, it does?" and got on the monocycle again and fell flat
on my face. Now, something had believed him.

Now, we at least, a few years ago, rooted up this idea of the cycle of
action. We brought it into view and said, "This is a very, very
important principle." Latterly, during the days of Scientology, we have
still said, "That's quite an important principle, that 'create, survive,
destroy."' And as long as we were laying our bricks, you might say, in a
good solid agreement with mock-ups and we weren't pushing them around
too hard and we weren't trying any wild stunts, this is true; the cycle
of action stayed there, and so on.

But the second that we really started to use modern techniques and
include with those modern techniques that the cycle of action was a
fact, not just a consideration, we found out the cycle of action didn't
hold - didn't hold.

You get a guy - create, create, create, create, and at first he starts
to wind up, you know, earlier; and at first he does all right, and he
finds his position and tone change, and then all of a sudden, he'll do a
skid, and he's liable to wind up anyplace.

What he does, actually, is run out the fact that "create" is at the
beginning of the cycle of action. See, he just runs this out. And this
leaves him adrift, without any understanding, somewhere on a cycle of
action he has himself not determined. In other words, the cycle of
action itself can be run out.

Now, it's an interesting thing that if the cycle of action were not a
consideration, the most horrible, grimmest thing that you could imagine
would be laid in your laps. If it were actually an unalterable fact, if
it were actually native to the beingness of a thetan, you would have to
confront something pretty grim, and this grim thing would be this: That
anytime you tried to make anything better, you would regret it.

Now, if you look that over carefully, you will see how it works. You try
to make something better, you will follow a cycle of action with it; and
the end of the cycle of action is destroy. So, you are trying to run
only part of the cycle of action. But the actuality is you don't start
to make something better until it's well decayed. It needs repair. So,
now you're trying to turn the cycle of action backwards, and running
backwards in time is regret. The definition of regret is to return
something through time, to run time backwards.

If you ask somebody to do this, by the way, just as an exercise - to run
an engram backwards a couple of times - he'll start regretting it. The
emotion of regret is a run backwards.

So, the cycle of action, if it were true, would cause you to regret
every bettering action which you took. You would be inevitably dedicated
to crucifixion by trying to better the human race.

In other words, they've even blocked that lowest-level step "Who can you
help?" If the cycle of action is true, you can't better anything or
anybody without winding up sacrificed yourself. And that chap they've
got impaled on the cross is an advertisement of this which says, "You'd
better not improve the human race. You'd better not do anything about
this." It's the warning, like the big sign on the empty dog kennel which
says, "Ferocious dog. Beware." Only there's no dog in the kennel, except
this one thing: cycle of action.

Isn't that fascinating? It tells us that we'd better not help anybody.
Well, you can look back over it, you can prove this to yourself. You
know there's some chap that you've tried to help, and you sure regretted
it.

Well, the whole race is getting a better and better agreement on this.
If nobody is going to better anything anywhere, I ask you, if you
please, how is it ever going to wind up in anything but "destroy"?

That is the surest way in the world, then, to confirm the cycle of
action. That is the surest way in the world to keep everybody convinced
that the cycle of action exists - is to let nobody help anything. If you
help anything, you'll be destroyed, of course. You'll regret it; that's
the least that will happen to you. But just the forward motion of time,
all by itself, does not carry with it the cycle of action.

By the way, just an understanding of this, just a good grip on this,
just looking over how it might be arranged otherwise, just looking over
the factors involved in it, just finding an example or two where it
doesn't hold true, and all of a sudden you become free, just to that
degree; you become much freer. Because it tells you, "Look, you can make
yourself better, you can make anybody else better, and there's no
slightest incursion of karma as a result thereof"

It doesn't matter who you help. You can help people. You can make things
better. You can repair a car, if you want to; it will be a better car.
It won't just destroy you.

Now, it's an odd thing for a self-enforcive mechanism of this character
to be built into this biological mock-up. I'd say that it had more to do
with philosophy than good, solid biology or electronics. And I think
somebody was stretching a point.

I wouldn't build a robot like that if I were that. If I were building
some robots, I'd like to have some robots that were good robots that
would be active and operative. I wouldn't build a line of operating
robots which would build new robots, you know, and wipe out the old
robots and then fix it up so that anytime you tried to repair a robot,
you'd wind up wrecked, see? I wouldn't fix it up that way.

I'd be a better craftsman. I'd have more respect for myself and what I
was making. I don't mean that as any snide comment, but I just do have
ideas on this line. I have ideas of what is ethical and what isn't
ethical. I wouldn't build a chain of robots that would eventually wind
up to be lousy robots that would just get worse and worse as robots, you
know; that issue by issue, from Mark I to Mark X to the nth, would just
get worse.

Wouldn't do that, unless I wanted to get even with somebody, or unless I
myself were afraid of all life forms, or unless I were doing something
odd or peculiar that I wouldn't do. Or unless I were just playing a
joke.

Now, you could have your own speculations concerning this of just why
you'd go about this or what you'd do about this, and it's an interesting
philosophical field; but all the philosophy about it, again, is just the
why. It's the rationale on the fact. The fact is there.

Now, I don't know how many of you have had anybody mock up something and
then have it - various parts of that mock-up - be considered by him a
threat to the body. I don't know how many of you have done this or how
many of you have run anything vaguely resembling problems. But if you
run these, the principles about which I am talking to you are very
easily demonstrated. These are some of the easiest principles to
demonstrate.

It is obvious that you do not want to be eaten by tigers, that you do
not want your body to be eaten by tigers, right? In fact, you don't want
to have anything to do with tigers. If a tiger came walking in the room
this moment licking his chops, you would say, "Well, let's see, where
can I put this mock-up? How flat can I press it against the ceiling?"

Now, the mock-up, however, doesn't think that way. It actually has an
impulse in it which would say, "Aahh, tiger. Dine well, tiger. Have
another arm." And you've gotten this in dream states when you were a
kid. A terrific danger shows up, and you're not able to run from it; you
just stand there. That is the body's action. The body either stands
there or walks into the menace.

Now, the proof of this is the reactions on this basis, the reactions are
quite interesting. And you have somebody mock up a ravenous tiger, and
then have him get the idea that that tiger and the ground the tiger is
standing on is totally there as a threat and menace to the mock-up, and
the distance between the tiger and the mock-up goes slurp - no distance.
There is a hunger in the mock-up to be in the tiger and to have the
tiger in the mock-up. Quite interesting. There is a starvation for
distance closure. Wow!

Now, this is compounded additionally by having this fact: If you ran the
process "Invent a specific problem a tiger could be to you," you would
find the body just going, "Slurp. Oh, boy. Oh, luscious. Mmm, lovely."

Well, now, you want to keep the mock-up on the road and keep things
squared around and keep life running. Well, you're not going to keep
life running being hungry for being eaten by tigers, see. So, you don't
want tigers to dine; and the body would just love to have a tiger dine.

Have you ever run an eating engram off of the track somewhere? Have you
ever run an old past-life genetic-line eating engram and gotten the
point where "Oh, boy. Now I'm really serving. I'm being eaten," you
know. "Lovely, lovely, lovely on being all et up. Isn't that gorgeous."
I don't think you feel that way.

Well, something feels that way, and it's the biological robot. It says,
"Oh, boy, being et up. Oh, fine. Tigers. Oh, wonderful. Look at the
truck coming in over the top of me. Ha! That'll squash me in a couple of
seconds. Lovely!"

Did you ever see such an avidity to quit in your life? Now, you wonder
why somebody didn't issue you an instruction book. I think it would have
been all very well. I think, to many a thetan, you could have issued a
very specific instruction book and the thetan could have read it from
beginning to end, and he never would have believed any part of it. It's
too incredible.

But we have to take these things into account if we're going to separate
a thetan from one of these biological robots or get one of these
biological robots straightened out. Number one, you do not have to
assume that a biological robot will always inevitably follow a cycle of
action. This is not necessary to assume that at all. You can change
considerations concerning that. You can get the biological robot in much
better shape by getting it capable of receiving orders of any kind or
being willing to give orders of any kind. You can practically civilize
one by running processes of this kind. You can get these vacuums and
weak universes and starvation mechanisms eradicated by running problems
of one kind or another. You can do things with this biological robot
today in Scientology that you couldn't do before.

I don't guarantee that you will make it a perfect robot. I, myself, if I
were going to get a perfect robot, would go up to Marcab or someplace
and pay a few grabutniks into the factory and get a nice mechanical
robot issued. You know, one that had an automatic pilot, and when you
said, "Walk from point A to C," it would arrive at C. It's possible to
play a game with such a robot.

It's also, to some degree, possible to play a game with one of these
biological robots - to some degree - if they're straightened out. But I
don't know how anybody could play a game with one, actually, unless he
himself had a good command of the exact modus operandi on which it was
working, which is, give it a chance to fail, and it'll fail. Give it a
chance to get injured, and it'll get injured. At the least propitious
moment, it gets sick. It does anything illogical it can think of,
evidently, to defeat the purposes of the game.

These are not thinkingnesses; they are simply considerations built into
a mass, just like the command "I am a wall" is that wall. You get the
idea? That wall is a wall. It is a wall because it is a solid command
which says, "a wall." It also says, "I am solid," and "I'm enduring."
Now, when you want to see that wall, you have to be willing and able to
receive the order "I am a wall" or the statement "I am a wall" in order
to see the wall. You see that.

Now, if you have a biological mock-up that says, "I am sweetness and
light, and I mean to serve you to the end of your days," but which is
actually cutting your theta throat from one end to the other, it simply
has a number of commands of this character built into it, and that is to
say, "Injury is better than anything we know about." Sounds horrible,
doesn't it? "The cycle of action is an inevitable fact." It has enormous
numbers of concepts built into it. They are not thinkingnesses any more
than that wall is a thinkingness, and yet the biological robot will
function within this realm of action. And therefore, if you knew the
realm in which it was functioning, and you knew the limits in which it
was functioning, you would then not be very surprised, so as to be
thrown out of order with regard to your own prediction, when it didn't
quite go the way you intended it to go.

If you had an instruction book, it would cease to have power over you to
the extent that any failure on its part became a failure on your part.
Do you see that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

And an understanding of this, all by itself, would serve to assist you,
a thetan, to be much freer than you ever were before.

Thank you.

Male voice: Thank you.

[auditor]

AUDITOR INSIGHT

A lecture given on 10 January 1956

The handling of the preclear in the early parts of a session or an
intensive is a problem which most auditors give too little attention to.
If a session goes wrong, it will be usually within the first few minutes
after the session begins. And having gone wrong, like a Shakespearean
plot, it continues to go further and further wrong from that point on
and, therefore, does not become a matter of processes or processing; it
becomes a matter of session-starting.

Now, we all have a superstition that those things that start well
continue well, and those things that start poorly continue poorly. This
may or may not be the case, but it is certainly the case in auditing:
that if you get off on the wrong foot or no foot, it's a cinch that
very, very shortly into the session you're going to find yourself not
even close to the ground. You're not even going to find yourself on any
known map anywhere.

And this factor alone, as far as I have been able to establish - and I
hate to say this, this positively; I'm seldom this positive, but in this
case, boy, do I know what I'm talking about - is that reality on
Scientology leaves when one finds himself off the chart. And one then
begins to scrabble and flounder and look around for the magic process
that will now straighten this preclear out and bring him back to
battery, put him in good shape and get things going here.

And we never look at the beginning of the intensive or the session to
find where it went wrong. We don't look at the fact that the session has
gone wrong and has probably continued wrong for some time. We look
instead for a magic process, and we say, "Well then, Scientology really
doesn't contain the answers to this; we've got to go somewhere else."

And where anybody has done this, it has been because he departed, as an
auditor, the session and the preclear in some fashion or another very,
very early in processing and never got back on any known road. And not
having gotten back on any known road, he is not, therefore, oriented in
any way, shape or form and, of course, has to pick something out' of the
air, some magical, mystical thing; he's got to dream up some sort of a
process, some sort of a snap that will suddenly make all well that has
gone all wrong.

And he spends his time, usually, then trying to fathom this existing
problem of the preclear, without comprehending what the problem of the
preclear is. The problem of the preclear is very well embraced by
Scientology, but the auditing session was not. Somewhere there was a
departure.

I Now, I'll tell you how you find yourself geographically. I hope you
don't think I'm being too hard on you, but this is a fact: that the
failures along the line have been a certain lack of insight on the part
of the auditor as to where the lostness occurred. And unless we can
solve that, unless we can point this up, and unless it becomes a native
and integral part of auditing itself and the processes themselves, then
we're liable to continue to have slow case gains or case failures.

So it is at once a problem, where I am concerned, to give out processes
which will be used and which are not too awfully arduous to teach.
Because we have to teach these processes, remember. So it isn't just
what works on the preclear; it's what can also be taught and relayed.

But it is not a problem of teaching a process; it is a problem of
teaching an auditor an insight into processes. And the insight into the
process is that the process is secondary to the preclear, at all times.
And the time to use the process is the time to use the process,
redundantly enough. There are places for all these processes, but the
place to use them is the right place.

Now, all of that sounds very, very queer and sort of double-talkish, but
the truth of the matter is that we cannot take a preclear and run him on
an exteriorized type of technique if he's dead in his head. Well, we
can't run an auditing session if we haven't got an auditing session in
progress, and that is the first and foremost insight that an auditor
should have. And that is a principle; that is not a process. Somewhere
or another the wheels of the session left the rails of Scientology -
somewhere they did this.

Now, the way you find yourself in a wood, if you're going to find
yourself at all, is not necessarily the right way in Scientology, but
it's a good example. You find the last known landmark and replot from
there.

Give you an example. When we were first in London - London is a fairly
large city, at least it's - it has a number of streets and turnings. It
has, to say the least, some streets that are not entirely straight, and
it has other streets which do not run parallel to some other streets.
There are numerous things one could say about this, but it is not a city
where one automatically finds himself every time he gets lost. It
requires a little thought.

We had a little Jaguar racing car, and it went very fast. And I don't
know, but a bobby seems to be tolerant of something that is small and
fast and he doesn't particularly stop it or upset it, so we'd roar
around. And the first few times we were out, we would suddenly look and
nothing was familiar. I mean, nothing. So we would say, "Well ..."
Perhaps you too have had this experience here in London.

And we would do this very interesting thing. We would head in some
compass direction in order to recover known territory. And of course,
with the streets not running parallel to any of the streets, trying to
run any compass direction became rapidly impossible, so this
time-honored system, well-known to all navigators, didn't work.

Now, it's not true that a compass in Northwest 7 reads 90 degrees
different than a compass in Southwest 5 - but almost. And when there's a
fog, it reads 190 degrees different. So we eventually began to
cautiously reach out from where we were to where we were going. And we
had a big map_ that had all the streets of London on it. You can imagine
trying to unwind a map like that in the seat of a little tiny Jaguar
racing car - you know, miles of map and cubic centimeters of car.

And nevertheless, we never thereafter got into trouble when we adopted
this policy: we would trace ourselves block by block on the map. Now,
this was pretty easy to do. You just went whizzing along, and you traced
yourself block by block, and we checked on it often. And then all of a
sudden, why, we would find ourselves off the map, ddaahh. Put on the
brakes, turn the car around, and go back and find the last landmark. Get
the idea? And as soon as we were perfectly willing to go back and find
the last known landmark and then continue on, we ceased to get lost.

Now, that's a very crude sort of an example to give you, but
nevertheless, it is a very true one here. The only trouble is, it wasn't
a process where you departed. It really wasn't the use of a process; it
was the lack of an insight. Somewhere or other you as an auditor did not
observe, did not perceive what was going on with the preclear, or even
if you had perceived it, you continued to audit with the session.

You perceived something was wrong, you perceived you were somehow or
other in error, you perceived this thing was not going off as well as it
should have been going off, and yet you continued right on with the
session and what you were doing. That happened knowingly or unknowingly.
You were either off and didn't know it, you merely weren't getting
progress; or you were off and knew it and continued with the session,
and you didn't get any progress.

Therefore, there is this principle of insight, and the insight is not a
great sensitivity - I love these - I love - psychoanalysis has been a
great school; there's no doubt about it. Nothing could happen like
happens in psychoanalysis. Nothing. I mean, there isn't any possibility
of it. If I myself had not had many, many years ago a considerable
amount of experience with psychoanalysts and psychoanalysis, and if I
myself had not studied it, I would not know of 8,785,000 things not to
do, and we would be the poorer all the way along the line.

But the psychoanalyst used to claim - whenever he confronted any of my
results, long years ago - he would claim that it was a certain delicacy
and insight which I had into human beings that produced the result; it
wasn't Dianetics. And although this was very flattering and occasionally
made me feel like I should disguise my flaming locks in a turban and
sit, perhaps crosslegged, uttering magical incantations over the red-hot
brains of suffering humanity, it nevertheless made me resist this idea
of insight just to that degree. "He gets results because he has some
sort of an insight."

Well, that's long enough ago and can be well enough forgiven so that we
don't have to pay any attention to it anymore. I mean, we can relax and
stop contesting the point with a psychoanalyst. We do happen to need
some insight. You see, I just give up. I run up a white flag on the
whole subject.

But it isn't a peculiar undescribable kind of an insight. It is
something which today we can describe with such precision that you would
have to be blindfolded and with an eyesight - you know, 20/20 is average
eyesight - your eyesight would have to be about 1/20 (what you should
see at twenty feet, you see at one foot), you see, in order to miss this
kind of insight. And the moment we describe this kind of insight to you,
I think you will see at once what we are talking about.

The subject of havingness could be said to embrace a great deal of
understanding in Dianetics and Scientology, so much so that several
people have said to me, "I see what it all adds up to now. It adds up to
havingness."

This is an awfully brief look, by the way. It's a terribly brief look.
It isn't really much of a comprehension at all, because havingness is an
inverse of reach. The fellow normally wants to reach out, and this
becomes inverted to where he desires a reach in, do you understand? And
he desires this reach in, and this is havingness. That's really all
there is to havingness.

Now, a complexity of reach in results in masses. And he didn't like
those at first, either. No thetan can duplicate a mass; let me call that
to your attention. He is natively no time, no space, no wavelength, no
location. And we show him a mass out here located in space, and we say
to him, "Communicate with it."

And he says, "I can't possibly communicate with it, really, because I
can't duplicate it."

So he has to become something else than native state in order to
duplicate, look at and use these masses. Do you see this - hm? So that
is the other condition besides "reach in" that he must have in order to
function in this universe at this time.

But havingness is basically and principally a desire to be reached
rather than a desire to reach. It's really a cut communication line.
Running Havingness exclusively would be something on the order of
running "What wouldn't you mind going out of ARC with?" That's a very,
very fine process. I recommend it to you thoroughly. Any time you get a
Russian psychiatrist, run it on him. It'll kill him.

"What wouldn't you mind going out of ARC with?" It's odd. You just see
people going down the Tone Scale rung by rung. And because it sounds so
logical - "What wouldn't you mind going out of communication with? What
wouldn't you mind disagreeing with? What wouldn't you mind disliking?"
any one of these. That whole class, you see, is all a type of process.
It's "What wouldn't you mind going out of ARC with?"

And they go down tone - it sounds so reasonable; it sounds so workable
they go down Tone Scale so pleasantly, you know. They run it, and they
go down another rung. And somatic turns on, and they go down another
rung. And they feel a little bit upset with life, and they go down
another rung. And they feel a little bit more upset and so on.

And they say, "Well, this is certainly working out something, this
process is. I'm sure that I'm getting rid of something." Yes, they are.
They're getting rid of anything like life that they possess.

Well now, here's this purely mechanical thing where the thetan mocks up
a mass so that he can communicate with masses; he can get some
duplication with existing masses. See, that's a purely mechanical thing.
That's just by postulate.

You say, "There's havingness. There's a mass. There's an energy form
existing in some space and location." A thetan can do this. And he says,
"That, then, communicates with this thing over here." And every once in
a while a thetan slides in and says, "You know, I am the mass which is
doing the communication abroad," and this we call interiorization.

How does it happen that he slides into it? He never totally escapes the
principle of no duplication. Even though he's having mass A communicate
with mass B, he himself never really becomes mass A. And his anxiety,
perhaps, to communicate between mass A and mass B eventually forces him
more or less to assume the role of mass A, and we get an interiorization
into the body. That's really all there is to it.

It is basically an impossibility for a thetan to do a clean, perfect
communication with masses. It's an unfortunate thing. He can tolerate
it, he can patch himself up, he can get into such a condition of
understanding that he can do this, but there's always a little bit of
strain on it, because he himself is not natively a mass. Do you
understand this?

So we get his anxiety resulting into an interiorization. He wants to
communicate, he wants a game. He wants a game between mass A and mass B.
Now, for a long time he merely stands out, and he can get in
communication more or less, by postulate or consideration, with mass A;
he can get into communication with mass B. This we call pan-determinism.
He can determine either sides of the communication.

After a while, he decides that mass A isn't communicating enough, so he
gets in there to bolster up mass A a little bit more, and he puts more
attention on mass A. Now he is making mass A talk to mass B. This brings
about a dependency on mass B to do some talking. So he can set up an
automaticity, a machine, or whistle up another thetan or something of
the sort in order to have mass B over here functioning. You see this?

And he still doesn't get the type of communication he wants, so he gets
in here a little closer to mass A. And he says, "Well, you know, little
bit better communication" - next thing you know, he's mass A (snap). And
you ask him, you say, "What are you?" And the fellow says, "I'm a body."

Similarly, he could say, "I am a building" or "I am a temple." He could
say, "I am a planet." He could say any of these things. It just doesn't
have to do just with bodies; it could have to do with situations and
masses.

But he wants a game, and a game is an inverse reach. Now, there is
nothing really wrong with an inverse reach. If you are anxious to
produce an effect, you had better ask yourself are you willing to have
that effect. If you yourself as a thetan are willing to have the effect
which you are trying to produce, you will produce the effect. This I
guarantee.

The reason people don't mock up living bodies that weigh sixteen stone
and go up and down the street whistling Dixie - the reason they don't do
this is because they think this would be a hell of a thing to have
happen to them.

Well, just look at it. Would you like - every time you turned around,
why, somebody mocking up a bobby standing across your path, hm? It would
be quite interesting for a short time but rather maddening, particularly
if you couldn't find out that it was simply a mocked-up bobby because he
was so solid, you see. And they even mocked him up right down to his
identification card.

The subject of havingness is the lowest order of manifestation for the
thetan. He wants this item to communicate. He's trying to save the mass
for vital communications at long length. See, at first he just wants to
communicate. Now he wants it to communicate, but he knows that
communication as-ises, makes vanish or disappear a mass. Communication
as-ises or destroys mass, you understand.

All right. So he says, "Well, I will save this mass as long as possible
and make it communicate as little as possible in order to expend this,
when it is vital that I do communicate, why, then, I will communicate."
And he starts saving communication.

Silence is not a desired characteristic. It is an interim
characteristic, waiting for a proper subject of communication, according
to the consideration of the individual. So that your big, strong, silent
man must feel that communication is pretty doggone - he must feel he's
just about out of mass. Doesn't hold together at all, the idea that big,
strong men are silent; they're not. Little weak guys with no mass to
expend get quieter and quieter and finally shut up entirely.

Now, here's the problem. The problem is "Want a game. Want to
communicate. Want to talk to my fellows. Want to get in there and
pitch," you see? Desire in this direction, very definite desire in this
direction. And this goes downhill somehow or another, and there's less
and less game. Why? Because there's less and less mass. The more
communication, the more game, the less mass. You understand? So that
havingness is an invitation to a game.

This individual is liable to get unsettled to this degree: He's liable
to feel that his havingness disappears to such a degree that he can no
longer play this game, at which time he leaves that game. He goes.

He invents various automatic ways to get havingness so he can continue
to play this game, but the havingness can sometimes make him lose all
sight of playing the game at all. Till the havingness gets to be an end
- all in itself, and after he gets it, he doesn't know what to do with
it.

When he was very young, he said, "I wanted a bag of gold. I want a bag
of gold because I will buy my father a new farm, and I will buy my
mother a white horse, and I will buy my sister a new pink hair ribbon,"
something like this, "and I want this bag of gold." Something practical.

And he goes thinking about this, and he goes on through life. And he
finally gets a half a bag of gold, and then he gets another half a bag,
and he's got a bag of gold. And he gets two bags of gold, and he gets
four bags of gold and six bags of gold. And the old man starves to death
on the wasted land, and he's forgotten why he wanted that bag of gold.

A very dignified example of this on a very huge scale is the case of
Alaric in the first fall, you might say, of the Roman Empire, when he -
the first sacking of Rome occurred at the hands of a barbarian general
who was civilized, and he had gotten gold hungry. He'd gotten riches
hungry. He'd just gotten more and more riches and more and more riches,
and he wanted honors and all that sort of thing, and he wanted to be
known as lord knows what. And he kept negotiating with the Emperor of
the East and the Emperor of the West in order to get these things and
meanwhile mopping up a few more provinces and chewing up a lot more
farmland and sacking a few more cities.

And he finally got down, and he absolutely had Rome in his hands. He
started out because he wanted the Roman Empire; he wanted to be emperor.
He wanted to be a very fancy fellow indeed, with tremendous titles and
so forth, and he sold out for, I think, about five thousand pounds in
gold.

What he intended to do with this gold, we don't know. The only place you
could really spend it would have been in Rome or the vicinities of Rome,
and yet we have this fantastic picture of Alaric letting himself be
bought off from all of his plans with this gold. What happened to him in
the interim? He forgot the game, and the havingness became end - all to
everything.

Now, the body, in a very marked degree, is in this condition. It's
forgotten what game it was playing, if it ever had any decision about
playing any game. And it wants, but it doesn't know why; and on an
inversion, can not-want and doesn't know why. But its problems at this
very low level center around this thing called havingness.

Body has all this way along wanted to be well cared for and wanted to be
set up and, you know, put in good condition - comfortable, warm and all
that sort of thing. And the body said, "Well, let's see. This is best
done with gold. It is best done with jewels. It's best done with masses
of one kind or another."

And you eventually would find it getting the gold and the jewels and
these other riches, you might say. And then we'd read, maybe, in the
paper about "Miser found dead with crust of bread in old house and
eighty thousand pounds in the closet." You know, he died of starvation
with eighty thousand pounds in the closet. You get the idea?

Anyway, this is this idiocy, you see? The game is forgotten, the
havingness remains. And that is the condition the body is in. And if
you know this, if you can just assume this in terms of any body, this
thing called havingness sort of explains itself. It isn't really the
thetan that wants any havingness, you know?

See, there's something there. The body has to have a certain amount of
havingness periodically, just in eating, and it's just making itself
good all the way along on havingness. But why does it have to have?
After a while it'll just sit still and have. It no longer functions or
takes part in the game, you see?

You can actually inflow havingness on a person to a point where it'll
quit. You know that? You know the way to conquer Russia today? The
conquest of Russia is so strongly in the power - the only reason I'm
mentioning Alaric and Roman history is I was looking up communism and
Russian history and that sort of thing. And the best account of it, by
the way, is in Gibbon, of the beginnings of Russian invasions and all
that sort of thing. And I was looking it up and read a little bit too
far.

You know how you go cruising through an Encyclopaedia Britannica, and
you're all set. All you want to look up is aardvark., and you find
yourself, after a short time, very happily reading a long article on
advertising. Well, that's what happened. I just skidded over onto the
thing.

But the Chinese Empire used to send tribute up to the Huns when they
were on the north border of China. They were up there about twelve
hundred years before Caesar. This is very old. And, Chinese kept sending
them luxuries, luxuries, luxuries, and they finally caved them in. These
people were no longer as warlike as before, and they could no longer
triumph against Chinese arms. And so they had to move, and they moved
over against Europe instead of China, and that began the various
invasions which we read about which led to the end of the Roman Empire.

It's a great oddity to find this reaching so deep into antiquity, but a
very great oddity to find a very good thetan trick being employed. They
gave them tribute, they said: bolts of silk, beautiful young ladies,
fine harnesses, tinkly little bells, mirrors. And they said, "You are
extracting this tribute from us." And eventually the Hun nations and the
CNP caved in. That was the end of that.

They couldn't support all of this havingness. They didn't quite know
what to do with all these anchor points. And it occurred to them at
length that China was making all this space. So they said, "Gee, that
must be an awfully powerful nation, making all that space," and they
just quit and went over against Europe. They said, "China's too
dangerous, too strong."

What happened? China just dealt them anchor point after anchor point
after anchor point after anchor - all you'd have to do is start snowing
Russia under - Russia has nothing today; she's in poverty. You read
about "Five-year plan so the president of Russia can have a pair of
shoes," you know.

The point here is that the transfer of anchor points consists of the
making of spaces - actually, make for an overwhelming of the revolt,
rebellion or selfdeterminism of a certain object, such as a body -
whether it's the body of a nation or the body of a preclear.

Now, the preclear is trying to get his body into control. The preclear's
body feels a lot out of control, if you only knew it. He usually, early
in processing, doesn't quite know what he's going to do next.

Well, this havingness, completely aside from anything else, is the
thetan, with his mock-up and so forth, putting out anchor points around
the body. He takes the body into his space instead of occupying the
body's space. Interesting, isn't it? It brings about a conquest of the
body. It makes the thetan think the thought that changes the
consideration of the body.

Let me go over that again, because I see that you didn't quite get from
Russia here to this preclear.

If you keep throwing anchor points out against a people, even a people
like the Huns or the Russians or the communists or whatever they call
themselves today - if you keep throwing out anchor points into those
people, which they themselves actually think they have to have,
eventually they'll have to have them. They become absolute necessities
after a while, you see.

They never heard of silk, and they were getting along fine. After half a
century, they just wouldn't know what to do if they didn't get their
regular silk. You get the idea? You keep throwing these anchor points -
you're actually caving in their space, see? Solid objects. All right.

Now, let's take a thetan trying to control a body. The thetan starts
throwing anchor points down around this body - primarily, the thetan is
encompassed, if he's interiorized, by all these tremendously complicated
body anchor points. We got it? We don't want to destroy those body
anchor points. The body would go to pieces. The truth of the matter is
that the thetan, the person you are processing, is less capable of
supporting control of that body as long as it is the body that is the
anchor point and the thetan is not the anchor point. You get the idea?

This situation becomes remedied by a remedy of havingness. You have the
thetan mock up and throw into the body anchor points, or around the body
anchor points, and the body then becomes controllable. The thetan is
making the anchor points.

And the body is so accustomed to havingness that it knows it has to
have. So if we omit havingness, we get the central effect of simply
need, want, educated desire on the part of the body, you see. That is
straightened out, and that has to be straightened out, because of this
other principle: Every time the thetan turns up one little erg of energy
or anything - a hungry body, that knows it has to have far more than it
does have - will just pull that energy right into it.

And therefore, every time the thetan has a little mass or an old tin can
or an old rusty chain or something, all of a sudden it goes slurp, and
it's into the body. And he'll get the idea after a little while that he
is being pulled dry of everything he has. He's being drained of his
energies. He's this and that. Do you understand?

As long as the body continues to absorb havingness and masses to this
degree, you have a hard time getting anybody out of it. All right.
That's first and foremost. Now, the secondary one is the control factor.
The thetan is existing in the anchor point situation of the body. The
body is making his space for him, he thinks. You reverse the situation
the moment you have the thetan mock up and give the body havingness, you
see this? You bring the body, then, under more control. Not that you
destroy its anchor points or do anything to it badly. It just somehow or
other changes its opinion.

So it immediately becomes the study of the auditor of what is the
absolutely necessary havingness on the part of the body? What does the
body actually have to have? And as soon as he gets this cravingness on
the part of the body satiated in some fashion, the body is, of course,
much less demanding; eaves itself in, caves him in much less. You follow
this?

It's sort of like feeding the hungry tiger so you can walk out of a
cage. You get the idea? You're in a cage with a hungry tiger, and he's
not going to let you walk out until he eats you. And you somehow or
another, one quarter or another, conjure up a nice roast beef and a bit
of Yorkshire pudding and toss it to him.

Now, here's this interplay that you must notice as an auditor, because
that interplay leads to all other sins and actions that occur in an
auditing session. It starts there: body hungry, thetan weak. Body
putting out lots of big anchor points that have the thetan intimidated;
thetan putting out practically no anchor points. See?

Now, you're not processing the body, you're processing the thetan. If
the body becomes too reduced in terms of havingness, it then pulls in
every kind of a ridge it can lay its beams on, and you start packing the
thetan into a stronger and stronger barricaded mass. Do you get the
idea? It's not really that he has to work his way through these ridges,
but it does mean that every time he moves, shifts or changes his opinion
or thinks something, you see, that the body goes slurp. And he has the
sensation, every time he stirs, of being held. Of course, he can't be
held; but he has the sensation of being held.

What is the exact insight, then, that you require in order to know where
a session went off at the rails? Where did the wheels leave the rails in
a session? Very simple, it's very elementary. The preclear either went
more anaten or became more agitated - either way.

"He became more agitated" - now, you understand, I didn't say, "more
active." He becomes more agitated, or he becomes more anaten. He becomes
less alert, markedly less alert, or he becomes zzzz - strain. And the
insight that is absolutely demanded of an auditor, if he's going to
audit at all, is to notice that preclear's sudden drop into anaten or
slip sideways into an agitation.

The preclear's been doing fine. Been sitting there, calm, everything's
fine, you know? "Yes," he'll say, "my grandmother had to marry my
grandfather. That's the way it was, and so on. And I used to hear about
this considerably, and so on." He's going along fine. And all of a
sudden, all of a sudden, he moves. He twitches. Ear itches. Wants a
cigarette.

If he gets to a point of articulating the cigarette, do you know that
you're about fifteen minutes late as an auditor? You might as well have
come to the session fifteen minutes back of time, because you just
didn't notice when that started. If he gets up to the point of wanting a
cigarette, he's already off the rails; he's out of session.

Of course, you give him a cigarette. But don't be surprised if you can -
not only cannot find his front trucks, but you can't find any roadbed.
Something left something. And you might just at that moment consider the
session lost. As far as anything you were trying to do, it isn't
working, it won't work. I don't care how perfect it's marked up, how
many beautiful grades it's got, on how many successes this process had
on how many preclears, has nothing to do with it anymore. What has to do
with it is the preclear twitched. Got it?

Now, the second that preclear began to register an agitation, one way or
the other, you had something happen there which had to do with the
preclear's lessened control over the body, the body's upsurge of hunger
for energy, and it all adds up to loss of havingness. And that's the
total thing: It adds up to loss of havingness. Preclear twitched,
havingness went down.

Now, maybe the process is simply going to build back that havingness
somehow or other on the next question. Maybe right now it's going to
happen, you see, with the next question and so forth, and the preclear
doesn't twitch anymore. Just because the preclear twitched is no reason
to swap the command. But we ran it one more time and the preclear went
twitch, twitch, twitch. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. You'd better get the hell out of
there!

And the times auditors have been getting out of there was two hours
later. The quicksand already had closed over the top of the preclear's
head and case. He was gone. There wasn't even his coat on the bank.

You've got to get your toes bog-sensitive, see. And when you feel that
ground there, as far as the preclear is concerned, shaky and quivery,
don't go walking on it to find out if it's solid! Take your foot back.

Now, this may mean, apparently, a breach of the Auditor's Code. You've
just started running this thing. And you've said, "Now, give me
something else that your mother never said to your father," or whatever
process you are running. And you were just getting along splendidly, and
he was just now beginning to develop a comm lag, and he had just
cognited a little bit. And you say, "Boy, that's really working. That's
a nice thing."

And he develops a little more comm lag, and then he gets another couple
of more cognitions. And then he develops a lot more comm lag, and ...
You sit there for a - half an hour, and he doesn't speak.

Well, that's not the time to change the process. Something else
happenedundoubtedly happened. Something else occurred with that process.

"Give me something your mother never said to your father."

And the fellow says, "Oh, um, let's see. Let's see. Um, let me see, uh,
um ...

If you've waited as long to say something or do something as I have been
here giving you the example, you've already got the quicksand over the
preclear's ankle. You just should have walked back right there.

Agitation. Agitation ensued the command somewhere in the line. Did
anything complicated happen?

Now, let me clarify a tremendous amount of material in Dianetics: The
Modern Science of Mental Health for you at once. Although a loss of
havingness can take on a thousand faces, it is basically simply loss of
havingness. Although it would turn on in a manifestation and an
agitation and make you believe that you were walking into some pitfall
in the preclear's life, something he didn't dare touch - he became
agitated, he became upset because you didn't - he didn't want you to
talk about his father and mother. He knew better than to talk about it
out to the neighbors; he'd been beaten often enough. You've walked
toward this agitation.

You can rationalize all of this all you want to. It all blows down to
just one thing, and that is loss of havingness has begun. A condition of
the body has changed in some fashion or another so as to bring about an
imbalance between the existing havingness of the body and the hunger of
the body, the existing output of the thetan and the absorption of that
output. Something has happened there. Something has occurred with regard
to anchor points and the relationship.

And it's the easiest thing in the world to solve it. All you do is
repair the havingness. It's simplicity. But you've got to understand
what its mechanism is in order to know when that simplicity suddenly has
to be taken up, when you have to grab that preclear by the scruff of the
neck.

The other manifestation is the preclear goes less alert. We call it
sliding into the bank. Why would he slide into his bank unless his
havingness was reduced? The bank somehow or other got spongelike. It
suddenly wanted some energy. It went slurp, and the preclear went duuhh.

Now, it's very funny that you can ask a preclear a question that will do
this to him at once, almost. It's very strange that you can do this, but
you shouldn't think of it as a very strange thing.

You can suddenly say to the preclear, "What about unconsciousness? Have
you ever been unconscious? Were you unconscious very long? Anybody say
anything to you about being unconscious at the time you were
unconscious? Did anybody speak in your vicinity at the time that you
went unconscious?"

And he'll go duuhh. You'll find out that every period of unconsciousness
is immediately and intimately associated with loss of havingness. The
unconsciousness ensued because of loss of havingness.

There are two responses to the loss of havingness. One is the emergency
response of agitation. "We have to get more alert. Somehow or other we
have to be on the qui vive. We have to get ourselves up on the step. We
have to get ready to take off and fly out of here. It's getting
dangerous around here." You get the idea? That's the agitation.

And the other is, give up. See, "Well, we'll lose it. We'll just lose
it. Wants my appendix? Okay." Earlier times: "Wanted my head. All right.
I give up."

And these are turned on by the darnedest things. And we wouldn't begin
to be so adventurous as to give anybody a list of the things which would
turn on in every preclear all of his anaten or agitation buttons because
there would just be thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands
and millions of these buttons - various things you could say or your
attitudes that would suddenly turn on the response of agitation or the
response of anaten in the preclear.

So the devil with trying not to do it. Don't concentrate on that.
Concentrate on something much more profitable. See it (snap) and fix it
(snap); that's what you must concentrate on. And it doesn't matter what
you say about processes. It doesn't matter how you process. It doesn't
matter the charm with which you run the session or the gentleness with
which you play upon your violin. If you neglect this one, your sessions
are going to leave the rails, and there you are going to be sitting out
on one of the crescent drives of London saying, "Where is the preclear?
Where is the session?"

Well, it's back there where havingness dropped markedly. Got it? That's
where it is; that's where it is. That's where that session is sitting.

Now, that's a funny thing. Supposing you did notice this an hour late.
At least please know what you neglected to observe. Know that it was
there somewhere. Got it? It was there somewhere. You didn't observe it.
Somehow or other, the classical schoolbook solution, the thing - a
person didn't twitch. You say, "I'm sure I didn't see him twitch. I know
he didn't bog. He's been sitting there perfectly alert, talking in a
normal tone of voice, but we're just not getting anywhere. And all of a
sudden there he is, falling off on his face on the floor or something. I
can't imagine what happened. There certainly was some warning here
someplace."

Well, instead of recriminating yourself and going out and buying a lot
of sackcloth (which is quite expensive these days) and looking for some
ashes (which very seldom fall out of an electric fire, anyway), you -
instead of spending any time worrying about this, simply know, and with
security - not because I tell you so, because your experience will each
time dictate to you that this was the thing to do: just consider some
way or other you missed the boat on the subject of havingness, that's
all. You just missed it somewhere along here. And even though the
preclear is lying there all crumpled up in a ball or something of the
sort, let's repair the havingness.

How are you going to repair it? You notice I didn't say, "remedy it"; I
said, "repair it." Well, there are several ways to remedy havingness,
all of which are adequately covered in the Six Basic Processes. You have
the individual mock up at a gradient scale to a point where he can mock
up, and then you have him take in and throw these things away until he
can handle whatever mass this was. That's a classic remedy of
havingness.

Repairing havingness is something else, and you must differentiate this.
Some students have gone through the HPA Course without understanding my,
don't I sound accusative here this evening - but they have gone through
the HPA Course without understanding that repairing havingness and
remedying havingness were not necessarily the same thing at all. See,
there's a difference here, very definitely.

And I have picked up some of your pcs who have had half a Remedy of
Havingness run on them. They've never been made to mock up and throw
away anything. That would be a necessary part of Remedy of Havingness.
It would get the preclear over having to have. Got the idea? That's what
a total Remedy of Havingness would do.

So actually, what many an auditor has done mistakenly is simply to
repair havingness. He gives the preclear havingness. He has the preclear
mock up some mass and has the preclear take it into the preclear's body.
You get the idea? And he says, "Do that again. All right. Mock up
another Sun. Now take it in the body. Now mock up another one and take
it in. And mock up another one and take it in. Mock up another one..."

"Ah," he says, "that's fine. I've remedied the preclear's havingness."
No, he hasn't.

No. He's repaired the preclear's havingness, you see. He's given the
preclear havingness, that's all. That's all. And it's much less than
half the process. Don't think it's even half the process. It's not. It's
maybe 1/1,000th of the process.

Because if you did a complete Remedy of Havingness, you'd have to take
every kind of a significant object that you or the preclear could
possibly dream up, and you would have to mock it up and have the
preclear push it in or throw it away until he could both accept it and
reject it without any further question. You see, that would be the
essence of a total Remedy of Havingness. That's a - it would be - that's
a big subject. But giving the preclear havingness or repairing his
havingness is a very small and easy subject.

A preclear is suddenly out of mass. You don't have to feed him up for
the rest of his life. Let's feed him past the point of agitation or
anaten. One or the other, he exhibited a twitch or he fogged out somehow
or another. He was less alert. All right. It's up to you now to get over
the hump. He has lost something. Something has disappeared in the way of
masses.

Now, the exact mechanics of its disappearance is something that you're
not terribly interested in exploring with that preclear at that moment,
see? You're not interested in it. Why aren't you interested in it?
Because exploring something is the direct opposite to repairing
havingness; direct opposite, because it as-ises.

You know, almost anything a thetan looks at, if he looked at it long
enough and hard enough and expertly enough, it would probably disappear.
He could look it out of existence, in other words. So you make a
preclear as-is or look out of existence this or that or the other thing,
and you've done what? You've reduced his havingness.

So we go into it this way. The preclear all of a sudden began to, you
know, show some mild - he started to scream or something like that, you
know. Something like this happened. And you became aware after a while -
after a long pause, you became aware of the fact that the preclear's
havingness was down.

Now, this oddity, this oddity could occur. You could start to ask him
how it happened and just reduce it out of sight. You could just not only
have him lost in the quicksand without even his coat on the bank, you
could have dropped an anvil into the pool, too. All you had to do was
just discuss with him how this occurred.

You could say, "Well now, perhaps in the last few minutes you felt some
feeling of loss or you felt like something was suddenly missing. Did you
feel that in the last few minutes?"

And the preclear would say, "Oh, aarrvvuhh, kind of, I..

And you keep this up very long, you'll find the preclear is even beyond
being salvaged by a dredge. He becomes a case for the mortuary,
practically. He's just gone. He leaves the session saying, "I feel fine
on account of auditing." All right.

What happens then? He gets agitated or goes anaten, you remedy
havingness in the final step or you simply repair havingness. Now, we
needn't close the subject down to a point where we say, "Well, you
mustn't remedy havingness" - step 6 [51 of the old Six Basic Processes -
"you just mustn't do this at that time." I don't know why you shouldn't,
except you have other things to do and other fish to fry and other
things to straighten out in the preclear, you see? You want to get some
other items going.

Don't think, by the way, that a total remedy of havingness is a total
remedy of the preclear. You might be led to believe that all you had to
do was bring about a total remedy of havingness and you would have a
total Clear. This is not the case, because mass is a specialized thing
with a thetan, and he has so many other concerns besides mass, that you
would only bring him up just so far, you see?

So you're totally justified in going on and doing the thing that you
ordinarily would do: simply repair his havingness. You give him some
havingness. So he twitches, goes anaten - either way, you make sure he
gets some havingness.

Do you know there's a very covert way of doing it? I want to tell you
this. This is a very special method which I very often use. I recommend
it to you very highly. You take him across the street and give him a cup
of tea and a sandwich. This might not occur to you, you know, sometimes.
He appears to be pretty agitated all of a sudden, and so forth. Well,
you just kind of two-way comm the whole thing out of session, you say,
"It's time for a tea break," and go over and give him a ham sandwich and
a cup of tea.

You'd be surprised, but the havingness - twitching and so forth, will
reduce, and you can get on with the session - remembering that he lost
havingness on the process that you were running and making sure that you
don't run that process on him again until he's had a remedy of
havingness. You got the idea?

Male voice: All right.

All right. Now, that's a covert way of remedying havingness, but that's
a crude example of what you're really doing with the preclear. It isn't
necessary to give him a cup of tea. That's the most obvious way of
remedying his havingness.

There are several ways of doing this in processing, and the simplest and
most elementary of these ways and the way which I have most commonly
used (and which I don't necessarily recommend just because I use it),
but when I find things going by the boards or something for the
preclear, I find him getting dazed and - I do two things. I right away
suspect that he has just found something wrong with the way the session
was running. See, I suspect that this is the case. I right away assume
this is the case. The preclear doped a little bit, so I can see that the
ARC between us has dropped. That's the first thing I can see.

But this is also expressed in terms of havingness, don't you see?
Havingness is always mixed up with ARC one way or the other. It is the
excuse to communicate. So there's a communication break here of some
kind or another.

Now, if I were very, very clever, I could immediately patch up the
communication break and carry on with the session and have the preclear
get immediately alert, providing I were not running a process at that
time which as-ised more havingness. You get the idea?

Supposing we were running - we were running this process: "All right.
Mock up something." Now, this is the exact process I run for this type
of repair.

"Mock up something. Okay. Now shove it into your body."

I don't say, "Push"; it's too effeminate. "Shove it into your body."

And a preclear says, "Okay. Yeah, I did."

"Fine." I say, "Mock up something else. What is it?"

:'Oh," he says, "it's a big dinosaur."

'All right. Shove it into your body."

I don't say, "Pull it in," I don't say, "Postulate it in," or anything.
I just insist that he get good and meaty about the whole thing, you
know? We're in effort now; we're going to do effort on the thing.

"All right, mock it up. Shove it in. Mock it up. Shove it into the body.
Mock it up. Shove it in."

Of course, if you mock it up and shove it in, in one quarter too long,
you'll get anaten on the preclear, too. But much less so when you're
remedying havingness - I mean, when you're repairing havingness. And a
Remedy of Havingness, of course, is cancelled to some degree if you keep
doing it from the same quarter all the time, you know. You've got to
change locations. You've got to make the preclear mock it up out here in
front and push it in and mock it up in back and push it in and so forth.
That's the best way to do it.

Well, he went anaten. He was running this process. Then what is there
left? He's repairing his havingness. You get this? He's repairing his
havingness, and he went anaten. What is there left? More repair of
havingness.

I've had a preclear be almost totally unconscious for a half an hour,
actually no longer capable of sitting in a chair, lying on the floor,
repairing havingness, so anaten that the preclear couldn't answer or
acknowledge that they were doing it. But the preclear was doing it all
the time and in some weird way was alert to what I was doing.

"Mock it up. Shove it in."

I've had preclears couldn't mock up anything, suddenly discover that
they could mock up some blackness, and had them mock up blackness and
shove it in and mock up blackness and shove it in and mock up blackness
. . . They're just out, out like a light. Something is happening.
Something is happening here. A whole bank full of unconsciousness seems
to be blowing off in some fashion or another. Keep it up, keep it up,
keep it up. All of a sudden they get - pretty soon they get bright and
alert and (sigh). And the strange part of it is maybe after that, for
the first time, the preclear will run. The reception of havingness in
this case was unconsciousness. I say, what do you do if a repair of
havingness doesn't work? You repair havingness. Got it? Because it does
work. He can always mock up something.

You don't have him lift it in, in a ladylike way. You have him shove it
in. You don't listen to all his yak about "I really can't tell whether
I've mocked up anything or not." You don't give him that at all. You
don't give in to this. You say, "Well, all right. What are you looking
at?"

And the fellow says, "Nnnnnnnn - nothing, nothing, nothing."

"Oh, come on. What are you looking at?"

Now, of course, you know you're going to as-is a little havingness doing
this.

"Oh, nothing."

"Come on. What are you looking at?"

"Oh, nothing but these rockets, just like always, you know."

You say, "Fine. Mock up some rockets," and you're always safe, you see?

"Nothing but this blackness? All right. Mock up some blackness." And you
work with him awhile until he's mocked up the blackness. He can see this
stuff, he can do various things with this.

Now, it is a great oddity, it's a great oddity that most of the
techniques which straighten out a thetan wreck a GE, because they're all
thinkingnesses. Only thing there with a thetan is a change of
consideration, and very much thinking around a GE or a body will make a
disappearance of the body. So they're antipathetic processes, aren't
they? Hm?

But havingness doesn't do anything very much to a thetan, oddly enough.
So it looks to me like if you lean over on the side of havingness, if
you catch this moment of agitation or anaten and repair the preclear's
havingness in some fashion or another, it looks to me like you will then
rather uniformly win with auditing.

Always your session went off the rails with an agitation or an anaten of
the preclear. And anything you did from there on was useless. Actually
true. Anything you did from there on was useless. I don't - matter how
many hours you did it or how beautifully you did it or anything of the
sort. And that was probably in the first few minutes of play.

Now, one of the ways a preclear can be sent anaten is to have his
attention fixed on something and have you insist that he take his
attention off of it, and it thereupon smacks him, a thetan, in the face.
You know, the present time problem may be braced out here somewhere. You
take the preclear's attention off of it - and it gives him havingness,
not the body, you see, in some fashion or another; but he gets a
problem, and it comes right on in on him in some fashion. He's liable to
go anaten there too.

But that, again, is just lack of motivators, lack of havingness on the
part of the body. There are other mechanisms. They're - all have to do
with havingness, and they're all gotten around, really, if you want to
be big and round and general about the whole thing, with a repair of
that havingness. These problems are gotten around with a repair of that
havingness, see?

So you could have suddenly insisted on processing the preclear without
any attention to his present time problem and have had him go anaten or
become agitated as a result, see? That would be a reason he became
agitated, wouldn't it? Well, the odd part of it is, without paying any
attention to the present time problem, even yet all you have to do is
ask him to mock up something and shove it into the body, and he will
come out of it, and the present time problem has a tendency to move on
out.

You got that? So you see, even that is covered by it.

It's real crude auditing, by the way, to have a big present time problem
sitting out here, and then you insist the preclear look elsewhere.

That's pretty bum auditing. Because it will merely collapse the present
time problem on the preclear, and it'll get more and more serious the
further the session goes, because you've yanked his attention off of it.
This is pretty crude. But yet it will move out if you simply start
repairing his havingness.

So there is a point of insight demanded, and it is that point where the
preclear all of a sudden experiences, for whatever reason we do not
care, a loss which results in an agitation, an increased hunger, you
might say, on the part of the body, an agitation on the body or anaten.
And it's markedly, physically observable as agitation or anaten. It's
physically observed by the auditor - it can be. And the good auditor
notices it quick and immediately takes a good remedy for it. One way or
another, he repairs the preclear's havingness.

Now, it might be interesting to you that there is - are several
consideration processes which also remedy havingness and do remedy
havingness. Motivators. Just inventing problems all by itself will
repair havingness. There's a great class of processes, all of which
furnish havingness to the preclear.

Now, it really isn't necessary to do very much with these processes,
however, if you do the other. This is very interesting, you see. Now,
we're only talking about an immediate condition of the preclear. We're
only talking about sessions as they run. We're only talking about where
they go off of their wheels. We know now where this session departs from
the roadbed. It departs when havingness is reduced. And it goes back on
the road when havingness is repaired.

[auditor]

ANGLO-SAXON THOUGHT

A lecture given on 12 January 1956

I want to talk to you tonight about the practicality of Scientology, and
although you may consider this a rather odd subject at this stage and
time, at the same time it may straighten out several items that you may
have wandered off into one way or the other, and put you a bit back on
the road. It might clarify a viewpoint for you, regarding Scientology.

We might say Scientology is a great many things, but it is primarily the
study of knowing how to know. It is a designed science, very arduously
exact in its composition, with regard to axioms. There are only
fifty-five axioms in Scientology, as differentiated from Dianetics,
which contains two hundred and lord knows what - almost three hundred
axioms.

The materials of Scientology are essentially practical materials. Many
people are prone to believe that Scientology is a theoretical science.
We have about 18,876,942.8 too many theoretical sciences. It's just too
damn many for man's frail back to understand or stand up to.

Somebody comes charging in and he says, "Now," he says, "this is a
theoretical science: quantum mechanics. It's theoretical. We make atom
bombs with it."

"Oh, do you? Do you make atom bombs with it, really?" I ask my fellow
classmates these days.

Hah. "Zut," as the French would comment. They don't. The manufacture of
atom bombs is an empirical activity. Now the difference between
theoretical and empirical is a considerable difference, much bigger
difference than the spelling of two big words. Theoretical means an
intuitive (and to hell with whether or not it applies to anything)
construction of a bunch of guff which added up, lets you figure-figure.
That's, for my money - is a theoretical science.

They have uses. Remember, they do have uses, but they are not
necessarily substantiated by any real phenomena to be found in your
universe, the physical universe or the other fellow's.

Mathematics just loves these things. It's just enamored with the whole
idea of the abstract. Did you ever know a mathematician? If this society
has any cancer in it, it's mathematics. The mathematician has sailed
forth from the untruths of arithmetic, which he imbibed undoubtedly at
the age of five, six or seven; and has sailed forth from that unreality
that all. twos plus all twos equal all fours (which isn't true either,
you know); and has gone in for it left and right to a point where he can
prove anything is anything anywhere; and he has set a fashion which is
directly contrary to the spirit of the word science itself.

The German has often proved warlike. Every now and then we have to go
over and punch him to keep from getting knocked flat. Every now and then
somebody has to do something because Germany is erupting in war. Germany
is exhibiting some sort of a strange madness, it's spinning in circles
like a large whirling dervish, and it's going to eat up everybody and
knock everybody flat and do all sorts of interesting things. And we have
to do something about it.

Well, what drives them mad? There must be something in the German nation
drives them mad.

Now let's just neglect the language, and let's look at what they call
"logic" in Germany. Have you ever had to study German logic? Well,
Germany, a few decades ago, was the leader in new sciences, new chemical
developments and so on. The world leader - must have been acknowledged
so, or my professors in engineering school wouldn't have insisted that I
understand German so I could read all the latest scientific work, and
yet they did insist that.

I used to tell them, "What are you talking about? The stuff will be
translated into English sooner or later if there is anything to it."

But they wouldn't have anything of this. They said, "Germany is the
great leader in scientific thought."

Well, if Germany is the leader of scientific thought, we had certainly
better look at what happened to science after Germany became the leader.
We can even look further than that. We can look back to the days of
Kant, the great Chinaman of Kљnigsberg, who, in one fell gulp, destroyed
the entire field and activity and game of philosophy. Because there's
been no significant philosophy before Kant - I mean, after Kant, and
before Kant there were some philosophers around. So one assumes that
something happened there. And we read very recently that, fortunately,
Kantian philosophy has been on the ebb for a long time in England and is
almost extinct here. And from these ashes new thought and conquest in
the field of thought is arising.

Now it's quite esoteric a subject to bring up here, but it's not really
ungermane because we are dealing with the thought and knowledge of man.
So let's take a look at the thought and knowledge of man, just as such,
because we are dealing with a science which is a study of his knowledge.
And we discover that some time back about 1790 this fellow Kant
discovered an innate moral sense and - begin to criticize pure reason
and a bunch of other things. Wonderful stuff.

Have you ever read Kant? Even in English, have you ever looked over any
lines of Kant? Most fascinating stuff you ever read in your life. You
know how German reads anyhow: Throw the cow over the fence some hay.
Well, he modifies all adjectival clauses with adverbial clauses, which
are modified in their turn by adjectival phrases, and by the time you've
disentangled a paragraph of Kant, you've lost interest in the whole
subject.

So I can't really discover how he possibly could have corrupted English
reason and philosophy since it's impossible to envision anybody ever
read him, except for this one fact: He must have been so impressive that
everybody else found himself powerless to make nothing out of him and
so, therefore, said, "He wins."

Now, here - here we have an imported German philosophy of a long, long
time ago - 150 years - this came across the channel. A hundred years ago
something else came across the channel, it was called "psychology." lt
was dreamed up by a gent named Wundt - the only Wundt. Professor Wundt,

University of Leipzig, 1879, dreamed up, coined, patented and
Germanicated the world of thought with something called "psychology."

It's quite interesting, quite interesting that these two things, Kantian
philosophy, with the innate moral sense, and a little bit later (half a
century later, or more - almost a century, by the way, eighty years) we
found psychology coming from these same precincts. And we also find that
the German idea of logic is to be found in both of these (quote) great
works (unquote) - the German idea of logic.

Now, I can see right away that you're not terribly interested or
fascinated with the idea of the German logic, and you think I'm just
upbraiding the entire subject of psychology. I'm not. It ruined itself
years ago. It's passЋ. It's like a lot of French words that came over -
they died. Anyhow ...

Here, however, is something that is very germane and intimate to us.
When we inherited these various Germanic types of thought, we inherited
at the same time the laborious effort of the German to think, and it
hurts a German to think. It's a terrible thing to see the writhing that
goes on with a German wrestling with a thought. And that's what drives
him out beyond his borders and makes him conquer the rest of the world
every now and then.

For instance, logic to a German would be a very curious thing if you
yourself wanted to examine it. I call to your attention several books on
the subject of Germanic logic. It has been inspected many times by
English writers, always with some amazement. For instance, the German is
not beyond doing this: He said, "There are twenty factors here. Nineteen
of them are untrue. Therefore, the true twentieth we take."

You say, "Ah-ah-ah, wait a minute!"

No, the German doesn't wait a minute. He takes that twentieth factor and
plunges in. If all factors are proved untrue and he has one left, he
will use it as a fact. It should be very interesting to you because it
shows you there's a certain fallaciousness then in this type of
thinking. There's a name for this type of logic; the German calls it a
deductive type of logic with a large German name, but it's a fact that
it has been used. It is not without success - not without success. If
you've - carefully proved a lot of factors untrue, you have reduced the
possibility of the remaining factors being untrue, but the funny part of
it is, they all might be untrue.

And so it was in the field of thought and philosophy. The Germans never
did have, evidently, a true principle. But they'd knock out all these
principles as untrue and then they'd say that one is true. And it kind
of messed things up a little bit. It's almost a totally theoretical type
of science.

Now, German mathematics is horrible to behold. Did you ever study
topology? Well, I doubt you have because it's a rather recent
mathematics, it's only about a quarter of a century old and it has some
usages to an engineer. But a study of topology - you get headaches, you
know - because it's all theoretically inclined, whereby you take a small
subject or a small section of any problem (this is one of the
operations), and then you consider that the whole problem is represented
by the small section - solve the small section and you do other things.

Newton was doing something like this with calculus, but that's one of
the minor principles of topology. I'm not trying to teach you topology.
I'm just talking to you about theoretical sciences.

And here's this fascinating thing then, of a series of mathematics which
are now and then useful, but which have begun - have been made to look
more and more like sciences. They've begun to look more and more like
precision things. They're not precise. They're about as solid as walking
on skim ice on the millpond. You know, you go splash, if you trusted
them all the way through, because they are unexamined premises. The
Germanic reasoning would soar into so many unexamined premises, and that
he would come up with so many right answers, testifies that he is
inexhaustibly thorough in applying what he does know. But it doesn't
mean that any of the things that he invented in philosophy or science
are true. It's an interesting thing. It just doesn't mean that any of
these things are very, very workable.

Since the world cut loose from German chemistry, the English and the
American chemist and biochemist have gone by the German chemist as
though he was in full reverse. The number of chemical developments since
Germany was debunked from her ascendancy in chemistry are more numerous
than in the whole remainder of the century when Germany was in charge.
Just because we all of a sudden said, "Look, we too can think. Our
chemists can be subsidized. It isn't necessary to import Professor
Weeniewurst from the depths of the Baloney Woods in order to make stinks
in this laboratory. Let's get some chap down here who's been at work
with Cornell and Wood, huh, you know, and let's give him the same salary
and see what he does."

The fact of the case is that about the most wasted thing that you could
possibly do at this time would be to study German to read new German
chemical developments. Not because the German chemical industry is flat
on its back, they're still developing, they're still doing wonderful
things, but now that the chemical industry of the world is separated
from the German, boy, have we got some chemistry. Terrific! I mean, some
of the things they're doing with - odd things that you have to do with
every day-paint. You get into a shop, something is wrapped in paper, and
just a few years ago that paper probably would have deteriorated. A
couple of raindrops and it'd have a hole in it or something like that;
the bleaches, for instance, that made that paper that paper and so on.
You'd buy some cheap writing paper, you'd write a letter, by the time it
got through the post to your friend, why, it was yellow. These are
interesting things. The bleaches on them, in other words, discolored.
They don't do that these days. And you know that's happened within your
memory.

Well, I don't see any reason for a Germanic type of reasoning to
continue to dominate the field of thought. And I wouldn't talk to you
about this any other way than - if I thought a few of you weren't still
being dominated by some of these Germanic reasonings. If I thought that
we were all clean and clear of this Aryan heresy, or whatever it is, be
all right. Well, we've been educated, most of us, in a period when the
school itself was dominated by the German attitude.

Since the German considers himself the world's greatest educator, he
will tell you at once that there is no system like the German system for
educating everybody. I don't know what they do with their boys, but I'm
sure they're well educated. I know I got drunk with several of them;
they couldn't hold their liquor. I don't think much of their educational
system. University of Virginia could give them hands down - hold more
liquor than that.

So, we are, actually, very markedly coming out of a sort of a dark age
of philosophy. And we're coming out by another route than we had just a
few years ago. Scientology may be a peculiar phenomenon in the whole
world of philosophy, but actually it is not a peculiar phenomenon when
one understands that the entire Anglo-Saxon ability to write, to reason,
to experiment has beenall the years of its civilization - suppressed
either by the Roman or the German schools of thought. Actually, for the
first time an Anglo-Saxon is thinking a thought. He isn't being
overpowered by the magnificent laws and so forth of somebody else. You
get the idea? We sort of climbed sideways a little bit and took a look
around and said, "You know, we don't have to reason a priori or 'ass
posteriori.' " (I always suspected reasoning like that. I thought that
it had something to do with the second dynamic for years. Awfully bad
joke, but ... )

We look around - we look around and we see, on every hand, a domination
in the field of thought, and we ourselves are only being alarming, where
we are being alarming, to the savants in their universities and so
forth, where we are apparently being free of a standard line of thought,
in some fashion.

What we say - I suppose it'd go home the same way to a Chinese or a
Malay or a German - but what we say is, to them, short-circuitedly
plain. It's awfully, bluntly plain, you know. I mean, you say, "Well,
there's a mental image picture." Comes up, the thing can react - it can
activate against the individual. Body made it, it can affect the body in
its turn. You have an operation, you get a mental image picture - knocks
hell out of you. And we don't say, "The boop-didap of the lu-a-wha as
told by Professor Wop-wop and examined in the earlier yop-yop of the
school of-and to be found in the library at Alexandria under references
of Cicero and so forth. Blob, blob, blob, blob, blob."

"No," we say, "There is a thing and it does this, and this you can do
about it - bang, bang, bang."

Let me call to your attention that that is essentially Anglo-Saxon in
its approach, awfully Anglo-Saxon. "There it is, what are we going to do
about it? Bang," see. Terribly direct, not circuitous. We don't sneak up
on anything. We say, "What do you know?" Rap. Bang. Thoughtwise that is
normally the way we operate.

The lack of - actual lack of popularity, to the guy in the street, of
the mental (quote) sciences (unquote) - they are unpopular with him, you
know, if you haven't examined him. We're not, but the idea of psychiatry
and that sort of thing (no cracks against psychiatry) - he's just
confused. He doesn't know what that's all about. You get the idea? You
talk to him and he doesn't quite grasp this thing. Boy, he has the idea
of someone with a pair of spectacles, you know, and a long, black
ribbon, and he's got a peculiar notion about this. Why? Why does he have
this peculiar notion?

Obviously if he has a peculiar notion in it, it must be outside of his
framework of thought. And he's almost been educated to believe, then,
that anything in the field of the mind or that has anything to do with
his own thinkingness, is outside of his own grasp. How could it possibly
be outside of his own grasp? Now you see where we've come? I'm not
damning any of these sciences. I am merely saying that we have done
something new and startling. It is startling to the German, believe me.
Wow! You ought to talk to some of these Germans about Scientolijakagika,
or whatever the hell they call it. You ought to - they're startled!

But they're walking around it in about the slowest circumnavigation that
you have ever witnessed. Do you know that a body of auditors has sat in
Berlin for five years (did you know this?) and they're still examining
the subject. And they've never audited anybody! I think this is
wonderful. But this is a typical Germanic approach and it's not the way
we do things.

Psychiatry, here and there, shook free from this type of approach, and
where it did, it made marked progress in England. But it still had not
divorced itself entirely, you understand. So that psychiatry is, in
England today, two sciences. It is the English psychiatrist, thinking
the way he thinks in order to make people well, and the German
Continental tradition. And all the textbooks are written in the German
Continental tradition and very few of the textbooks in the English
tradition. And where does that put psychiatry as a gain?

Do you realize that if all the people, all the psychiatrists who had an
English or American viewpoint, who are trying to be practical, who are
trying to be direct, all got together and said, "Let's knock our
experience into some kind of shape here and codify it and call this
Western psychiatry or something of the sort. Do you know that they'd be
awfully successful, and do you know that this guy in the street wouldn't
be worried about the subject of insanity? He wouldn't be worried about
it.

The government itself wouldn't have any difficulty hiring flight
surgeons. But right now they're saying, "Let's see, what do we do? We
know it's not very effective."

What do they mean by "it"? They mean two things: "it" when they say,
"it" - psychiatry, you see. And they immediately get across and split on
this horse of "it." Psychiatry isn't an "it"; it's two-headed, today.
But maybe it itself ("it") doesn't entirely recognize this fact. If it
did entirely recognize this fact, there was new thought being injected
every time the clock ticked into the mental sciences in the United
States and Great Britain and in France. If it recognized that, and if it
recognized that that material was now bounteous enough to codify, we'd
have a fight on our hands. But the funny part of it is, that we'd
probably join up or make them join us, you see. It would be less of a
fight because we are still in protest against something which isn't
entirely psychiatry, you see. We're still in protest against something
that isn't entirely mathematics; something that isn't entirely
philosophy. It is where these subjects came from.

Now I don't say that German thinking is bad. It's merely torturous. It's
not particularly fitted. The German is circuitous. He has done wonderful
things - over what period of time? God help us all.

But times have changed. We no longer have to be dominated by that. And
we have, as the first symptom of this revolt, which makes us startling,
an entire philosophical and scientific concept, complete - lock, stock
and barrelin Scientology, simply because, probably, I was the first
American or Anglo-Saxon engineer that ever dabbled around in the field
of the mind and couldn't make any sense out of it.

Had to know something about it, do you understand? Had to know something
about it, needed the information, started digging it up, found out there
wasn't anything there, went putting together various observations in a
highly direct, brutally direct fashion. So much so that the chair of
physics (and you know physics is a pretty direct science) at Columbia
University once admonished his class that there were other things beyond
the sciences, there must be, because of the diabolical accuracy of that
fellow Hubbard. He called it "diabolical accuracy," a physicist who is
accustomed to accuracy.

Well, what am I being accurate in? I'm being engineeringly accurate,
that's all, in a field which was really never before truly invaded by
the Anglo-Saxon. He always felt too much reverence. Well, of course,
we've gunned them down twice in my lifetime; I don't know why I should
be reverent to these boys. I mean, let's put it up in terms of force;
the German understands that well. I've swapped shots with him - and he
missed. I didn't.

We have something new here. We have something new here. But we don't
have an isolated gimmick called Scientology which suddenly and
sporadically arises - we don't know how - in this society. We have
something entirely different. We have a fortuitous application of
Anglo-Saxon logic to the field of the mind. First time it's done, so
it's startling. It's being done rather thoroughly, so it probably won't
be done again. But nevertheless, this is something new that has happened
and this is what has happened. And it isn't a guy named Hubbard, it's a
guy that was born and raised in the Anglo-Saxon frame of reference:
You've got to get the answer, you got to be direct, you got to get right
in there and get the job done, you know, that sort of thing.

Well, you can sit in the parlor if you want to and discuss the moral
aspects of the square root of ninety, but I happen to have the answer
right here and now. And if you aren't going to tell me what the answer
is this very minute, why, I'm going to figure it out, that's all. And
you can go on discussing the square root of ninety, as you have since
the turn of two millennia ago, but that isn't suiting our purpose.

So that's the first and foremost thing which Scientology is, is a direct
and deliberate revolt, not against a science, but against a type of
thinking which is foreign to getting the job done. It's a direct revolt
against a domination of Anglo-Saxon thought by Italian, Roman and German
philosophers and scientists. And is something which would naturally
conclude from a nation having been disgraced twice in the fields of
Mars. 1 don't feel the faintest reverence for any Roman philosopher or
Germanic philosopher or any German scientist or any early Italian
scientist. This is just, "So what?"

I read Gibbon with amusement; I'd just as soon read Cicero or somebody.
It's perfectly all right. I also read science fiction. Get the idea? I'd
just as soon use topology or something somebody at MIT invented, you
know. We've gotten away from a domination of our thinkingness, of our
scientific procedures, of exactly how often we shake the mixer above the
test tube before we add the bichloride of mercury, you know. We've
gotten away from all that. We're making stuff in a test tube, and the
way we do it is our business, you know.

In view of the fact that the universities of the Anglo-Saxon world are
still at this time dominated almost entirely by the Scholastic - it's
fantastic enough, it still is - the Scholastic type of teaching and
thinking actually more or less disappeared in around 15 - 1600. But the
tradition of it has kept on. And we are still dominated in our
universities by Roman, Greek and German thinking and philosophy.

If you were to go down here to London University and enroll in the
School of Philosophy, you'd sit there, god help you, studying Hegel and
Kant and philosophy, philosophy. And you'd find out that the early
English philosopher, for the most part, was so dominated by the German
and Roman philosophy that he himself never got out from underneath it
and never produced an Anglo-Saxon philosophy just as such. Bang! You
know? Hume, Locke struck in there in that direction, but nevertheless
they were writing right straight out of the textbooks of the Greek and
the Roman and the German.

Now, why would you have any trouble with formal education, hm? Now we
start to get very precise. Why would you have any trouble with formal
educational systems and boards? It's because you're a revolutionary
against something they have not yet recognized as something they are
revolting against, too. Everywhere in the field of education we hear new
thought inabout how to educate, and where is that thought coming from?
Is it coming from Berlin and Der Storsmuf Kindergarten? No, it's not.
It's springing up in English schools, in American schools, in New York,
in California and London, Cambridge. These places there's - where
educators are being educated, they're thinking new thoughts on this
subject. A whole generation will go by before they throw over that type
of thinking in which they have labored all these centuries and which has
held them back in their cultural progress.

And you go up to a professor (I don't care a professor of what) and you
say, "I am a Scientologist. I can do something about the IQ of your
class." He's liable to look over your textbook and find out it is not in
Kantian English, and at once will say, "Heresy has risen!" But where has
the heresy arisen, for god's sakes? In whose camp? In the German camp.
That's where the heresy is. The heresy is against Germanic and Roman
thought, not against Anglo-Saxon thought. Something important for you to
recognize because if you know these few facts, you can make mincemeat
out of these guys.

Say, "Well, it's all very well to support the Latin philosopher. We're
more at home, you know, in English. It's all very well to know how to
get a Greek over psychosis, but we happen to be dealing with Englishmen,
you know." You can be nasty if you know this, because what I'm telling
you is true. If you don't believe that it's true, go and talk to a few
of these boys. And you will find out that they consider the type of
thought entirely bred and born from the type of English used, which must
be as nearly as possible a translation of the style which is called
"scientific style" in Latin and German, and which isn't much of a style
at all. It's beautiful mud.

Now, let me call to your attention that there are several very clean,
clear sciences in existence. One of them is navigation. Navigation is
one of the darnedest things man ever started to do. It's a fantastic
thing, navigation, how you get from one point of the world to another.
Well, you would be amazed, but it's an English science. You probably
don't know that, but it is. A great seafaring nation had to know how to
get from one point of land to another across a wilderness of ocean, and
they managed it. They had to build a chronometer to do it and all this
sort of thing. People were around issuing huge prizes for anybody that'd
build an accurate clock that would run for a while.

But Anglo-Saxon thinking has gone on further than this, and do you know
how a navigator gets there today? You probably don't even know this;
it's very well established though. He turns on a gadget up on the bridge
that tells him his longitude and latitude. The German didn't have a
single thing to do with that; it's called Loran, it's called long-range
navigation. It's strictly Anglo-Saxon electronics. You have various
stations situated in various parts of the world, and where those
stations are, the distance they are away and the angle to the station,
is registered in a small box on the bridge which goes whir-click and it
says you're at latitude so-and-so, longitude so-and-so. That's how we
navigate today. We don't run down icebergs anymore. It's gone out of
style.

Now that's Loran. Aircraft navigates itself similarly. Of course, it's
because we build a very fine bubble octant. German bubble octant is
something you pick up in two grips. We build a little eight-ounce
gadget. You look up through the turret - the navigational turret of an
aircraft, and you go zing and zing and zing, take the average of your
sight and compute it out and it tells us where our aircraft is. That's
why we don't keep getting airliners lost anymore. That's a very precise
thing, this thing called navigation. It's how to get from here to there.
If you were still going on Germanic navigation, every once in a while
you'd come up with this answer: you can't get there from here!

We have another science - another science that's a very precise science,
which is an Anglo-Saxon science. It's called physics - called physics.
The Greek science is called natural philosophy and includes all sorts of
bric-a-brac, the like of which is wonderful to behold. But the modern
science of physics was born in England under the hands of Sir Isaac
Newton and it couldn't be called, this natural philosophy, a science,
until he came along and kicked it together. Furthermore, some of the
more reliable higher mathematics were invented here in England,
completely independent of Latin and German mathematics. Calculus is one
of them, and everybody uses calculus these days. Isaac Newton went home
one night and couldn't sleep and invented calculus.

So there have been other invasions, other revolts, but there's never
been a revolt quite as intimate to the individual as this particular
one. The Anglo-Saxon says, 'We've fooled around enough with this idea of
the mind, we've fooled around enough with this. And now we're just going
to directly do something about it; just bluntly, directly do something
about it right there, and we're going to have to have a good result. You
know, we're going to have a result which is acceptable to us."

Now, I don't think you would credit the fact that a mental result
acceptable to a Russian is not the mental result acceptable to us. I
think you'd really - even a Scientologist - kind of have to stretch his
wits and look over acceptance level very carefully. But it's perfectly
true that what is acceptable to us is not necessarily acceptable to
other people. But the odd part of it is, is what is accepted to us is
sooner or later bought by other people. I imagine in Red China right
this minute if you went up to Peking and were introduced into the office
of the Red commissar in charge of China, why, you'd probably find
something - the stove was made in Manchester and the linoleum likewise
and so on. It'd be quite amusing. It'll be American and British
furniture. They make beautiful furniture in China, too. I never could
understand this, but every time I'd see a rich merchant or anything like
this in the Orient and so on, I was always running into all of the
comforts of life having been fursnished - he could afford them, you see
- having been furnished by the Anglo-Saxon races.

Now, where do we take up this whole dissertation? I'm talking to you
right now possibly at a level that you don't quite see why the hell I'm
talking to you this way, but the point is, that if you are in a revolt,
you'd better know what you're revolting against. It's always a very good
thing to do, see. And to know why you are occasionally being thrown back
on your heels and defeated by some very learned company in some parlor
or reception room. Who are you attacking and why do you occasionally
fail to succeed in your attack? It's because you are living in a society
which is indoctrinated thoroughly in a type of thinking which is foreign
and antipathetic to its best interests. And you find all around you
people who, without thinking about it, are slavishly going along with
this type of thinking. You realize that?

The illogical answers given to you as a rebuttal against what you were
saying in favor of Scientology are fascinating, since they're very
illogical, but do you know they appear very logical to the people who
are giving you this? They're very logical. They say, "But if you cleared
a man - if you cleared a man, uh - what would that do to his - uh - what
would that do to his - uhuh - grades in grammar school?"

And you say, "He went there a long time ago," so on.

He says, "But if you cleared a man would that be moral as far as his
wife is concerned?"

And you say, "What do you mean?"

"Well, would it be?"

And you just try to follow this train of logic and you just don't follow
it, that's all, because it doesn't go anyplace. It isn't the illogic of
man you're talking to, you're talking to people who were educated to be
illogical under the title "German Logic." That's a fact. These people
were educated to be logical in this fashion - non sequitur, terrific
rationale because of it.

And all you have to know about all this is that another philosophy long
since engulfed the Anglo-Saxon races, and this philosophy was generated
by Greece, went through the Latin and was complicated and compounded by
the German. And that philosophy lies like a blanket over the
thinkingness of the Anglo-Saxon world. Its processes of thought as
advertised are not its processes of thought. The Anglo-Saxon doesn't
think the way he is supposed to think therefore various things don't
work on him. He requires a level of precision.

He doesn't want to get around and fool with this thing forever, he wants
to do something about it, you see. He doesn't want an indefiniteness, he
wants a definiteness.

Now whatever he wants, he is, nevertheless, the second he understands
it, very thoroughly back of such a motion as he finds engaged here in
Scientology, very thoroughly back of it. He says, "You know, that's a
good thing. You know, I can fit that in my frame of reference. Well."
And he kind of gets the idea of trying to drive a bargain with a
Florentine merchant as opposed to trying to arrive at some sort of an
agreement with somebody down here on the Strand. Have you any idea how
circuitous it is to strike a bargain with somebody down in southern
Europe? Hm? It's fantastic. Fantastic, the way the circumlocutions, you
know, how everything goes this way and doesn't add up that way. The
number of connections you have to have that have nothing to do with the
connections you want. You go down here to some of the larger British
firms and you say, "We want ten thousand suits of woolen underwear."

And the fellow says, "Well, all right. Have a cup of tea." (He does
inject that.) "I'll have my girl bring in the order forms and we'll
write them out."

The Florentine or Roman would have had fits over this kind of an
activity. He just would have had fits. He just wouldn't have known what
had happened to him. He'd thought he'd received the rudest, most uncouth
and barbarian treatment imaginable. He'd gone in and he'd asked for ten
thousand suits of underwear and he'd gotten them, just like that, you
know. "Where do we send them?" And he wouldn't have understood this. He
wouldn't even have understood why he went to ask for - the ten thousand
suits of underwear either, you see.

Well, just as business methods and reactions are different, so are these
other reactions quite different. You can get better results on a
relatively uneducated preclear - you realize that? Because he isn't
educated against his own methods of thinking. But if we take a chap who
has a certain singular directness in thinking and then we educate him
arduously into circuitous methods of thinking, we've got a mess. He sits
there and says, "What wall!" And that's a fact. And that should serve to
you as an example of it. It is not necessarily true at all, you know,
that an educated person is necessarily a person - the harder to process,
see, not at all.

Just because one has been to the university doesn't mean he has to be a
black V. One would think so sometimes, in picking up pcs. One would
think so. But he's been educated against the grain of his own nativeness
in his culture, see. He lives in England or he lives in America and he's
evidently educated in some scholastic setup back in the Dark Ages.

You know, you go in and an American says, "Well, let's see now, that's
real good. I want to learn to be an architect. Fine, let's see, an
architect builds buildings and so forth. I've got a class here now that
teaches us how to build buildings." And he finds himself studying how
nails get rusty - for three years. And he finally says, "Dahh! Bah!" It
takes him years to get over it, so much so that the contractor in
America doesn't place any faith in a college graduate, for years after
he's gotten out of the university, and then begins to trust him in the
vicinity of workmen.

Well, that's an oddity, because America is a tremendous
construction-wise country for a thing like that to happen. And right
here in England we're up against at this moment some of the most
tremendously difficult structural problems in rehabilitating a nation
which had to be geared up in one direction for war and now is being,
regeared in the other way for peace. And a lot of the machinery is still
lying crosswise, you know, a lot of places to be built around that
haven't been built up again, and all kinds of things occurring this way.
And we look around, and where's the architects? Where'd they study?
What's the availability of these chaps? Where are the engineers?

And we look with astonishment to discover: Engineers? Well, a guy - I
guess you must have learned a long time ago not to send an engineer to
school, because there's really no such thing as an engineering degree in
England, when England at this moment could use some darn good engineers.
Well, they're never going to learn engineering mouthing Latin and Greek
at Cambridge, let me assure you. There's a missingness right there.

And the Labour - down here the Labour Ministry is kicking about, "The
laborer is lazy and everything's going bad and everything's going to the
devil." Why doesn't he look around and find himself some engineers who
can lay out better production lines, huh? Well, they'd better get
themselves an engineering school and get going. Something that teaches
Anglo-Saxon engineering, not a bunch of German junk, hm? And that would
make one fantastic difference in a recovery program.

Small points - small points along the line where Anglo-Saxon thought has
been dominated by European thought, but nevertheless, they are all vital
and important points. And one of the most vital ones is, "How do you
make a man more able?" I don't know what a Latin considers greater
ability to be. I'm not again the Latins. I like the Latins. But I don't
think they consider being able to get a job done well, is being better
or more able. I don't think this has any relationship to it at all. In
fact, I never could find out what they would consider ability, because
I've been introduced to some very able chaps and they were very able in
various ways: they could play guitars and they could make love to your
wife and do all sorts of very interesting things, but we didn't chalk
any of these up as abilities up here, you know. These weren't abilities
where we were - difference - difference of definitions. All right.

Where you sometimes may have trouble in grasping Scientology itself is
that you yourself might be indoctrinated to expect far more there to
grasp than there is there; and you're reaching for a thousand
bushelbasketsful when it's one small cupful of wheat sitting right in
front of you. And you're saying, "Where are all these thousands of
bushelbaskets?" You know? You're saying, "Now, this subject of space -
let me see, the subject of space, let me seewhere, where is all this
material on space?" It's sitting right in front of you. The subject of
space is embraced by "space is a viewpoint of dimension." Engineering
world didn't know this. It's very useful to them, you know. There it is
though.

But you keep reaching out here for all these esoteric sidelines. You
yourself, then, if you're doing that, are still trying to follow along
the pattern you have been taught to follow by Germanic, Latin and Greek
reason, see? You're not following what your natural instinct would be,
which is simply to find, "Oh no! There's ten thousand bushels of wheat
here? Where is the proper cup? There must be the important thing on the
subject of wheat in these ten thousand bushels. Let's get at it."

Now you'll be going in the reverse, you see. You'll be trying to make
far more out of a simplicity. Here's this little simplicity, and you
want a great deal more of it. And do you know how bad this can get? It
can get so bad that you don't make any cases well, that's how bad it can
get. You keep looking for the deep, deep, deep - must be eight thousand
fathoms by a Kelvin Fathometer - significance in the preclear. There's
only one thing wrong with the chap, he can't see! And we look for deep
significances. Is he trying desperately not to see because his father
was once frightened by a snake? Or could it be that there is a very
definite co-relationship between the twitters on his eyeballs? No, the
trouble with the guy is he can't see. That's the totality of it, you
know. And we could easily bypass this because we're used to some huge
theoretical science, you see?

Now, I just keep writing in Scientology, but amazingly I like to write.
Don't be misled by that. Dr. Stephens the other day was going over
Scientology 8-8008, which was written and printed right here in England;
he couldn't find anything new in our newer material. I think that's a
joke. Quite a joke. Actually, we have a terrifically shifted emphasis
here and there, but it's mostly in 8-8008, see. It's very simple. It's
very simple, in essence. But if we are indoctrinated into one of these
huge theoretical things like chemistry, which never adds up to anything
anyhow (physicist speaking); and if we're indoctrinated into some sort
of concatenation-by-the-side-road type of logiceven like quantum
mechanics, which is the wildest thing anybody ever got into. And if an
Anglo-Saxon wanted to clarify right now quantum mechanics, he would
simply throw out the constant c, which is what I've said several times,
and that would then straighten out quantum mechanics and we could get on
with the game. But as long as we have c as a constant in quantum
mechanics we have to introduce what they call random factors, which are
just dreamed up to make the equations balance. Something is in there
making the equations not balance. What is it? Let's take a look at it.

Well the second we really take a look at it, we find it's c. The c is
not a constant for these various particles, and as such, why, it
imbalances quantum mechanics and makes a madhouse out of it. Cute. But a
direct look says let's take something out of the thing, not put
something new and arduous and horrible into the thing.

Now, has a great deal to do - although you probably, actually,
basically, until you think it over you couldn't care less - has a great
deal to do with your own personal viewpoint of a case: the degree to
which you, yourself, are influenced by the complications of Germanic,
Latin, Greek logic. You, yourself, may have been very deeply influenced
by these things in any institution of higher education. See, we've got
to have more to it, you know. It's got to be stated more arduously in
some fashion or another, there's got to be more deviousness to embrace,
the structural material must be so-and-so. But more important than that,
you see a human being sitting in front of you. In Scientology, it says
he has parts A, B, C and D, and you've got to straighten these out and
separate them up and that's that. And you say, "But both eyelids of this
particular case showed a definite magenta color which very definitely
adds up to the fact that most people see red when they're angry." Tsk.
See. You missed it, you missed it.

Let's just be more factual. He's A, B, C and D, and you do 1, 2, 3 and
4, got the idea? And we could just be riding past this madly, see. We
could just be riding all around it and trying to find something of
greater significance to do something about, in this case.

Now we've just done something fantastic. There have been new gains
consistently, but they're all in gains of deeper understanding. We took
a look at the body and we found out that the body itself was actually
very hungry for motivators.

Wild! You mean it's hungry to get itself into accidents and get killed
and so forth? Well, that's the bulk of bodies you see around, so
naturally a thetan gets in trouble and he doesn't know which way he's
going. So all we have here is, however, a new complexity or rationale
about the same thing. What is havingness to the body? We know what it is
to a thetan. Now we know a little bit more what it is to part B - the
body. And knowing a little bit more about havingness, we can therefore
handle havingness. And what do you know, we can straightaway now,
knowing this and knowing that if you have an individual mock up
blackness and shove it in ...

We have so many ways to handle havingness, that about the first thing we
would do with a preclear today would be to repair and remedy his
havingness, see. We know so much about this now. But how much do we
know? It wouldn't take any time at all to tell you how much we know,
see. But it's just terrific, the amount we do know, because there's no
bric-a-brac lying around on it, you see. We do know what we know, and
it's more important for an Anglo-Saxon to know what he knows than to
know a great many, many, many, many things.

It's just a peculiarity which has brought him straight along into a
mastery of the world and which will even yet shove him into one. He just
wants to know things which are more important than other things and
wants to know things that do things best. It's a peculiarity, almost -
might say - a racial quirk, but nevertheless, that's the way it is.

Now then, the case which is fouling up in some fashion or another, today
actually doesn't have any mystery involved in it. He's got a mystery
about himself, but you shouldn't have any mystery about him. You really
shouldn't have any mystery about him. You should know why he's fouling
up. The chap - as soon as we take a look at the material on the thing,
we say, "Well, this chap's - he's got a lot of ideas that he can't
handle." That's simple, isn't it? Well, let's don't worry about ideas.
He's got a lot of ideas he can't handle and he's stuck in his head and
that probably makes him very uncomfortable and he has many present time
problems that he just can't get his attention onto or off of in order to
straighten them out, and there he sits. Naturally he's unhappy about the
whole thing. Now how do we make him happy?

Well, we just straighten up what we see right in front of our faces. And
although a thetan is quite invisible, we have today about the most
visible science you ever heard of! It's terrifically visible. We're
right down to the point where you can measure the wavelength, if you
please, of an engram. We're into a precision here. All right.

We should never overreach the preclear or read more into the preclear
than is there, unless we ourselves want some problems. If you want some
problems, mock up a preclear out here and get how many problems he could
be to you. Make some problems that way, not by looking at the preclear
and adding some new problems into his skull that aren't there. Lord
knows, he's got enough complexities from his own point of view, don't
you be complicated about your - from your point of view, too! Anything
that's wrong with that pc will straighten out once you get the body over
its strange starvations, its hunger to be smashed and done in, and get
the thetan into some kind of a condition so he's able to control the
body from a distance. It all works out. You're off! Done! See? 1 mean,
that's in essence what you're trying to do.

Now you could get very, very complicated, get very complicated. But if
you were getting complicated, I'd have to recommend you to the fact that
you're probably more used to one of these theoretical sciences that just
goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and never gets
anyplace at all, see. We're not dealing with that type of information.
We're dealing with the type of information if you measure one foot off
the end of a two-by-four and pick up a saw and saw it off at that point,
you will now have a piece of timber one foot long, you see. That's the
kind of a science it is, which is flying right into the teeth of
authority. It's just bang-bang-bang.

So I ask you to look at an engineering science that does get results, an
engineering-type science that gets results, if we treat it as a
simplicity, and as a simple science operating upon a simple organism;
which for various and peculiar reasons of its own (which we don't care
anything about because they're always different, person to person), gets
itself into exactly the same state of collapse every time: dead in his
head in a body which wants to be knocked off. Well, we just straighten
that out and we're off.

Now I'm not making it sound more simple than it is. I'm trying to invite
you to look at the greater simplicities of Scientology and to realize
that you yourself are part of a revolution in favor of simplicity in the
field of philosophy and in the field of the mind and man's behavior.
You're part of that revolt. We're, in a way, a sort of a small
Renaissance, but we're also a backflash. And I'd like you to know what
you're flying into the teeth of and what you're going back toward and
why it is that way. You could handle the thing much more easily if you
knew that.

You can certainly handle a preclear more easily if you yourself are not
trying to put further complications into him. He isn't very complicated.
His terrific amounts of romance - there's lots of imagining that you can
do about it, there's a terrific amount of material that you could dream
up which is corollary material and probably very aesthetic. It's a lot
of fun, it's a good game and so forth, but as far as a preclear is
concerned, he's not even a very good problem today. He's dead in his
head in a body that wants to get knocked off, that's all.

And you solve that with the various levels of processes, and the issue
of processing called "Six Levels of Processing, Issue 8" takes these
various conditions up, just one right after the other and says you do
this about them. All right.

Now, although this lecture possibly is not terribly interesting, doesn't
seem very intimate, it isn't very informative, it nevertheless is
possibly a clarification in your mind as to why the savants of learning
and so forth, have a tendency to sort of press back against you, why
you're acceptable to the guy in the street, why you're having a little
bit of heavy going in some of the parlors, and exactly what you're
doing.

You're a raw, red revolutionary - you're simplicity revolting against a
complexity. You're trying to uphold an Anglo-Saxon method of thinking
and directness in the teeth of all the complexities which have been used
to enslave Great Britain and America throughout all these years. And as
such, of course, you know, when you're a raw, red revolutionary, you
occasionally get your teeth kicked in.

Well, if you know wherein you are revolting, maybe you can duck now and
then and make somebody else run for a change.

[auditor]

REPAIR AND REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS

A lecture given on 16 January 1956

I want to talk to you now about the first level of SLP Issue 8. And I'm
going to talk to you in a very high generality - very, very high
generality on the level. I'm not going to give you specific steps. I'm
going to tell you what happened and how it all came about and the
general subject matter of it.

Now, you will at first believe that the only reason why SLP Issue 8 is
arranged as it is, is to give us a nice, easy way to train students so
they won't make upsets in the HCA/HPA Course. I mean, I think you'll
look it over and say, "Well, it's logically the first thing the guy
would have to know is how to do this, you know?" Well, the funny part of
it is that it not only belongs first in training, but it belongs first
in processing.

And I want to go back a little bit and give you an historical rundown on
this situation, so that you will see that we've had this for a long
time. And I also want to make some comments on the fact that we have
been up against a roadblock which inhibited the dissemination of
Scientology a great deal. And we have now located the roadblock and can
sweep it out of the way. And this is a wonderful piece of news,
actually, all in itself.

But let's go back historically and discover that up at 30 Marlborough
Place - three years ago - discovered a principle known as havingness.
It's covered in Scientology 8-8008. It was right in there along with
Creative Processes, and out of this principle, Creative Processing
derived.

Therefore, the process about which I am talking is an old process; it is
a very, very old process. And being an old process, it is the most
neglected of all processes. And it is so neglected that we have now
given it a new name. We call it "Repair and Remedy of Havingness."

Now, this material has, in other words, been doing a sleeper on us.
You've heard me many times in lectures say, "When in doubt, remedy
havingness." I'm sure you've heard me say that. And a great many
auditors have done this and have kept very close to this principle.

But actually, a codification of the materials which operate as a
background to a Repair and Remedy of Havingness are quite complicated.
It is not a simple subject; it is a complicated subject. It's one which
is easily understood, if it is looked at, but it should be looked at in
the light that - in view of the fact that Scientology itself is
basically simple, it is very strange to have sitting right at the
beginning of a case a thing as complicated as the Repair and Remedy of
Havingness.

So don't walk into this with the idea that all we do is throw the
electric light switch and the lights go on. This is not the way it
works. We are at the crossroads here of a preclear when we are at the
crossroads of havingness. He is either going to go up or down. He is
going to go up if he can repair or remedy havingness; he's going to go
down if he cannot. And that's the long and the short of it. That simple
statement can be made concerning preclears in general.

Becomes very, very important to you, then, because the progress a case
makes is not the significances he finds out. The actual process is on
cognition, of course. But how on earth is he ever going to make a
cognition if his havingness goes down?

An odd test is in progress right at this moment to ask a preclear some
very arduous, extremely complicated question that leads toward an
obvious significance, an obvious cognition. He just can't help but make
this cognition, you see? And we ask that question without repairing or
remedying havingness for an hour, without the cognition occurring. We
ask it six times, remedy the fellow's havingness, ask it twice more and
he gets the cognition.

Now, that is what has been happening so far in this series. Of course,
I'm always prepared to have a series break down, and I'm simply telling
you the series is under test at this moment. But this is evidently what
we've been looking for: How do you make them get cognitions? The
cognition is important, but the cognition does not occur unless you
repair and remedy the preclear's havingness.

Now, there's some misunderstandings along this line. People use these
terms interchangeably, so we have had to specify this much more
particularly. People have been talking about Remedy of Havingness and
have been giving the preclear havingness. Remedy of Havingness is not
giving the preclear havingness; it's making it so he doesn't have to
have. That is a Remedy of Havingness.

Now, just giving the preclear havingness, however, has its role and
position in auditing; and so we have given it a new name, and that is
called "Repair of Havingness." That just simply means give him some
havingness. Have him mock it up and somehow or other get it shoved in.
That's repair.

Now, "Remedy of Havingness" means mock it up, shove it in, mock it up,
throw it away. You got the idea? There's two different actions here, so
therefore we talk about Repair and Remedy of Havingness.

When you can conceive that a preclear, in trying to communicate, is
reaching; and that a preclear is a thetan, and he is reaching; and that
when this reachingness is done, it cuts down the body's havingness, you
understand at once why people stop communicating. They reach - in other
words, they try to get that communication out there, and when they fail
to get that communication out there, it's because they don't have enough
havingness.

In other words, it cuts down the havingness. Therefore, what tiny little
bit of energy they are sending out in front of them are reabsorbed back
into the body, and they have a feeling like they can't reach. It's an
automatic process that goes on. It's a fascinating process.

The individual wants to say "Hello, Joe," you see, and he sort of has a
stream of energy going out there with "Hello, Joe," you see. Good
fellowship, good ARC. You know, he feels this sort of way, "Hello, Joe."

And the second he thinks of "Hello, Joe," he goes clamp. Now, how's that
happen? He thinks "Hello, Joe," it makes an actual reduction of
havingness in the middle of his body, if he's interiorized.

Now, if you could conceive a body as a rather interesting thing which
sits in the middle of an electronic structure - not as something that
has blood and brains and limbs, but that it sits in the middle of this
electronic block of something. And the anchor points themselves are
quite visible. A preclear can see these. Very often a preclear is quite
surprised, saying, "I wonder what all these golden balls are around
here," you know, or "What are these black balls?" They're anchor points.

Well, that's the body's electronic structure. It's a very interesting
pattern. The illusion of the body's presence, which is the blood and
bones and all the rest of it, is actually held in place by this
electronic structure which is on a higher wavelength. All right.

There's something else there. There is a mass of energy which might be
compared in an electrical way, to gelatin on a solid MEST sort of thing.
It's a clear, invisible, electronic standing wave. That's what it is.
And it's a block. You might say he's sitting there not only with his
anchor points, but in a block of electrical gelatin. That's what it
looks like. That isn't what it is, of course. Well, we don't care what
it is; it's basically a consideration. But that's the body's
consideration, and we as auditors are stuck with it. All right.

Now, this block of gel, these anchor points themselves, have a tendency
to become disarranged. Now, what is the function of this electronic gel?

I know it sounds to you like I'm being terribly complicated, but if you
can just get the idea of the preclear sitting in the middle of a bunch
of gelatin, clear gelatin - you know, a big bowl of clear gelatin, and
he's sitting in the middle of it. And that's the body, you see, is
sitting in the middle of it, but this other stuff exists. And then
scattered through the gelatin are a bunch of marbles, those are his
anchor points. You've got a pretty good picture of what the full picture
of this preclear is. All right.

Now, this individual has to have a certain amount of energy to make up
any energy transferences and losses in order to be this complete
picture. So he gives away a little energy, and right away, the second he
does this - nothing mocks it up, let's say, nothing adds to it again,
nothing puts it back in placehe's just that much less on energy.

And if he keeps going downhill and losing energy, he begins to eat up
this gelatin. He begins to eat up these anchor points. And the next
thing you know, the wing anchor points, that ought to be out there about
seventy-five feet up and to the right and seventy-five feet up and to
the left - they ought to be at least that far - are sitting in the
preclear's stomach.

Well, how did they get in his stomach? How did they get in his head?
What's he doing wearing one of these anchor points, that ought to be out
there seventy-five feet, under his chin? It's just the fact that he
didn't have enough electrical energy to replace the electrical energy
which he was exhausting in some fashion or another, and in came the
anchor points and in came the gelatin.

Now, here's a very - something very funny about this gelatin: if there's
enough gelatin there, it's clear and if there isn't enough there, it
begins to hold on to pictures, it forms into pictures. This should be
quite revelatory to you, because this is another kind of engram. The
actual engram, which is a sheet of energy or the mock-up itself, exist.
They exist, you see.

But a long time ago - just still speaking historically - I isolated this
gel and said, "This is a funny thing. This stuff holds pictures, too."
Its mission is to do (it begins to conceive) an obsessive duplication of
what it sees. This is quite remarkable. So we have the preclear look at
a pine tree, and the next thing you know, he has a pine tree sitting in
front of his face.

Well, it could be one of two things, it really doesn't matter which -
Remedy and Repair of Havingness does for each - but he's got a pine tree
sitting in front of his face. The pine tree isn't there anymore, he's
moved away; but he's still got this pine tree.

Well, this is a curious thing. What happened is, is the gel itself has
compulsively duplicated the pine tree. No new energy has been used. No
new energy has been used to make this picture of a pine tree. The gel
itself has simply combined itself mechanically into the picture of a
pine tree.

And a little bit later he looks at a stove, and the gel - same gel that
made the pine tree - combines itself into a stove. And a little while
later he looks at his wife, and the same gel that was the stove
recombines itself into the picture of a wife. This is an obsessive
duplication and a little trick the body uses so that it can make
pictures (real cute), without expending any energy. And it only does
this, of course, when it assumes that it is short on energy. You follow
me?

If it begins to assume it's short on energy, it begins to put all of its
pictures in the form of gel and then retranslate them again and
retranslate them. It doesn't have a bank of pictures; it has a gel here
which is doing an obsessive duplication.

Now, in addition to this gel, it has engrams, which are kind of like
sheets; facsimiles, copies of things, which are actual pictures, just
like we'd deal a deck of playing cards. They're actual pictures. They're
not this gel.

Now, maybe you didn't suspect that there were these two things sitting
there in the body, both of which apparently were doing the same thing.
But you will not be surprised, and you will see it at once when I tell
you that this gel can become so scarce that it turns black. It becomes
so burned down that it turns black.

And it not only, then, no longer duplicates what the individual's eyes
look at (this duplicates what the eyes look at, by the way, not what the
thetan looks at); not only does it no longer duplicate that, but it
prevents the thetan from seeing the body's pictures. So we at once wipe
out his picture bank and his duplicator bank, you see - at once. As soon
as this gel turns black, this is the condition he's in. And that
condition is not a mysterious condition.

It, of course, and everything else depends upon considerations and these
considerations can change. But the body is so sold on this structure, it
is so fixed, it is so convinced that this structure exists, that a
thetan just doesn't say, "Well, I've changed my mind about that" and
have all the black turn nice and clear and everything is - naaah.

It's not going to happen, because it wasn't his consideration that did
it. He is simply agreeing to a consideration which he found in the body.
The body is a structure of very complex considerations. Thetan comes
along, gets into agreement with the body and agrees to these
considerations.

Now, if the thetan changes his mind about these considerations, very
little is going to happen to the body; very little is going to happen to
the body, but something might happen to the thetan. He has merely gone
out of agreement with the body, just to that degree. He says, "I don't
have to obsessively agree with the body to this extent. Therefore, I
simply will disagree along these certain lines and change my mind about
that consideration." That doesn't necessarily, though, fix the body up
at all, does it?

Now, do you see this structure? Now over the last three years I've
managed to isolate various parts of this structure, and it's with great
surprise that preclears run into this structure rather uniformly without
having consulted any textbooks or anything. The structures are actually
there. But it may be a little bit of news to some of you - those who
were not in the ACC this last time, particularly - that this gel exists
which makes pictures in addition to regular pictures, see?

So here's the body. It has this gel. It also has a bank of pictures. And
in the middle of the body, what do you know, there's a thetan. And he
has pictures, and he has machines that make pictures. And boy, if that
isn't a hideous mess, you just never saw one.

If the thetan did not have machine and pictures, he would never have any
trouble with the body, and the body would never have any trouble with a
thetan. A thetan would just come along and pick up the body's pictures
and electronic gel and all the rest - pick up its gel, its two types of
pictures, its anchor points, go on and work with them, and that'd be
that.

But the thetan is an energy production unit. He can produce space. He
can produce energy. He can produce mass. And he already, to keep himself
amused, is fully equipped with a full MGM studio full of pictures and
he's all set. He's got gorgeous complications. And the body does not
agree with the thetan's type of machinery. They're two different types
of setup.

The thetan has machines that make his pictures, on consideration, rather
than a pocketful of pictures. Got it? Looks to me now we have three
methods of making pictures, don't we? We have machines that make
pictures, that belongs to the thetan; we have this gel which obsessively
duplicates what the body looks at; and then we have the picture bank of
the body itself.

Well, there's a fourth method. If there were no fourth method, the whole
thing would be hopeless. And the fourth method is the solution, and that
is: the thetan can mock up or copy any of these items previously named.
He can mock up or copy machinery, he can mock up or copy this gel, he
can mock up or copy any of the body's pictures. And if he can do these
things, then he can get himself out of - not the soup, but the gelatin.
All right.

Now, in view of the fact - in view of the fact there are three different
types - actually, it requires several different kinds of action in order
to care for these things, and this could get to be a very complicated
thing; but oddly enough, one complements another. And each time you use
mock-ups done by the thetan, you tend to remedy all three of the basic
things.

When a thetan or the body is down on havingness, the thetan's machinery
goes into more furious action. Therefore, automaticities on the part of
the thetan's machinery occur when the thetan is low on havingness or
when the body is low on havingness or when the gel won't duplicate or
when the body's pictures are all Worn out. Now, you got it?

Anytime the body is low on havingness, the thetan's automatic machinery
goes into action, the gel has a tendency to obsessively seize on
pictures, and the body starts locking its own picture gallery in against
the body. Anytime there's a scarcity of gel and it can't do a nice,
quiet duplication without the use of energy - it's a very tricky
mechanism, you know, and - don't need any energy, you just use the same
energy, recombine it and you've got a picture. By that consideration,
why, of course, it can have pictures without the expenditure of energy.
Some genius figured this out down the line someplace and all bodies have
it. All right.

Now, if the havingness of this gel - that is, if the quantity of gel
goes down, we get the thetan's machinery going into automatic action,
the anchor points and pictures of the body slamming in tight. It's
interesting, isn't it?

Now, when the anchor points of the body get reduced on havingness, they
have a tendency to come in and get stuck in the gel and stuck inside the
body and actually confront the thetan, and the thetan's machinery goes
into action. You get how this is? And each time any of these things
occur, the body's engram bank comes up and gets stuck and jams.

This kind of looks like one of these horrible toys that some chap in a
delirious moment figured out to give to his little boy that he wanted to
drive mad.

Now, there is a remedy to the situation. I'll just note in passing that
some little time ago I discovered that you could ask your preclear to
operate this gel by making the gel assume the same pattern that it's
assuming, only he makes it assume it in a different place.

Let's say he has a tree in front of him, and it's obsessively in front
of him. It's been there for years. He keeps looking at this tree. You
know, every once in a while he looks up and there's this tree. You
assume that it's a picture and remedy havingness of trees by having him
mock up trees and shove them in, you'll come to more or less the same
thing. So this is merely interesting bric-a-brac that I'm giving you.

You can actually have the thetan recompose the gel into a tree alongside
of the tree and then recompose the gel at another place into another
tree and recompose the gel into another tree and recompose the gel into
another tree, and all of a sudden the gel - a consideration therein -
seems to have this change of consideration: "Shucks, there are enough
trees," (snap) and it lets go of the tree.

Now, we have an individual who is in a continual state of confusion. We
have him do various things with confusions, and nothing much seems to
happen. We assume that the gel is what is in confusion. It's in a
pattern of confusion and is frozen that way. See, it's just stuck - big
confusion. All right.

You just have him - not mock up energies, it's a different operation
than making mock-ups - you have him get the idea that the gel is formed
in a confusion. And he puts a confusion here and a confusion - let's say
the confusion was here - you have him put the confusion out there a
foot, and out and to the right a foot, and below it and around it and
all of a sudden something strange happens and the gel disentangles, and
he no longer feels confused.

The gel, the pictures, the machinery of the thetan and even the anchor
points can, each one, foist off some kind of an aberration on the thetan
- each one.

Now, just plain mock-ups take care of this gel accidentally, which was
why it went undetected so long. It's just accidental. You have him keep
making up mock-ups and shove them in - and maybe it was a fixed picture
in this gel; it wasn't a facsimile at all - and it disentangled. But you
can make it work a lot faster if you knew it were fixed in the gel and
you merely had him re-form the gel a few times. Quite curious. All
right.

Now, these discoveries which I have just detailed are scattered out over
a period of about three years. And they have formed up all of a sudden -
not into a new, tricky process, but into an absolute necessity. An
examination over the period of the last three months, by myself, and
during that three months, of the graphs made by Scientometric testing on
various preclears coming into the clinics and individual auditors,
before and after they were given intensives, has brought me the news
continually that somewhere or other we were falling down. Just for the
last three months, we've been falling down.

Why? Yes, we've been making gains. Yes, these gains are fine. Only
they're not the kind of gains I'm interested in. Guy merely became sane.
So what? We got all kinds of sane people. What happened that the chap
was not going out through the roof, hm? What happened that he was not
being able to assume' 100 percent serenity and so forth? Where was this
maximum gain which existed for a while?

Well, the moment that staff auditors came off a lot of Creative
Processes, the gains dropped out. Interesting. I knew the gains had
dropped out, but I didn't know that Creative Processes and Remedy and
Repair of Havingness had dropped out to that degree. Believe me, they
hadn't just dropped out; they've disappeared. And that applies not just
to staff auditors, that applies to practically every Scientologist in
the business.

So I took my finger off my number by not beating the drum hard and
saying, "Get that havingness repaired and remedied, yak, yak, yak," you
know? I didn't - I wasn't in there pitching.

My first real comm lag in research and development; it's three months
long. Auditors stopped doing something - I didn't notice till three
months later. But it was an interesting thing that it caused me to go
into a flurry of investigation over the last three months and discover a
lot of very useful things, such as body motivators and all kinds of the
considerations of what is good and what's bad and the interrelationship
between the thetan and the body and, most importantly, the real truth
about exteriorization.

So it was not without some gain, but it was also not without some worry.
I have a file drawer in the other room full of my bit-off and spat-out
fingernails.

Now, where did we leave the rails? We left the rails simply by getting
so close to the center pin of all the basic considerations with our more
recent processes over the last six months. We've come so close to the
gong, you see, on a preclear that we relaxed on the subject of the
preclear's body. We came so close.

The processes which we have today, if you assemble them and look them
over on the significant side of the thing, are so hot. Till we got
careless with a little old factor like the Repair or Remedy of
Havingness. "Shucks, that doesn't require any going over. That's
unimportant, you know. That's just the body. We can skip that."

Only we couldn't. There was the body, sitting there, saying, "Did I
detect a very small erg of energy going out at that moment? Slurp. My
family - is there some intimation here that my family has been mean to
me? Slurp." Get the idea?

Our processes were so good that they would shake loose so much material
in the case that we got too proud. We could see the clockwork in the
preclear so well as far as his thinkingness and his considerations were
concerned that we didn't think we had to pay very much attention to the
mechanics, and unfortunately, the body is still sold 100 percent upon
the mechanics.

The body is sold on mechanics. It's sold on space, energy, terminals,
standing waves like this gelatin. Sold on the absolute necessity of
having anchor points in the right place. Sold on agreement. It's sold on
motivators. It's sold on what's bad for it is what it needs, you know.
It's sold on the wildest category of ideas, and these ideas are
mechanically represented. They are represented in mass.

It's as though somebody went out and took all the ideas it took to make
a body and then carved them in granite, you know, and there they are.
And unfortunately, they have to be handled in granite. Get the idea?
You're not going to blow up a marble statue with a consideration. Maybe,
maybe, maybe after you've had a lot of auditing you'll be able to do it,
but not just now.

More likely, you'll blow it up with some dynamite. It's perfectly
legitimate to use dynamite.

Now let's say you're trying to take a marble statue - let's get an
allegory going here with the body. The body is a colonial aggregation of
cells. And let's say you're trying to take a marble statue away from a
city which just has one marble statue. You go in and you got a big
Caterpillar tractor and you got a big truck that you're going to put it
in and a derrick to lift it with, and you've got no authorization from
the mayor or anybody and you're going to pick up this marble statue and
cart it off.

Riots! Not only will the police force be on the back of your neck, but
the whole population will too. People will not like this. They've just
got one statue.

Well, one of the ways to get that statue - it's quite interesting - all
you'd have to do is put a statue at every corner in the city, and then
pick up this one statue and cart it off. And then the population
discovers that the statues you put up were made out of cornstarch and
melted in the next rain. But the funny part of it is, they probably
would have forgotten completely they had a marble statue in the first
place. It's kind of a dumb population. And that is the way processing
works. Got it?

Only it's kind of more like this with the body: There is only one sewer
system in the city, and they know that this sewer system is very
valuable. Has to do with sweating all night, you know. Very valuable. So
you have to go in and build, very rapidly, very great number of sewer
systems, and you can pick up the sewer system and carry it away. Get the
idea?

The body does not surrender until it is convinced of abundance. It
convinces rather easily. Our opponent in this case, oddly enough, is
actually not a thetan. Our opponent in this case is a body. A body is a
theta trap, and being such, to change it around requires skill in a
mechanical way. It is an artisan-type skill.

If you're going to straighten out the havingness of a body, you might as
well just get the idea that you're going to go at it in a mechanical
way, because the havingness of a body is straightened out by mechanics.

Now, if you got a thetan to fix up his havingness all the time
mechanically and got him sold on his dependence on space and energy and
all the rest of it, you'd have a different picture entirely. He'd start
going by the boards; because he basically is a thought-production
machine, before he is an energy- and space-production machine.

So this thetan, of course, if you kept insisting to him all the time
that he had to have space and he had to have energy and that sort of
thing, he'd probably decide to build a body like that, too, you know?
He'd get groggy on the subject.

So, in all this Repair and Remedy of Havingness, we isolate this
interesting principle: That you must detail all of your instructions on
havingness to the body until you get your preclear exteriorized, at
which time you start designating yourself. Got it? But until you have
him exteriorized, skip that end of it pretty well, and you designate
your havingnesses to the body and you'll win.

Well, that is Level One of SLP Issue 8. It takes up, not every
conceivable way, but the major ways of repairing havingness and the
major Of remedying havingness, taking into account such things as body
motivators - thirst of the body for motivators. It takes into account
the fact that the body desires things which are bad; its thirst for
various oddities. It straightens the body screens out, which are so
hungry for energy that they collapse the various particles of energy
contained in facsimiles upon them.

In other words, you're straightening out a mechanical structure. And
oddly enough, until you straighten it out with a thetan who is dead in
his head, if you exteriorize him, he'll be back in. Because the body is
so disarranged that he cannot think a thought without disrupting the
body's havingness.

Now, let's take another look at this gel. Let's realize that a thetan
can asis energy like mad. He can not only create energy, he can destroy
it. All he has to do is think a thought and bong, there goes the energy.
Got the idea? He can as-is energy, zoom!

So he's sitting in the middle - the stupid fool; I don't know how he did
this, but he's sitting in the middle of all this - I do know and will
tell you in a moment. He's sitting in the middle of this mass of gel;
whether it be black, purple, pink or full of rockets.

You know, I've seen some of this gel recently which had a pattern of a
duplication of a rocket which was going round and round the head. That
was all that was happening in the gel, a rocket was coming by every now
and then. Real cute.

So you, the auditor, say to him, you say to this thetan sitting in the
middle of this - and remember, he can as-is energy like mad, every time
he thinks something, he as-ises some energy - and you say to him, "How
are you?"

And he thinks, see, "How am I? I'm fine." He thinks before he speaks,
you see. And the gel goes dit-dit-dit. It filled up the hole he left
when he thought the thought that he was fine. You got the idea?

So you say, "Well, now, how are your somatics today?"

And he kind of looks around. Fine. And he says, "Oh, they're not so
bad." And the gel goes duh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh.

And now let's just speed up what happens over - on the overall of ten
hours of auditing which contains no Repair or Remedy of Havingness. And
you say, "How does your case seem to you now?"

And he says, "Well, it's not so ..." Uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh. He's being
trained not to think, isn't he? Every time he thinks a thought, he feels
the circumference of his sphere of beingness collapse upon him. Got the
idea? In other words, he's thinking holes in his head. And as he thinks
these holes in his head - see, he gets energy coming in. You got it?

Now, one school of thought along this line evidently felt this rather
than knew it and began to use electric shock. Actually, that is - on
basic rationale, there's nothing wrong with using an electric shock.
What's wrong with him? Well, they never articulated this, but what he
was doing - he's thinking a hole in his head, so you give him some
energy. You got the idea?

Now, if it did anything or if it didn't do anything, this is completely
aside from the point. Here we had a low-level effort to remedy
somebody's havingness who had a hole in his head. You get the idea? We
even have the public out here thinking in terms of "That guy's got holes
in his head." Did you ever hear the expression?

Audience: Yeah.

Yeah. Now, the figure-figure case does this interesting thing. You
understand that, then, life itself has been trying to remedy this
situation one way or the other without much thought on the subject.
Well, we give him some energy, see?

Now, mothers think this way too. Johnny comes in and he's got a
headache. "Johnny, sit down. Eat your cereal." She's trying to fill up
the hole in his head. Get the idea?

And I told you, I think, two and a half years ago, one of the primary
actions being undertaken - and we might say the primary mission a person
thought he had in this universe - was filling up holes. Now, I told you
that about two and a half years ago; it seems to be true, because you as
an auditor, now understanding that this fellow is thinking holes in his
head, have no other recourse but to fill the hole up. Get the idea?

He thinks a thought, he as-ises energy, as-ises energy, as-ises energy,
as-ises energy. He's all right. He's on a good margin now. As-ises
energy. He's still got lots of it. As-ises energy. And just about the
time he's all ready to cognite, he thinks, "Gee, you know that..."

Now, the thought was, "Gee, that's a funny thing. My mother wasn't mean
to me after all." Got it? All right. So you've driven him right up, and
all of a sudden, just at the moment he's cogniting, he's on this
havingness margin. See, he's on the threshold of no havingness. And he
starts to think this thought, "Gee, that's a funny thing. My mother
wasn't bad to me after all.' And he thinks, "Gee, that's a funny - what
was I thinking about?" Got it?

Male voice: Yes.

He just got it in to a point of where it went squash. Got the idea now?
And he didn't cognite. He's actually burning up energy with his
thinkingness. Just why he's doing this is another consideration, which
you'll hit sooner or later in a case. But until you've hit the
consideration, he continues to do it. So it's all very well to say
grandly, "Well, it's all just a consideration. All you have to do is
change the fellow's mind." The only trouble is, until you change his
mind, that's his consideration. You got the idea?

Fellow is jumping along the street, hopping, holding his hands up in
front of him with paws. You say, "Hey. Hey, bud. You're not a kangaroo.
You're not a kangaroo."

And he goes hopping away from you. He didn't change his mind about it at
all. Maybe he got scared by a kangaroo. Maybe the gel is all stuck in
the shape of a kangaroo. Who knows? But the way to have made him walk
away from you, not hop away from you, would have been to remedy his
havingness on the subject of kangaroos.

The course of existence is: we've got lots of it, then we've got less of
it, and then it becomes valuable, and then we can't have it. Got it? We
got lots of it, we've got less of it, then it becomes valuable, and then
we can't have it.

One of the tests of that, if you - little Johnny comes in, and he asks
for a quarter - he asks for a sixpence. All right. He comes in to ask
for a sixpence. And you say, "Oh, what do - you don't know - dickens
with it."

And he says, "Oh, please," he says, "come on, now." And he'll give you a
reason. He'll say, "I have to do so-and-so." He just asked for a
sixpence in the first place, but now he's got a reason that goes along
with it.

And, "I got to do so-and-so, and all the boys are going down to the
cinema," and so forth.

And you still say, "No sixpence," see.

And he suddenly throws himself down on the floor and begins to beat his
fists against the boards, and he says, "Everybody is cruel to me.
Everybody is mean to me. I wish I could go out and die," you know,
something% rational.

And this doesn't work. So he says, (sniff), (sniff), (sniff), "You won't
give me a sixpence."

Now, if you pushed him down that low on the Tone Scale, there's a very
interesting phenomenon immediately occurs thereafter. He cries, you let
him cry without giving him the sixpence at all and then you offer him a
sixpence. You know what happens? He walks away and leaves you. He won't
take the sixpence.

Now, that is the exact course of havingness and one - something that you
should know. That's an awfully homely, plain little example, but it
follows out; it doesn't matter whether the guy's ninety-nine or six,
see? And that is: lots of it, less of it, valuable, can't have it. And
that's the rough points as you go down the scale.

Now, there's a position with regard to havingness for every position on
the Tone Scale. There's a consideration about havingness for every lower
position on the Tone Scale as you go down - the idea of havingness
changes.

When they hit apathy they can't have. So any subject in the preclear
that's on apathy, he can't have the thing that it requires - that is
required to remedy his havingness. You got it? And that's the only place
where an auditor comes up against it.

But there's a very, very, very simple remedy. If you just ask him what
his body can have, he's liable to think it over. He's liable to tell
you, if he's telling you honestly, some of the darnedest things.

"Well, it could have an old whiskey bottle, empty. Oh well, that's what
it could have. No, no, no. Couldn't have that, that's all. It could have
some dregs in a whiskey - no, uh-uh. No, no, that's - it's - uh - it
could have - hey, what do you know? It might have some excreta. No,
that's too good. Let's see."

That's actually the way it goes, see? And unless he actually gets in
there and answers you actually, not superficially - "Oh, my body? My
body can have food. It can have clothing. It can have shelter."
Out-of-the-textbook social response. "My body can have (social
response). My body can have (social response), you see. And my body
could have a new hat, my body could have a new..."

Here sits this person completely caved in, dead in his head, see? And
this person tells you his body could have all that? He's living in a
dream world, son. He's just living in a dream.

He hasn't found bottom, and it will be up to you to find bottom. And
here's the rule that you must recall: He can mock up what his body can
have, because it will then be permitted to become visible by the body
and the gel. Get the mechanic here? He can mock up what the body can
have, because the body will tend to pull it in toward it slowly enough
so that it isn't blocked by the gel; it isn't blocked by facsimiles or
ridges. He'll be able to see it.

If you really find something he knows his body can have, he will be able
to see it, and therefore, he'll be able to mock it up, even if it's
blackness or invisibleness. His body could have invisibleness, all
right. He can mock up invisibleness and see it. Body, can't -
satisfactory invisibleness, to the body. Got the idea?

Now that we know overt acts and motivators and we know about mocking up
motivators, if you can get a lowdown, dog-eared enough motivator and get
the fellow to mock it up, he won't be able to see it at first. He'll
mock it up, (snap) and it'll go in so fast,,, swish, (snap), swish,
(snap), swish, (snap) - it isn't visible to him. And then all of a
sudden it starts to become visible, and then all of a sudden he sees it
move in.

And after a while, the hunger for that motivator is assuaged, and the
person will see it standing there in front of him. And if he keeps on
mocking it up, it either goes in a couple of more times or starts to
move away from him. It starts automatically to complete the remaining
part of the cycle of a remedy, not a repair, of havingness.

If you do motivators well, and the body is not too messed up one way or
the other, you will see that phenomenon work out perfectly. The thing
moves in so fast he can't see it. And then, finally he can see it. And
then it's moving in. And then it stays there and then starts to move
away.

One very amusing thing happened the other day in testing this principle.
I was running a preclear, and he was mocking up his wife on the basis of
threats to kill him, see? And she was coming in, swish, swish, swish,
swish, swish. This is fine, you know. Swish, swish. And all of a sudden
slowed down.

I says, "Going to stop in a minute." And it did; stopped right out
there, see? And I knew in the next couple of seconds that it was going
to start to move away. So I had him mock up his wife two or three more
times with the threat to kill him - see, just the idea in the mock-up
that it was there to kill the body and (see, very technically correct),
and had him mock it up two more times, and I said, "Is it moving away
yet?" You know, just coaching him, you know, a little bit.

He says, "That's a funny thing you're asking that."

I said, "What's the matter?"

He says, "Well, you know, she just got down on her hands and knees and
is crawling over toward the door. Can you see my mock-ups?"

Well, this is the acceptance - rejection mechanism covered in
creativeCreation of Human Ability. We have there a combination of
commands which don't work on every case. See, that doesn't work on every
case. It doesn't solve an awful lot of things.

Why doesn't it solve an awful lot of things? Because there's one thing
missing about it: We didn't have the guy mock it up and accept it and
mock it up and reject it. You got the idea? The solid masses are not in
that process. So it becomes an as-ising process, Accept and Reject.

Now, it is the world's most simple thing to do to remedy a body's
havingness if you go about it in anywhere near the right way. You ask
the fellow what the body could have, he finally gets something the body
could have and he tells you with great certainty that the body could
have this. He can mock it up, as a general rule.

Have him mock it up, have him mock it up, have him mock it up, and it'll
fly into the body. Assist this; have him mock it up and push it into the
body, mock it up and push it - never pull into the body. Don't ever have
a thetan pull anything into the body; have him push it into the body.
He'll be outside after a while. All right.

Have him mock it up and push it in and mock it up and push it in. After
a while, it - he doesn't - it - still stand there.

Well now, by some tricky gradient, have him mock up enough of those
things right out there so that he can get one to go away. And we don't
care how this thing goes away. We don't care if it goes away by - he
mocks up a Caterpillar tractor and drags it down the hall and throws it
into the sewer, see? We don't care how he got it away. He's liable to be
awfully mechanical in getting rid of it. We don't care.

The final way he'll get rid of it is to have it just fly over the
horizon. He'll say, "Leave," and it's gone to an infinite distance.

All right. That is a remedy of havingness. In it comes; out it goes. You
have him do this so that he can bring them in or throw them away. Well,
the body can have that item. And in each case, it's merely remedying his
havingness.

The significance of the mock-up is secondary to the mass of the mock-up.
You can repair or remedy havingness on mock-ups which are so thin, the
preclear just gets a chimerical idea that they might be there, and
they'll still repair his havingness. Got that?

Now, an auditor wrote me the other day, quite some little distance from
London here, and said, "I have a terribly hard case. There's a fellow
who is twitching all over. He twitches all the time. And I'm not able to
do anything for him. Now, I know what I ..." And later in the letter she
says, "I know what you will tell me to run on her - run on him, is
communication, but I don't think this is the answer."

This is very presumptuous of this auditor, because I would - what's the
auditor writing me for if she's going to tell me what I'm going to
recommend to this guy, hm?

The letter goes on and says, "This young man has been a machinist all
his life." Uh-huh. He's been facing a heavy mass in a static position.
It's a lead-pipe cinch that the only thing that's wrong with him is -
have him mock up some machines and shove them in and mock up some
machines and shove them in until he can mock up some machines and throw
them away. And we don't care how thin the mock-up is. Got that?

That's the answer; that's the answer. But this auditor has been around
long enough to know old SOP 8, possibly even heard this, because this
happens to be an example given in the Phoenix ACC courses. It's given in
two or three lectures. It's a motor machinist who is twitching. You get
this?

Now, she could forget the doggonedest amount of axioms and everything
else. She could forget whole columns of techniques. She could forget all
kinds of theory and the right way to hold your mouth when you're asking
the question. But how did she ever manage to forget the one thing that'd
solve that case? Well, same thing: How did any auditor forget it? See,
that was the one thing that we know would set that case straight.

Now, I'll tell you the only bug there ever was in the Repair and Remedy
of Havingness and why we went away from it a trifle. Havingness is a low
order of problem. Got that? You go below the consideration level of
problem, and you get havingness as a problem. See, it's a very low-order
problem. Thetan can't duplicate a mass, so therefore he loves this
problem. So it's a basic problem, and that is the basic problem of it.
All right.

Now, as he begins to mock up and remedy his havingness, problems to him
become solved. Things start flying off of his case. You got the idea? He
starts cogniting. He starts getting good solutions.

And if you don't watch it, he's all of a sudden going to arrive at a
point where the only problem to him is an articulated-thinkingness
problem and havingness is no longer a problem to him. And therefore, you
will have run him out of the basic problem of havingness.

In other words - this is not as serious as it sounds. Sounds like a
complete dead-end cul-de-sac, that's the end of that; but it's not.
Somewhere along the line, for heaven's sakes, ask the fellow for
problems of comparable magnitude. Ask him to invent some problems and
remedy havingness in terms of problems in mass. You got the idea?

Now, that's very simple. You say - he's start - he's remedied havingness
and he's having a good time, body motivators, and all of a sudden, you
got some real tough problems solved with this boy. Watch it, because
you're liable to have him too low. Havingness itself is a problem, you
understand, but you have havingness in the process of solution. You've
got to have some problems to stand in there in lieu of havingness. So
therefore, he's got to be able to invent some problems.

No matter how much havingness you run and no matter how far you're going
to get this havingness straightened out, you won't do the whole job the
moment that you move out of mechanics into the field of thought, because
mass doesn't think. You'll have run out one of the basic problems a
thetan has, which is havingness. See, just as such it's a havingness. He
cannot duplicate a mass, so that's his basic problem, isn't it?

Well, if you destroy this problem, he's one down on problem - let me
tell you a little experiment. Individual has a present time problem. His
mother's just kicked him out of the house or something. His wife has
just gone home to her other husband or something has happened. And you
say, "Well, now, give me a problem of comparable magnitude."

And he does. That's fine.

You say, "Where is that problem of your wife going home to her other
husband?"

And he says, "It's right here. It's about two feet out in front of me."
He's lucky; it's not completely closed with him. Sometimes he says, "It
isn't anywhere, you know, huh." No, he's sitting right in the middle of
it, that's why it isn't anywhere. You got the idea? All right.

Now, you say, "Give me another problem of comparable magnitude to this."
"Invent one," is the proper auditing command. "Invent a problem of
comparable magnitude to your wife going home to her other husband." And
he does.

And you say, "Where is that problem now?"

"Oh, it's out there about ten feet."

"Good. Now, invent another problem of comparable magnitude to your wife
going home to her other husband," and so on. "Where is that problem
now?" He does and ...

"Where is it?"

"Oh, it's out there about forty feet."

If you ask him about two more times and he invents two more - and I mean
really invents, doesn't just pull them off the track or something of the
sort - that present time problem will just evaporate. It'll just
disappear. It's gone. It really is gone. He has not entered into the
middle of it so he can't see it anymore - it's just gone, if you ask him
two more times.

But let's take it at the point where it's forty feet out there. Now I'll
give you the little trick test. You ought to run this sometime just to
tell yourself exactly what havingness and problems have to do with each
other. It's quite amusing.

It's forty feet out, and you say to him not, "Invent a problem of
comparable magnitude to your wife going home to her other husband," but
you say, "Solve something."

And he says, "Well, solve something - uh - wooo - uh .. You understand,
he's not worried. It's out there forty feet now. You talk about the
tension being off. He is zuhh, you know. If you ask him two more times,
he'll never worry about it again the rest of his life. So we catch it at
forty feet.

And we say, "Now, just solve something."

So he says, "Well," he says, "the way to boil water is to put it on the
stove."

You say, "Where is the problem now of your wife going home to her other
husband?"

"It's out there about ten feet."

Got it? And you say, "Solve something."

He says, "Two plus two equals four."

"Where is that problem of your wife going home to her other husband?"

"It's out there about a yard."

What's happening? He solves them, (snap) they move in; he poses them,
(snap) they move out. You got it? Do you see the interrelationship
between problems and havingness?

Female voice: Yes.

Well, this takes a little study on your part, and I would just recommend
that you did this to somebody to look at this goofy phenomenon.

All right. Now, as we look this over, we discover then, that an
individual who has solved none of his problems ever, will be
interiorized into the middle of them; but they will constitute
havingness. They'll be mass, and he'll be in the middle of them, right?

You ask him to solve a few, at once he feels better about life - and
feels terrible. He's liable to feel himself very cheerful about life and
get shipped to the hospital as a body. You see, you could go in these
two extremes: make him feel wonderful and make the body feel horrible.
But unfortunately, nobody ever reaches these two extremes. They both
feel lousy.

Now you solve a person's problems, solve his problems, solve his
problems, one way or the other; and if you solve totally the problem of
havingness, you have solved one major problem. Understand, it isn't the
most horrific problem in the world, the problem of havingness. It is,
when you first look at it. You say, "The problem of havingness, thetan
can't duplicate - gee-whiz, that is a problem. Wow! Big one!" It's not
that big. There are other problems just as complicated.

So we have to get him to pose more problems on a thought level to get
him to let go of some of this mass. He has to rehabilitate his ideas on
the subject of getting ideas, you got it? He has to know that he can
invent ideas before he starts letting go of havingnesses. He has to know
that he can mock up masses before he lets go of masses. You got it?

So havingness is just one problem amongst many problems. So we have to
take up the two subjects in conjunction, one with another. Problems are
run, invention of, along with havingness, remedy and repair of. You got
it?

Audience: Yeah.

And if you do that, he passes this boundary and wins all the way
through.

Now, it's not going to take me very long to tell you the last little
item that I had to tell you. I know I sort of leave you adrift with all
of this, but you know a great deal about the repair and remedy of
havingness.

If you run an as-ising technique without repairing somebody's
havingness, he's had it. When he twitches or goes anaten, his havingness
is down. Repair it. That's all. If you repair too much of it, you get
him to thinking he is being collapsed. You've got to remedy it in favor
of repairing it. If you can remedy it, always do so. If you can't remedy
it easily, repair it. You got it?

Lot of other trick commands: "Get the idea the room's full of
valuables," that remedies the body's havingness. Lord knows what he'll
consider a valuable. Freud has made a lot of notes on what some people
consider valuable.

All right.

Now, here we have another problem which is intimately associated with
this - and I'm just going to give this about two minutes, wham, wham -
and that's exteriorization and interiorization. The world at large does
not like the idea of exteriorization. That has kept Scientology from
advancing.

Just as the roadblock of auditors not repairing or remedy of havingness
has kept their preclears from advancing here and there - oh, we've made
lots of successes. We haven't stopped the show just because we stopped
doing this, but we've had some oddities that crept in that we shouldn't
have had.

Now, just as sometimes an auditor, without repairing or remedy of
havingness, has slowed down the progress of a preclear, so has making
people conceive a static slowed down Scientology. The whole idea of
exteriorization is antipathetic to most people. Well, how Christianity
got where it got I don't know unless it was the fact that they gave them
a lot of fire after they died. Must have been something about they gave
them heaven and hell and another universe or something, remedied their
havingness right away.

Now we just say, "Get out of your head." Very unpopular. It's a loss of
havingness. It is so terrific that every loss a person has experienced,
of an ally, of his car keys, of his textbooks, of a halfpenny that went
down the grate ...

These things, you know, worry people something terrible. I've seen a
fellow spending an hour's good time looking for a penny that's gone
through a grate. You see, he's spent about two dollars' worth of time
right there; and also, go in and buy a dime's worth of fishhooks and
chewing gums and so forth to get the penny back. It was real wild. It's
the idea of losing something. This is very upsetting for people to lose
something, see? All right.

Every loss is only a lock. Losses are locks on exteriorization. He's
exteriorized suddenly and without his consent, and therefore, he doesn't
like the idea. So therefore, he's trying to stay places, and that's very
unhealthy for a thetan. He's trying to connect or associate with, you
get the idea, when he should be able to associate with or not at his own
will or leisure.

And so the individual who has exteriorized too suddenly, too many times
- too many deaths, you might say, too many losses of country and
planets, and a bunch of nuclear physicists came along and blew the whole
joint up, you know, and exteriorized from the planet - too many of
these, and the mere loss of car keys or the slight reduction of
havingness, or he thinks a thought and he gets his havingness dropping a
hair, see, is a key-in or a mere lock on past exteriorizations. You got
it?

And people that you're having trouble with in this life - has
exteriorized in this life and kept on living, during an operation or
during an automobile accident, and they've forgotten about it. And
there's a great oddity, if you want to get somebody over this fast,
repairing and remedying havingness the while, you run something on this
order; you say, "Can you recall a time when you were not exteriorized?"

And they do, and they do, and they do, and they do. And they say all of
a sudden, "Dz-zz-zuzz. In a tonsillectomy, I went out of my head. I'd
forgotten all about this," you know. He's liable to blow a grief charge.

Repair and Remedy of Havingness won't do it, exactly or directly. You've
got to address the subject of exteriorization to get that particular
phenomena. You get him to remember times when he was not, and he'll tell
you some hidden times when he did suddenly exteriorize, much to his
consternation, right here in this lifetime. And if you can find one of
these things, this is a big case solver when you run into it. You got
it?

The whole subject of Repair and Remedy of Havingness is simply based
upon the fact that thinking as-ises energy. It is up to the auditor to
repair and restore and remedy the idea that that energy is absolutely
necessary with the preclear. And if he does this, his cases are
tremendously successful. And if he fails to do this, why, some of his
cases are going to be mighty rough flops.

When do you remedy havingness? When you see the preclear agitate
slightly. He gets a little more nervous than he was, no matter how
slightyou'll notice it before he does - or he starts dropping off in his
attention. In either case, repair or remedy his havingness. Got it?

Audience: Yes.

Well, that's the roadblock that has faced Scientology, and we've got it
attacked and out of the way. And we're really on the high road now.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

[auditor]

EXTERIORIZATION

A lecture given on 19 January 1956

Well, it makes me very happy to look at so many bright, interested
faces, and to know that the bulk of those present are going to
comprehend every word of this lecture, even if I don't.

There are three or four subjects more technical than the subject we are
about to address tonight, they are much more technical than this. One of
them is the exact descent and genealogy of the Indian gods. That's very
technical, very poorly understood. They've written four books, one after
the other, all of which came from word of mouth. And it's all a very
involved subject; it goes way back.

Another subject that's more technical than this is the difference
between Homoousianism and Homoiousianism. That's a very technical
subject. Interestingly enough, these two Christian sects accounted -
with their technicalities - for one hundred thousand casualties in the
city of Alexandria in one year alone; a hundred thousand Christians were
killed by Christians because of the differences between Homoiousianism
and Homoousianism. And all the difference one can detect between the two
is that one has an I and one doesn't. But it's a much more technical
subject, much more technical.

Well, there are probably three or four others that are equally baffling.
There's probably, "How many angels can or cannot dance on the head of a
pin." There's probably, "Whether or not one actually did descend from a
large sunburst." All of these speculations, past lives and their exact
ramifications and so forth, however, are subordinate to the subject I am
going to talk to you about tonight.

Now, you understand just about where we sit. We sit somewhere between
the Hindu gods and their genealogy, the abstract theoreticians of the
other side of the Dark Ages and the known territory of what we can
discover in a preclear's bank and E-Meters, and what we can observe in
the way of phenomena, directly. But it's an awfully technical subject,
which has not only baffled many of us, but it's made several of us, I'm
afraid, rather ill. So, if you feel strange or quivery, or anything like
that, please leave quietly. We are, after all, making a tape recording.
And it isn't really for us, it's the taperecording engineers. They grind
their teeth and spit out bits of enamel whenever a chair falls over or
something like that. So, we just hope that this will not occur.

Now, the facts of the case are that the subject I am talking to you
about is not popular. It is the least popular subject in our modern
scientific world and is, at the same time, the most important subject in
our modern scientific world, because here we are at the crossroads
between man as he really is, and man as his enslavers wish he was. We're
right there at that crossroads, and the subject, of course, is
exteriorization. It's not a popular subject, not today.

A person who is very immersed in MEST - who finds himself at every hand
utterly dependent upon the machines, test tubes, looms and wheels of
this society, upon its biochemistry, its delicatessens - does not like
to look at a thetan. In fact, it makes him sick. Now that's literally,
actually true. There is a process, second only to R2-45* in its
finality, in The Creation of Human Ability, and that technique is
Conceive a Static. You simply ask a person to "Conceive a static." It
says right at the top of it, "Not recommended." That is the
understatement of the age! Every now and then somebody takes people out
and starts spotting energy sources, which we were doing. There's a
liability to it: sooner or later the individual discovers that the chief
energy source in this universe is a thetan. And they start spotting this
thing, and they're liable to get sick. They've got to be pretty
high-toned in order to confront the actuality of a thetan.

(*R2-45: As given in The Creation of Human Ability "An enormously
effective process for exteriorization but its use is frowned upon by
this society at this time," used humorously.)

Many other people who are having hard times with their cases have
nightmares all night long about being attacked by thetans. It's not
necessarily a friendly subject then. There are insane asylums that are
full of people who just claim that they've got thetans crawling all over
them. Now, where - where we come in suddenly, flagrantly, blatantly
introducing this tremendously unpopular subject into a society that
couldn't care less, I don't know, unless we like to make it tough for
ourselves.

The truth of the matter is, that the subject itself contains all of the
answers to anything man ever hopes to be. That's the only excuse we have
for introducing it; it's not its popularity. If you want to be popular,
if you want to introduce something very popular to the public, you say,
"It is not your fault. It was all done to you. You have never had any
responsibility for anything from the moment that you said, 'ga-ga,' in a
cradle. The highest crime which you have ever committed, perhaps, was
not being able to snap on to your bottle's nipple. And that is about
it."

And the public at large says, "Oh, isn't that wonderful. Isn't that
wonderful." That's popular. "You do not cause any slightest motion or
ripple in the entirety of this universe." Ah, the public loves that.
They want to float all together like drops of water or something out of
a biologist's laboratory, all alike, being pushed here and there into
patterns they need not understand. That's a very acceptable subject. I
hate to be harsh about the matter, but that's a fact. And that is the
end goal of a thing called "science" in its more materialistic sense.

Now of course, we say, "science," and we, at once, do not mean what
science means. Science merely means truth. It means knowingness. We have
actually taken the root word of science in Scientology. The -
knowingness in the fullest sense of the word, that is really science.
But science has become something else in our modern age. It's become a
bunch of wheels that clank and formulas that slip and pop and do various
things for us so none of us have to put out any effort. Science is a
sort of a huge housemaid that sweeps up all of our dirt and makes it
unnecessary for us to notice where we're spitting. The nobility of
science, of course, is something we mustn't gainsay at any time.

If you go around any scientific area of the world, you probably can't
breathe. Camden, New Jersey is a very scientific part of the world. All
the research laboratories of Standard Oil and all sorts of things around
there - the air is absolutely supersaturate with science, hydrochloric
acid and so forth. But science is a life-giving thing - except when it
kills you.

Now, you will find there are still countries on Earth which are
worshiping science actively. There are. Russia today has entered upon
the worship of science. The US is just recovering from it. And I think
Great Britain left off a worship of science some years ago - feels
somewhat, over here, that science really hasn't done everything that it
should have done. Life didn't become smooth in all directions. It was a
sort of a movement at one time, a sort of a crusade. "Let's all be
scientific." And outside of new, rather pantywaisty countries like
Russia - I'm sorry to classify them that way, but you know, we discarded
communism a century ago, and they're - just found out about it. The
point is, that in the whole field of science, we do have this rather
depraving factor: dependency upon MEST, And we have ideas going downhill
at the same ratio that we have machines going uphill.

The more important the machine becomes, the more important the object
becomes, the less important is the idea. And the funny part of it is, is
once you have a world full of machines with no ideas left at all, there
will be no reason left to run any of the machines. Science does not
really foresee that point.

Now, here in Great Britain the people that persuade other people to work
in factories and so forth, are having a harder and harder time getting a
good solid output out of people. Man sort of went through this age. He
actually entered into it about 1837. And he came on from that time into
the great industrial epoch here in Great Britain of the '80s and '90s
and has been losing confidence in these things that went whir-clank ever
since. And during the last war, when all of these things that went
whir-clank kept coming over and dropping things that went pop-pop,
people had an idea that maybe it wasn't the best advance in the world to
have machines doing everything and man doing nothing. Just maybe this
had something to do with it.

America is getting close to that, however - their science they've put
into a certain category now. They have made a successful social system
out of science. But people are beginning to notice there's something
missing, and that missingness is life. America entertains a very high
idea of what something alive must do. It must be going at least at two
thousand miles an hour, you know. And they've noticed that things around
are only traveling these days at sixty and seventy, and they say things
are slowing down. They're beginning to wonder what happened - what
happened to the verve and vim? Well, Great Britain could give them a
great example of what's happened. A great dependency upon MEST brings
about a great triumph of MEST, which is no life.

Russia, in its infantile state it's just entering - I have heard a
couple of very well-known authorities say, recently, it's just entering
its Victorian age of high fidelity on the part of the military and glory
and what fun it is to go out and get stuck full of holes by the bushmen,
you know. This period is just moving in on Russia and they have a
philosophy, however, that goes along with it they call "dialectic
materialism." Dialectic materialism goes so far as to say that all ideas
are generated from a couple of chunks of MEST. It's a very simple idea -
I mean, it's kind of a simple-minded idea, too. But if you take two
pieces of coal here, each of them capable of considerable force, and you
bang them together a couple of times, an idea occurs. I'm sorry, but
that's the basic definition of dialectic materialism - only I'm not
stating it exactly as they state it in their textbook.

Now, the way they state it in their textbook is this: that two forces
produce, in their conflict, an idea; that ideas are the product of two
or more forces in conflict. And that is dialectic materialism, which is
a couple of chunks of coal being knocked together, an idea occurs. You
see how it is? I don't know where the idea is registered or who
generates it or something, but that's what it claims. It just isn't
true. I know - I know I've had people banging my head into things for a
long time, and I didn't think of a thing except, "Quit!" It's wonderful.

Now, I don't mean to put dialectic materialism on the fire. Evidently
it's an all-right philosophy for a simple-minded people who haven't got
anything more to think of than sleeping on the stove all winter. But,
where it comes to trying to understand the actual forces of existence,
the philosophy, as such, of science, somewhat lets us down.

Now, in demonstration of this, the physical sciences have advanced at a
tremendously rapid rate; oh, this tremendous whirlwind rate of advance
which has given us, since Newton (which is, I think, under three hundred
years, isn't it or somewhere around three hundred years?) we've come all
the way from watching an apple drop to watching an atom bomb drop. And
that's quite a distance, quite a distance. You'd think so if you were
there watching it. Well, where - where science has made this tremendous
advance, in the same period of time we have had, if anything, a
regression and a subjectiveness enter into the field of philosophy,
which is the most confounded thing you ever saw.

Our philosophy today is not as high or at as good a level as the Greek.
We could still read the Greek philosopher with enormous profit. We don't
read Anaxagoras or somebody, and read him over and then put him down and
say, "Well, John Smith said that a lot better the other day in
Parliament, you know?" We don't do that. We say, "My, that's well done.
Wonder why nobody is thinking like that today?"

Well, the reason they're not thinking like that today is they're not.
Just isn't any real other rationale. It isn't that science crept up on
them; it isn't that thought and science are to any great degree
interposed. We're actually dealing here with two problems which have a
tendency to be separate.

But here we have this thing of the social part of life being less well
understood and regulated today than it was a couple of thousand years
ago. For instance, anything we know about liberty was probably better
talked about and better expressed in the forum at Athens than it ever
has been in the US Senate or down here in the Parliament. That's a
cinch. I mean, I don't think anybody would argue - I don't even think
the senators would argue with that. They'd wonder that I'd got it in the
same breath.

Now, they sit around and talk about the appropriation - how they're
going to get more taxes out of the yokels. They don't talk about liberty
and how the law safeguards the rights of this and that, and the human
interplay. These are not a subject of their discussion anymore.

Well, what the dickens happens here? We have an enormous upsurge of MEST
and no comparable upsurge in any other branch of truth or wisdom. It's
just something that got left at the post - left at the post to such a
degree we wonder it was at the post at all.

Sociology today - if you want to go take sociology or listen to some
lectures in sociology, you'll find that there's something there; there's
something to listen to. It's not bad, you know? But a better grip of the
subject can be found in almost any age. The idea of man trying to live
alongside of man is, today, academically understood and publicly
understood not at all. I mean, it's not a subject that has come up and
become popular.

We go into the field of mental healing - we discover one great discovery
in the field of the mind of the nineteenth century, and that was Sigmund
Freud's discovery. And - discovery actually boiled down to this:
Something can be done about it. He just made this discovery. He found
out that occasionally he did something for people. You don't have to add
up the libido theory or laugh at the guy because he did this or that or
echo the opinion of the medical doctor of that age, who was dead against
Freud. But, he did discover something and, boy, that's an awfully lonely
thing that sort of sits there all by itself in the middle of a great
ocean of nothing.

And we look at this generation, and we find in America, for instance,
just one philosopher who has written anything. Was a fellow by the name
of Dewey, he wrote about education. After you've read Dewey on the
subject of education, you feel, "Well I don't know anything about it
either." He wrote about it beautifully, though. I'm sure there were
other philosophers in our modern times, but if they've been dead five
years, why, we've forgotten them. And that is really not what happens
with good philosophers. All right.

Up to the time when we took the rationale and way of looking at things
that was in use in the field of physics, mathematics, and started to
look at man and his social activities and behaviors, right up to the
moment when we did this - and really sprang out sideways from science
and said, "Hey, there's something else here. There's something else here
beside a machine. There's also a man standing here beside this machine.
There's something else here besides this huge dangerous flamethrower.
There's a guy wielding it and there's a guy on the other end of that
receiving that flame. Now, what about this?" Well, man had learned to
think in the interim and hadn't noticed it. He had learned to classify
and codify and discipline his thinkingness. And it was simply the
assembly of that discipline and its application to man himself which
gives us, today, what we know in Dianetics and Scientology.

Now, it was then with great astonishment that we walked forward from a
highly mechanistic approach, such as the early engram in Dianetics, and
found ourselves looking straight at the human spirit. This is a shocking
thing. It's like somebody had started out, you see, to prove the total
nonexistence of an allihippodile. And he keeps showing the class: "You
see? Just look at this space. You don't find any allihippodile here."
And all of a sudden something taps him on the shoulder and says, "What
do you think I am, Professor?"

Here was the subject of life. Here was a - rather an unexpected end and
goal to find the actual entity of existence, the actual creator and
motivator of life and this universe standing there, ready to be
examined, simply by walking up a channel of reason and logic as
developed in sciences.

Now, just because we used a scientific approach didn't mean that we used
a mechanistic approach. You see, here were methods of thinking which had
been evolved to think about MEST, and all of a sudden we took the same
methods of thinking and found ourselves thinking about life and, of
course, the answer turned up. It was obvious that the answer would.

Well, we know what the answer is. We know very thoroughly that a static
is a static. It has no wavelength and it has no real location, it has no
mass. But it can consider that it has or can make any of these things. A
static is something that can consider. All right. This almost total
negative description is, nevertheless, the description of the situation,
because these things can occur. And knowing that, we can then handle
various activities of life and understand them.

We would know at once, for instance, that this thing called life, a
static, that we designate with the mathematical, not spiritual, symbol -
thetan - that this is in contest with space, it's in contest with
matter, it's in contest with energy flows and in contest with other
thetans. We know these contests exist; we can understand these. We say,
"All right. Now look at this thing. It's nothing, and here it is looking
at this mass over here."

Can it duplicate that mass? No, it can't duplicate that mass. It,
itself, is not mass unless it says, "I am mass." It says, "Now I am
mass" and so therefore it says, "I am duplicating that mass." Well, it
can't do that convincingly unless it can simply consider that mass is
there, and then, consider that it is duplicating the mass that's there,
because the mass isn't there either. Eventually, it begins to understand
this and so conceives that it can duplicate mass, and becomes rather
happy about it. But in essence, it doesn't think about this. It finds
itself anywhere in space it cares to be, looking at anything it wants to
look at.

Now, that is the most unrestricted thing that could happen to anything.
So its specialty is dreaming up restrictions. And it does this in order
to have a game. And if it can't do this, well, it can't have a game. A
game consists of barriers. You have to have a playing field, and you
have to have various restrictions - rules, in other words. We have to
say that, "When the whistle blows nobody must run with the ball," you
know? And we must have these rules. And life, therefore, thinking them
up and forgetting them one way or the other, and as-ising them and
not-knowing them and scrambling them somehow or another, then gets in
contest with other life forms and has a game.

And I'm not now saying that this particular universe life finds itself
in was or was not produced by some divine being and so forth. That
subject is too complicated. That's the only reason we're not touching it
at all. That's why I say we relegate that to the Hindu way back when,
it's more complicatedsomething when we're addressing - we're only
talking about those things which we can see, feel and experience.

The second that we could measure the output of a thetan on an
electrometer of some kind or another, we were there, see? We could right
away experience this thing. We could know by the experience people had
in our vicinity, we could know by the improvements we could make in
people's health, by addressing this subject, that we really had
something here.

It wasn't whether or not we, ourselves, with our physical eyes, could
see a nothingness out in front of us. It was whether or not that
nothingness out in front of us could see us. Do you get the idea? And it
was very strange, but it could. And then when we, ourselves, get nice
and cleared, we find ourselves outside looking ... We say, "What's this?
What's this? I didn't desire a proof like this. I was perfectly happy."

But, as we look over this situation, we discover that there are great
numbers of objective proofs concerning the actual identity of the
life-creating unit, you might say, or the energy-consideration
production unit - space, energy, matter comes from this unit.

Now we don't care whether it made all of the space there is, or all of
the energy it is - there is, or all the matter there is. This is not a
subject really germane to our activity at this time. It is enough that
there are chairs here and we can see them, and we get three feet back of
our head and we can still see them. Some people get three feet back of
their head and they see a chair their mother used to sit in, and this
involves them sometimes; it upsets them. They say, "I'm supposed to be
here in present time."

Well, this is also the time production unit; you can be any place in any
span of time that you want to be. And this is very upsetting to an
animalcule, a thetan, which wanted a nice heavy barrier called time. It
wants the next moment to be the next moment. It wants the last moment to
be the last moment, and no argument, please! Don't let's get confused,
see? But here we have this thetan, who can be in 1790, whether the MEST
of 1790 is there or in his facsimile bank, we don't care. It is in his
facsimile bank, by the way, but he gets into 1790 with equal ease to
2008.

Now, you say to this thetan while he's around in space - you say, "Come
up to present time." He practically has to manufacture it in order to
get you bracketed, and to actually see a chair as you see a chair with
your physical eyes. There's no necromancy going on here, it's just the
fact that we have suddenly unrestricted the life unit. And having
unrestricted it, we, of course, don't find any restrictions, such as
time. And he very often doesn't find any restrictions, such as walls.

You say, "Take a look at the wall."

So, he kind of fumbles around and next thing you know he sees a brick
wall and he says, "This is the wrong wall, the wrong wall. I'm looking
at the wrong wall."

You say, "Well, what's the matter?"

And he says, "It's a brick wall." He went through it and he's looking at
the other side.

All kinds of interesting little things like this happen. There's an
auditor right here in this room at this moment that was exercising
somebody, and he knew that I had said that sometimes if you got the
individual to look at a picture - I mean, whatever he's looking at
fixedly was simply a picture - if you'd get him to looking at something
else, why, things would evolve and he'd be outside. And about a half an
hour later this auditor said to this fellow, "Where are you anyhow?" And
the fellow was down, as a thetan, on the railroad tracks. He was
actually watching the trains come by. And this auditor hadn't known he
was down there at all. And it scared him half out of his wits, you know?
The preclear had no indoctrination on this at all.

Well, the funny part of it is, that as long as we can maintain an
individual in any kind of a fairly well restricted - fairly well
unrestricted state, he's happy. That sound complicated to you? Well, it
is complicated - it contains the whole structure of the laws and
civilizations of man. A happy society is one which is in a relatively
unrestricted state which is in a satisfactorily restricted state. You
get the idea? And that is a nice, happy society.

And societies get unhappy when they become too restricted or when they
become too free - they're alike unhappy. So, somewhere in there there's
a mean of "how many boundaries do we have to have in order to play this
game? How many of these white markers down the lawn do we have to need
in order to play tennis?" Somebody says, "We don't need any."

Try to play tennis.

"That ball was outside."

"No, it wasn't outside. There is no outside; therefore, it's my score.
No, it's your score."

And you immediately perceive the difficulties in such a simple thing if
we had no barriers. Now, let's play tennis without a net. And the fellow
says, "That hit the net."

"No, it didn't hit the net," and so forth.

"Now let's play tennis without any rackets. Let's just cut it down
here."

And the fellows, of course, make a gesture in the air and that makes the
ball rebound one way or the other, by consideration, which is the only
reason it's bounding anyhow. And now let's play it without a ball.

"The ball did go outside."

"No, I distinctly saw it hit the net." You get the idea? "Now I saw it
hit the net."

"Well, how could it hit the net since it's over here in this side of the
court?" In other words, we have nothing but turmoil and argument and
chaos, which is why man's idea of "the total universe was chaos" is one
of the first ideas we find man having. He really had this idea very
early: universe is chaos.

Yes, an unrestricted universe without any agreements on what we're doing
or how we're doing it is chaos. A bunch of thetans with no space is
chaos. Or a bunch of thetans with space but no barriers in the space is
chaos, see? Thetan doesn't like that any better than he likes being in a
jail cell. See, that's too restricted. So, somewhere in there, by the
considerations of the individual, there are boundaries enough for a game
and freedom enough to play it.

If you want to consult at once whether or not a people are going to be a
happy and progressive people, just ask them, "Have you got boundaries
enough to suit you and freedom enough to live?" And they just - they'd
look it over, and they could adjust a civilization just on that equation
alone, which would make a livable civilization. You'd have to have a lot
of conferences if you were doing it from scratch.

If you want to adjust any enterprise or group, you just say, "Well, are
there enough boundaries to suit you?" Once in a while in handling - a
group, you fail to lay down a law. You fail to say, "Everybody who comes
in this room must hang their coats outside in the cloakroom." You find
cloaks all over the chairs, you know? Everybody comes in, all these
cloaks all over the chairs and so forth. And the room is disorderly and
so forth, and they don't like that. They don't like that. So, they
practically force you, you see, to put up a sign saying, "Put your coat
and hat on the hook," you know? In other words, it is only when the
group is no longer consulted in the imposition of the barriers that they
become onerous and restrictive.

A government which starts passing laws without due consultation with the
customs of the people is a government that isn't going to be with us
very long. I mean that. It's just not going to be around long, because
it isn't the government. And people sense that it isn't the government.

Now, you can look in the past and find a great many very - very silly
governments. You can find governments are passing laws in all directions
and find nobody revolting against this government. The thing which you
assume at that time is these people needed a lot more barriers than they
were getting. That's what you assume - long-winded, involved codes of
conduct and all that sort of thing. You assume, "Well, nobody did
anything about it so they didn't have enough barriers."

But, let's take France in that fatal part of the eighteenth century,
when they decided even the sight of the Bastille - which hadn't been
used for a jail for years - was too much for their idea of freedom. And
pang, they knocked it down, which was a lot of labor, I will say. It
hadn't been used for a prison for years but down came the Bastille, a
symbol of restraint. We find that the restraints were much too great and
down came the aristocracy. They'd failed to consult the people with
regard to the imposition of barriers, so the people didn't have any
game.

Now, where we look then in the social sciences, we find that here is a
simple, if somewhat sloppy and, itself, unrestricted rule, and we find
that we can guide ourselves along this way. Well, if we can do it on the
social sciences, can we do it with a thing called exteriorization in
processing? And that's what we want to get to at once.

The old idea was to get the preclear three feet back of his head and
have him patch up the mock-up. Fifty percent of the cases, this works.
Just works. I mean, you say, "Be three feet back of your head."

The fellow has never heard of this before. He's liable to give you some
kind of an argument sometimes, like, "I am."

And you find out he's mocked up a head in front of him, at which time
you can confront him with this, "No, no, no. I mean you! You know, you!
You get three feet back of your head." And he is.

He takes a look, and he says, "Well, what do you know?"

You say, "Well, all right. Now, what you looking at?"

And he says, "The wall."

And you say, "Copy. Copy. Copy. Copy." And you make him used to making
mock-ups and remedy his havingness a little bit and so forth. And
eventually you'd get around to chasing him around in space. And you'd
eventually get around, as far as the body was concerned, of "Let's fix
up that mock-up. Now, let's fix up that body; let's fix up its pancreas
and take those black bits of energy out of this and that, and straighten
it up one way or the other." And he would. And this is a relatively fast
route as far as curing is concerned, because you have that thing which
is injecting the livingness into things doing the actual readjustment.

Now, when an individual doesn't respond to this, there's something
wrong. And it's been our contest for the last three and a half years to
find out what the hell is wrong. Got the idea?

Now, it's hard for a chap who doesn't have too much trouble being three
feet back of his head to understand that somebody else is having,
trouble being three feet back of his head, because he can say to him
over and over, "Look, you idiot ..." (He wants to say that, he doesn't
say that. He says, "Sir" or "Ma'am.") "Look, you idiot, all you've got
to do is change your mind and just get the idea that you're three feet
back of your head, you see? And then you'll see your actual head in
front of you."

Now, the guy gets back there and you have him mock up and duplicate for
a while, and he actually starts seeing the real room, you see? Unless
he's slid out of time too far, he will spot actually the walls and so
forth. Many people who have an unreality on exteriorization get out all
right, they have no unreality on that. But then they don't quite locate
themselves. That's because they are providing themselves with a bunch of
facsimiles to look at. You get the idea? They get back there and then
they tailor-make the atmosphere they're going to look at. Well, maybe
they're out of present time, maybe they're not, we don't care. But they
just don't see the walls, that's all. They see some pictures of some
walls and this isn't real.

And a lot of people who have been (quote) exteriorized (unquote), and
who yet have not been able to really fix up the body and so forth, just
aren't in that century. That's about all there is to that, since they're
not any longer barriered by time. And they promptly go out and get lost.
They haven't decided what time it is. They decide what time it is and
they'll see the room.

But, the 50 percent that just don't exteriorize at all, obviously, have
something wrong with them. Three and a half years - fathomless! I've
finally fathomed it. I'm not just giving you a recount on how tough it
all is. I could do that, you know, and get away with it. But I won't. I
got the problem licked so I might as well tell you what this is.

Now, what could be wrong? Why don't they get back of their head? All
right. Now you'll find if the body gets sick enough, they will. That's
one factor; one little laboratory test you can make - feed them ipecac
or an underdose of strychnine or something, and they leave. They leave.
They feel very sad about the whole thing. And we look it over further
and we find out that there's an inevitable exteriorization at death. At
death they go bing! Out they go.

Well, that's a curious thing to happen, too. I mean, look that over for
a moment - there's an exteriorization at death. Reasoning along that
line brought us to the fact that evidently an individual is motivator
hungry. If he gets enough motivators, he can leave something. That's
true too. Because the end product is that he exteriorizes.

Well, we look this thing over a little further and we find that some
people exteriorize when you say, "Get the idea you can control the body
from outside. Get the idea you can't control the body from outside. Get
the idea you can control the body from outside. Get the idea you can
..." You know, the old Concept Processes. And we just run those two, one
against the other, back and forth, back and forth. The next thing you
know, the guy's three feet back of his head.

He wasn't there because he couldn't control the body from outside. Well,
that's a very funny thing because control, we discover, is just below
communication. When an individual goes out of communication, he goes
into control. Have we got that? That's one for you to notice. These
control-happy boys are just below communication. If you bring up their
ability to communicate, they drop this control proposition.

But, that again is not a satisfactory answer. Well, we know all kinds of
bric-a-brac like this. You can sneak a lot of guys out of their heads,
in fact I can slam guys out of their heads on the first technique of
exteriorization we had. I knew all about exteriorization, because I was,
you see? And I kept asking people, on these tough cases, for a nice neat
technique that would, do something about it. And the first actual
technique - but unfortunately it doesn't work very generally, but it was
the first actual technique for exteriorization. And that was simply
this, "Try not to be three feet back of your head." And that will bring
you in 20, 30 percent of the 50 that can't. But unfortunately, they get
out there, and they don't know really what they're doing most of the
time, and if you don't handle them very, very gently indeed, they'll
snap back in - in any event, in the next couple of weeks will be back
in.

So, I had to finally conclude, on this subject of exteriorization, that
there was an unsolved thing here which took place to first prevent
exteriorization and then to make the person relinquish an exteriorized
state, since all those persons who were exteriorized by the great
cleverness of the auditor, pop back in again. Interesting. I know about
five hundred techniques that slip guys out of their heads, some real
covert ones. A few sentences and the guy is out of his head - sicker
than a pup, usually, if it took that much to get him out. Get the idea?

So, there's some factor here. All right. Now part of the answer lies
right here: Other-determined exteriorization has brought about a protest
against exteriorization.

A fellow is killed without any consent of his, unexpectedly, when he
wants to go on living, and he finds himself three feet or three hundred
yards back of that mangled body, you see? That's exteriorization under
duress. Now, when that has happened too often - oh, and a thetan can
stand lots of these, several thousand, probably, until it really gets on
his nerves - but when it's gotten on his nerves, he gets a feeling about
exteriorization. And such a person, by the way, we say, "Be three feet
back of your head," and instead of being three feet back of your head,
if you interrogated him closely he would say, "I could just go out
someplace and just cry for about ten thousand years."

And you say, "What's the matter?"

"Oh, I don't know. I just feel griefy."

Some aren't quite that protesty; they get back of their heads and snap
back in again. And you say, "What's the matter?"

"I don't know - I just feel so sad." And they - if you kept this up,
you'd throw them into a grief charge.

Now what are you doing? You're actually restimulating an engram of
exteriorization - not only in the physical body, but in the thetan. Two
engrams: one, the body has had a thetan blown out of its head, by force,
which is matched by the thetan's engram of being blown out of a body's
head by force. These two get into comparison and become an agreement
that "Exteriorization is no good!" So you just try to exteriorize one of
these boys, no matter how cleverly, and he will either go out and come
back, or go out and stay a couple of weeks and come back, or he won't go
out at all in the first place. Now, that's the size of it.

Well, just knowing that much, however, doesn't solve the problem. These
are just phenomena that I've been giving you. There is, however, an
earlier approach to this which said, "If you're trying to exteriorize a
preclear," said in one of the PABs, I think, "try to find out what
you're trying to exteriorize him from." That's cute. He might not be in
his body. You might have to first exteriorize him from Earth and then
from other bodies and then from his own body. But an adequate way to do
this didn't exist. Although some success was had with this, it evidently
wasn't quite on the right road, see? It wasn't quite on the groove.

The only thing that was really wrong with the processes of
exteriorization is we had not allowed the thetan, or understood that he
had, enough power of choice. And that was the key. We, in processing
him, processed him as though he were much more stupid and unknowing than
he really is. Yes, he is so accustomed to looking at that mass out
there, and being himself here, without much sensation, that he forgets
that he exists, and he becomes an unknownness to himself. That is his
unknownness - there is no purpose in him knowing himself. Furthermore,
he is totally capable of mocking himself up as a mass. A thetan can just
as easily say, "I am a mountain," as to say, "I am Mohammed," as to say,
"I am a thetan."

Now, we didn't allow for this fact: He does know - he does know really
what he's trying to do. And when you're not exteriorizing him easily,
you're not exteriorizing him out of the right body. Until, so much so,
that we can make this statement very bluntly, and this is one that'll
stay with you, that you can audit with. You can say, "He doesn't get
three feet back of his head, therefore, it's a case of wrong body."

A nonexteriorizing thetan is a case of wrong body. You got it? He
doesn't want the body he's got, and the inverse vectors of desire and
not-want and all the rest of it, has kept him pinned in it. He doesn't
want the body he's in. You got it? It's a case of wrong body. No
exteriorize? Wrong body!

It isn't that he has made a mistake about what body he's in. Got it?
See, we figured he was dumber than this. Well, he's not that dumb. He's
not that stupid. He actually kind of knows that he doesn't want this
body, you see? It isn't really that he is making a mistake about what
body he's in. We got it? He isn't making a real error about the body
he's in. It's a fact that he just doesn't want the body he's in and
conceives himself to be in another body more desirable to him, and this
is the game he's playing. And therefore, we get the universe closures
which are so difficult to resolve in processing. They are difficult to
resolve in processing because they consist of a more desirable body from
the viewpoint of that thetan. And he may desire some old stinking drunk,
more desirable, than the very fine looking young man that he is.

The universe closure is a symptom of his game of trying to be in the
other person's body and yet stay with the body he has. And when you try
to separate these two universes, you are unmasking, to him, his lack of
desire to be in the body he's in. And so he becomes unhappy about the
whole situation. He accumulates another universe because he doesn't like
the one which he is, basically. And there we have the whole idea of
universe closure. It, again, is a case of wrong body. Only he wants this
other body. He's got it kind of hidden from himself, but he is
pretending he is this other body.

We have a lot of men walking around who have so desired some beautiful
woman, for instance, or some very vivacious woman, that they themselves
are pretending to themselves that they really are in the universe of
this woman. Get the idea?

Now, this is almost Freudian when it comes to that, but unfortunately
does not continue along a Freudian line. You could understand it
obviously if this puny, runty, horrible-looking young fellow desired to
be this big, dashing, robust, strong character. Now, that's a storybook
sort of thing. We're led to believe this by the writers that get a
penny-a-word or five-cents-a-word, like myself. I'm not a penny-a-liner,
by the way, I get five cents a word when I write that stuff. We could
understand this, but it's a storybook attitude. The truth of the matter
is that the big, robust guy has usually had enough bad luck with people
trying to make nothing out of him because they think he's strong and
formidable, that he wishes he was some puny runt. Get the idea?

So we have a completely reversed idea as being far more average and that
is this big, hulking brute of a beautiful man, you know, wishes he was
this little pipsqueak, see? And he's going around in the universe of
this little pipsqueak. And we say, "For heaven's sakes, what's that
fellow acting like that for? He ought to have his chest out there and
get his muscles rippling," and they don't though. They don't want those
muscles to ripple.

They come and see you to get more into the universe of the pipsqueak.
That's their idea. "If I could just swap bodies smoothly without anybody
noticing, I'd be a happy man. The only trouble is the FBI or Scotland
Yard might notice, you know? Well, they have fingerprints of all these
bodies, and there are rules about the game and so on." So, they come to
you, and they think by some necromancy you will cut them down to size.

They lost - well, all kinds of wild things happen. Some girl, whose
acceptance level was nyuh, knew this guy and instead of marrying him,
married this fellow who had buck teeth or something, you know? And that
was the way it went and that is the situation. You see?

People's ideas of acceptance are not necessarily the Greek artists' way
of thinking. Acceptance level is acceptance level. And acceptability is
an acceptability, not a storybook. So don't make mistakes about this.
And the second you know that, then of course, wrong body, as a game,
becomes a very understandable mess. It's a mess, but it's very
understandable. Because when they adopt the other universe, they adopt
its habits, customs, gestures and some of its physiological features. So
that you'll find this great, strong, hulking brute is liable to have
very flabby muscles, you know? And it's not possible that he has very
flabby arm muscles. His leg muscles are good enough. Yeah, what is this?

See, that's something offbeat. Well, that's wrong body; and he's just
trying to wear the other body, and that's about all there is to it.

You find many a girl - various stresses - in the war you notice this:
Some girl who was very much in love with some young man, and he got
knocked off, something like that, and right away she becomes a lawyer -
begins to talk in a rather husky voice. If you watch her a while longer,
the next thing you know, she's liable to start smoking cigars. You know?
And in order to exteriorize her, you'd have to exteriorize her out of
the body of a young man before you could exteriorize her out of the body
she's in. Now she doesn't want to be in the body she's in, so she's not
really in the body she's in, and you just don't have a dog's chance of
exteriorizing her out of that body. You say, "Be three feet back of your
head." She's not in it. So the whole command misses. You see that? See,
you just couldn't possibly - she couldn't execute this command. You've
given the individual, then, a nonexecutable auditing command. Wrong
body.

Now, what does this have to do with control? Well, it's that the old
mechanisms of - something resisted you and resisted you, you finally
tried to control it one way or the other. You finally tried to stand it
in one place, you wanted it to stop moving in some fashion so you could
at least size it up. You couldn't communicate or you couldn't talk with
this other person, and the next thing you know, you feel kind of
engulfed and overwhelmed. But the funny part of it is, is under that
engulfment and under that over-feeling there that we didn't really want
this person, there is a great deal of desire sitting there. And that
desire was native and basic; so we get this axiom: We say, "We cannot
hate or despise those things which we have not once loved." That's
absolutely necessary that we must have loved those things which we now
hate or despise. Otherwise, there'd be no closures.

Now, therefore, ARC is the preceding thing to this. So, we look this
over and we find that we have - there's a universe closure here. Well,
the universe closure started to happen way back. And then the individual
said, "Well, I can't have that person anymore. Well, I've got that
person." He actually, very often, is carrying a mock-up of that person's
body on frontwards or in reverse.

It's quite amazing. He's actually got a mock-up. It's in so close that
not even he sees it. He doesn't view this at all. He very often wears a
black shroud over the body. So you get him outside at all and he'll say,
"The body is black.' That's satisfactory. Yeah, he doesn't want to know
what body that is. Get the idea? He wants to keep up his illusion.

So, here again we have a case of wrong body. As soon as we know this,
and as soon as we know the vitalness of repair and remedy of havingness,
in exteriorization, we're off, right away, to the races and we can
exteriorize anything we walk into - providing we can get it to sit still
long enough. Because no telling what we're exteriorizing. We're
certainly always exteriorizing a thetan, but out of what we never find
out till he tells us and sometimes he doesn't bother to.

Now, the actuality is, that many of the cases which have a totally black
field and which are nonexteriorizable at all, are stuck in an
exteriorization. Let me give you this very rapidly. I told you this last
Tuesday. We had this kind of a situation: An individual who is stuck in
a body, evidently - and that's very advised, we didn't say what body he
was stuck in - he's apparently stuck in the body standing right in front
of you, but he's not. All right. Now, this individual feels some grief
or gets upset one way or the other, and we find out that his major
engram is exteriorization. Now, get that very carefully: His major
engram is exteriorization.

Now, we know that running separateness on things produces enormous gains
in a preclear. We know that running connections to things reduces the
gain or wipes it out or sends him downhill. We could have somebody
sitting saying, "Now I'm connected with that chair. And I can get now
the idea of being connected with the window. And I can get the idea of
being connected with the wall." And you can go on with this for about
twenty minutes, and you'll spin him right on in, if he's a rough case.
If you just then, at that point say, "Now get an idea you're separate
from the window, separate from the wall, separate from the chair," and
so forth, he'd come right on up the Tone Scale again. The clue is
separateness.

Separateness is good for a thetan. It is the way out toward greater
freedom; but remember he can exceed his desire for freedom. And then he
has havingness which brings him back to enough barriers. Got the idea?
He wants separateness until he has his desire for freedom surfeited and
then he wants to come right back on in to enough restriction, which is
havingness. And it's the auditor's job, if he wants to do a good, neat
job of exteriorization, to balance these two factors: separateness and
havingness, separateness and havingness. And the funny part of it is, he
may only go an eighteenth of an inch toward freedom before, boy, does he
feel like he's got to close. You get the idea? His desire for barrier
seems to be so overwhelmingly greater than his desire for freedom that
the individual apparently will sit there and plow himself right on in.

Well, he won't if you give him the right barrier. It's another case of
wrong barrier, wrong body, wrong piece, you see? He'll go on desiring
havingness, on and on and on and on and on until you spot the right
restrictive barriers. And that's very easy to do with these auditing
commands.

One can go over this very easily with a preclear, following all other
rules of auditing, being able to remedy his havingness, repair it and do
other things, using a routine auditing approach. You understand after
you've done all that (and this doesn't end all techniques, it certainly
doesn't wipe out old Route One or Separateness Processing or anything of
the sort, but just to get him out of his head), you would start in, in
this fashion: You would say, "What body would you like to have?" Got it?
"What body would you like to have?" Any variation on this as long as
it's "have" and "body," you get the idea? "Well, what body would you
like to have?"

He will cognite almost at once, unless he's completely in the spinbin,
and say, "Well, not this one." He's not liable to express that to you,
but that will be an underlying feeling as he goes through this, which
will become clearer and clearer to him.

And he'd say, "What body would I like to have? Oh, I don't know... " And
then he will say, "Well, a robot body. That is a good body, a robot
body; it's indestructible and so forth. That's a good body."

Having given him just that much greater freedom, because you started to
exteriorize him out of the robot body, he called for you, at that point,
the first body of the chain out of which you've got to exteriorize him.
Got it? You gave him that much freedom, and if you just left it at that
and didn't repair or remedy his havingness at once, he would simply
start going down and going anaten and getting agitated on you, because
you will have as-ised what facsimile he had of a robot body. You will
have cut him down one. You got it? So you got to put it back and do so
always with abundance. So your next auditing command immediately after
that is, "Well now, can you mock up a robot?"

"Oh, I think so. Yeah. Yeah."

"Well, do so. Go ahead. Mock up another robot. Now mock up another
robot. You got two or three there now? Well, why don't you shove one in
on yourself"

And if he's real good at mock-ups, which he probably won't be, you have
him shove them in until he can mock them up and throw one away, or get
one to leave. Get the idea? Just one, and he's sure it's gone, then just
neglect the rest of the whole subject of robot bodies and start in again
and say, "Now, what body would you like to have?" You got it? Hm?

Audience: Yes.

They're apparently both Havingness Processes, but they're a sneaker. One
is an exteriorization process, "What body would you like to have?" The
way out is the way through. We've known that for a long time in
Scientology, and it's never more true than it is now. The way out is the
way through. You've got to be in a body before you can get out of it.
And to be in a body, you've got to accept that you have it. And if an
individual doesn't accept he has it, he's there with lord knows how many
weak universes or better universes, or any other kind of universe
sitting around, resisting like mad being in his own head, see? And
sitting in all these other beautiful universes like a robot's
universethat's a wonderful universe, you know? It clanks and it doesn't
hurt and never needs operating on and you never have to give it any
juice, you just threw another battery into its back, and wonderful,
wonderful. Of course, it's kind of embarrassing; he will tell you this
probably. They have stylized descriptions about each one of these kinds
of bodies. Thetans evidently have pattern opinions about them.

Robot bodies are liable to be crossing a field and suddenly stop in
midpace. You know, they run out of juice. Then you have to wait till
somebody comes along and slips them a new power pack. Well, human bodies
don't do that and so that's an advantage. And so do their considerations
on the whole subject of bodies improve to a point where they are no
longer so furiously and savagely resisting and resenting the body
they're in, but that they can be in it and leave it. And you never say
to them, "Be three feet back of your head." You just keep running this
technique, "What body would you like?" Remedy havingness with it. "Fine.
That's good. What body would you like?" Remedy havingness with it and
you'll get your preclear exteriorized. I guarantee it.

Once you've got him exteriorized, you can run him on Route One. It's
fine. Run him on Separateness. It's fine. You can run him on SLP Issue
5, that's fine. SOP 8, that's fine. You've done the trick. Because the
one thing he could never be allowed to look at in the past was a body.
We never let him look at his body.

If he got back of his head, and you said, "What are you looking at?" and
he said, "My body," you didn't let him copy that body, because he'd be
right back in his head again. Why? He didn't like that body, and he
didn't notice it really until you called his attention to it, at which
point he interiorized - but not into that body - into some other body
that he did like, and so he got lost.

So, when a thetan doesn't know where he is, he's probably telling you
the truth. But it's a truth that becomes very obviously a lie, the
second that you run him on this type of process.

Now, remember, at the same time you're running bodies down on terms of
problems, and it might be necessary somewhere along this line, to run
such a process as, "What problem could bodies be to you?" which would be
about the only process that you would interject. "Invent a problem a
body could be to you." And so keep his inventiveness up. That might be
necessary.

If he starts to have a difficulty or gets stuck on some point, just say,
"I have run this boy too short of problems, he'll have to invent some."
You know, that's always the case. If he's stuck on a problem, have him
invent some and he'll let go of it.

But we play the little bit of freedom against a little bit of barrier
and a little bit of freedom against a little bit of barrier, until we've
worked him out of the case of the wrong body.

I know these processes work for you, and undoubtedly there can be
refinements upon this. Undoubtedly many things can occur which will
better it when it's in very general use, nevertheless, I have not
discovered, so far, any violations to this particular thing. Because I
look back at many, many hundreds of cases that I've audited, and find in
them that they all had the common denominator of wrong body, only it
becomes obvious now, not while I was processing them, when it should
have. I hope you can use this material. I hope you find it beneficial to
your preclears.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

[auditor]

THE ROLE OF CREATION IN ABERRATION

A lecture given on 24 January 1956

Any person who is doing a piece of research, and who then falls away
from what he is doing, you see, because it might suddenly come across
somebody else's prejudices or something of this sort, actually isn't
worth the paper he writes on. That's an unfortunate thing. Because every
now and then, you find yourself doing a bit of a bull in the china shop,
you know. You say, "I didn't mean to go through that door, but here I
am. And what's all this crockery doing under my feet?"

And if it comes to actually spotting what it is that makes a preclear
upset, and if it comes to actually looking over the situation in which a
preclear finds himself and giving back to the preclear some of his
capabilities, if it comes to the situation where we face that on one
hand, and on the other hand stepping on corns, I guess we just better
trod away, because that's about all there is to it. We better step on
the corns.

It's quite certain - it's quite certain that if one really confronted
the genus of aberration in man, he would sooner or later confront at the
same time certain active, existing forces in the universe around him
which were interested in retaining that aberrated state. It just follows
this way on a mathematical formula, because the preclear then would not
be restimulated unless the factors were present.

Now, from age to age and time to time, people have tramped on a lot of
corns, to be inelegant about it, in an effort to point out to people
what was wrong, and what they ought to do right on the third dynamic and
the fourth and so forth. And they very often have tramped on the wrong
corns. And they must have tramped rather consistently on the wrong
corns, because now, if they tramped on the right ones, everything would
be all right, wouldn't it? So it just follows on a mathematical equation
that nobody ever stepped on the right corns. That's very inelegantly
expressed, I know, but we must then have in our environment at this date
and time, the primary, principal factors which continue in restimulation
the aberrations of individuals. Otherwise we would have very able
individuals who would be doing a very good job and living a very happy
life. It simply follows. And it must be that nobody ever stepped on them
very hard before. So I guess we'll tromp!

The Roman Catholic Church has a certain vested interest in aberration.
First and foremost in its history, we discover that it professed that
ignorance as the best lot for man. First and foremost, that was the
thing it started out on. And it thought this paid off very well and was
a very, very good control mechanism, and they continued this up to the
days of Alexander IV - the days of Cesare Borgia, you know. You've heard
of Lucrezia Borgia, I think she - her name - her face appears on every
poison bottle, doesn't it? Anyway, this lady of the Church, who was very
serviceable to Cesare Borgia and Alexander IV, eventually made religion
into big business. It had never been big business before the reign of
Pope Alexander IV. Big business. And it then swelled out as an operating
control mechanism across the entirety of Western civilization. And it
has left its mark.

But if we're looking at the days when it really became big and forceful
and powerful, we're looking about twelve hundred years too late. It had
already caved in the Roman Empire - already. Already soldiers had been
put in the frame of mind that they should go forth without their armor
and either get carved up or run. That finally became the morale of the
Roman soldier. This is the truth of the matter. When he became
thoroughly Christianized, he was gone. Is there some coordination in
these factors? There certainly is.

What can a thetan do? What can a thetan do, precisely? He can create, he
can cause things to survive and he can destroy. Very, very interesting
things. He can, on the Know to Mystery Scale, do a great many more
things, but all of them seem to be monitoring these three factors: He
can create, he can cause things to survive and he can destroy.

What would you think of a philosophy which preempted, as its particular
province, all creation, all survival and all destruction? What if
somebody in the society immediately put up a big sign, said, "Hands off.
Hands off. We are the only ones that can destroy, we are the only ones
that can monitor your continued survival and we are the only ones who
have any purview over creation." You'd think normally that somebody
would gun them down. Something would happen to such people. Well, it's
an - the only odd thing about all of this is that nothing did happen to
them particularly. That's the only odd thing. Because I don't think man
ever woke up to what was happening.

Now, this is not an antireligious speech. This speech is the first
proreligious speech made since the year zero. I want you to classify
that very carefully. This speech is in favor of religion. But it's not
in favor of Christianity. It can't be, if we are true to our goals.

Look, if you tell somebody that he cannot create anything, you have made
every single object he looks at into an other-ownership. Is that right?
Every object. It's an other-ownership. Therefore you have at one fell
swoop cut his havingness to zero. That's a real sudden move, isn't it?

Now, we ran into this principle of ownership, and if you care to test it
on somebody, you will discover, if you haven't already, that if you get
him to get various ownerships on any facsimile or mental image picture,
if you get him to get the various ownerships of a chair sitting out
there - saying that he owns it, that somebody else owns it and so forth
- he will discover who owns it to the degree that it appears lighter or
disappears. The true ownership of the chair brings about a lightening of
the chair or a disappearance of the chair. And it certainly brings about
a disappearance of a mental image picture.

Therefore, to get the true ownership makes things lighter, less massy,
less brutal, you might say. And the individual, then, who is called upon
to totally misown everything would then and there make everything
completely solid, right? Things would get terrifically solid. And that
would not just apply to the walls, the sidewalks, the trees; this would
also apply to the entirety of his reactive bank.

Now, any thetan on the track has at one time or another subscribed to
the philosophy that he must otherwise own those things which he wanted
to persist. He has dreamed this up as an old-time oddity. It's something
he must do if he wants the wall to persist, he mocks up the wall and he
says, "Look what Joe did." See, that's a cute trick. He's already agreed
to the principle of other-ownership; but he has, at that moment, a
workable universe, doesn't he? The universe is fairly workable - things
do not appear too onerously heavy, too thick, too formidable, too
immovable. He doesn't believe that these things are going to crush him
at every moment. They appear light. He is able to handle them to some
degree. He always is slightly cognizant of his own creation. He always
sort of knows out of this corner of the eye, you know, "Well, I really
made it, although Joe did."

Now, supposing we take this fellow and we put him under terrific duress,
and we make him believe absolutely and utterly that not only did he not
make it, but that he can't even contact or understand the man who made
it or the being who made it. Supposing we told him that if he didn't do
this, and if he didn't believe this, he would then and thereupon
forfeit, first, all of his survival on this Earth (they had neat ways in
those days of putting a chap on the rack or taking off his head) or he
would then and thereafter burn forever, if he didn't believe this
strange thing. Terrific duress involved here - enormous duress.

And at once, the universe must have become very solid to some peoplemust
have become awfully solid. In fact, it must have become somebody else's
universe. And having become somebody else's universe, it thereupon must
have been almost impossible to manage. It would just seem incredible.
The idea of moving that pile of stone from A to B - just be too much
work. It'd be an exhausting thing. He had no part in their creation;
therefore, to handle them? Uh-uh. All right.

Look at the other side of it now - destruction. The sanity of an
individual depends upon his ability to eradicate from his experience
those experiences which are antipathetic to his happiness, survival, on
all the dynamics. That's a bad thing perhaps to realize that happiness
depends upon destruction. But if an individual cannot destroy, to some
degree he there is going to be hung with every bad experience he will
ever have experienced. And if he is totally inhibited from any kind of
destruction, that means that every bad experience he ever wants to
destroy will thereupon more persistently persist. And there we have
aberration.

And the church and this strange philosophy of other-creation, taken too
seriously - that's the only thing wrong with it - has oppressed the idea
of destroying to a point where nobody can erase an engram just by
looking at it, something like that. That's a very desirable state of
mind. Had a bad experience? Look it over, it's gone. All right.

Here, then, the church did further than that, they did more than
thatthey said, "Destruction is our province. We send you to hell! All
the hellfire and damnation there is, is under our fingertip and control.
The only destruction going to be done around here anyplace is going to
be done by us."

Wow! If you take create out, and you take destroy out and make these
factors out of the ability of the normal human being, you have condemned
him to insanity, to exhaustion, to disinterest, unhappiness, but more
importantlymuch more importantly - you have condemned him to the
occupation of two levels. And there we find our modern world today. It
exists in two levels.

As near as most people can get under this duress and upbringing ... And
it doesn't matter today that we aren't really saddled with the monks;
our educational systems, our mores and so on are saturated with this
material, and it is carried on and on and on. It is only now, actually,
that one could lift up his head and look around and say, "Whew! It
really wasn't that true after all." You know?

Now, the one thing that people, broadly, can do in order to create is to
create a problem. They can create problems. To go much higher than that,
in terms of creation, exceeds their ability. Their havingness is so
small - you see, they can't have everything if everything was created
otherwise - their havingness is so small that to have a little
havingness, to do a little creation, they can at least create a problem.
It's pathetic when you come to think about it. But if you look at it
real - very closely, if you look at it very sharply, I think you will
discover that this is true: that people can create problems. And people
do create problems. They create problems and confusions and so forth.
They're not permitted to do anything else.

Supposing some fellow came out here and he suddenly said, "Well, I don't
believe, really, that some strange being that I never ran into that's
buttered all over the universe was the only one who could mock up
bricks." And he tries it out, you know. Mock up a brick. Mock up - hey,
what do you know, and it's a nice brick. "Hey, Joe, look at this brick."

Joe's obliging and he says, "Huh! Yeah, that's a pretty good brick," you
know.

Two or three other guys saying, "Yeah, that's a nice brick. Fine. It's
got good weight, good texture."

They have created a brick. And from this one brick creates a dozen more
bricks, and then creates about six, eight, ten thousand more bricks. I
think the brick trust would get after him along about that time. They'd
probably be in touch with the Vatican saying somebody's trying to break
the brick trust up here.

But people would be quite upset. You know how they handled this problem?
This problem was an actual problem and a real one five centuries A.D.
Was a real problem, quite real to the legislators. You find the most
astonishing and fabulous laws, with punishments that only the most
craven thetan that had ever been dispossessed could have originated. The
punishments for these - oh, they're the most fabulous things. They were:
His eyeballs were going to be slowly torn out (this was in a legal code,
you see), his tongue would be ripped out by the roots and he would be
disemboweled slowly with a dull knife - you know, pleasantries.

And these were to be the punishments meted out against the crime of
magic. And for - up till about 600 A.D., this crime of magic was so
worrisome to the boys who were pulling this operation off - it was so
worrisome that they interested every Christian emperor of the Eastern
and Western Empire in punishing this crime. And royal edicts - you can't
imagine the queen up here right now writing an edict, "Anybody guilty of
the crime of magic shall be. . ." and then just droolingly runs off
about five paragraphs of horrible tortures. Must have worried them,
because this is really the only - they let heresies go by, you know.
They simply said, "Well, excommunicate him, exile him or something."
They let heresy go by and a few other things, but not magic. This was
the one thing you mustn't do. You mustn't say, "Here's a nice brick.
Joe, how do you like this brick? Hm?"

And somebody else says, "Gee, you know, that's a good brick." And the
next thing you know, you got a dozen bricks. You created something.
That's magic.

You suddenly said, "That is a nice building across the street on this
side of the street." And there we had a building on this side of the
street. That was magic.

We have these crimes described in detail in the early days of the last
two thousand years, and therefore we are talking about the maddest two
thousand years that man has ever lived through. We're talking about an
utterly mad two thousand years. I don't think it was a natural two
thousand years. And it certainly wasn't religious, if by religion we
mean worship, if we mean love for one's fellow man, if we mean peace, if
we mean honor - we certainly are not talking about religion in any way,
shape or form, if we're talking about the last two thousand years.
Brutality, yes. The Spanish Inquisition, yes. Madhouses all over the
place, yes.

Man stopped building massively, man started getting tired, man stopped
playing a game and started being a slave. And we've had two thousand
years of it. And I hope we're calling an end to an era.

It's only necessary to rehabilitate somebody's role of creation in this
universe, and his own concept that he is capable of destroying - you
know, just to destroy something is not to be malicious; he's capable of
eradicating or knocking out something - we must rehabilitate those two
things, and we get an immediate fall-away from all of the ardures and
unhappinesses and upsets of existence. It's the most remarkable thing
you ever wanted to see. This is interesting. All right.

But if the only thing that is left in the field of creation, to the
individual who is out here selling apples or pushing money across the
counter in a bankthe only thing left is, is to create a problem, you
mean, we're going to manage this society? You mean if everybody in it
has, as a high level of creation, the creation of problems? Oh no. It's
not possible to do anything then, is it? You suddenly say, "All right.
Now let's build a nice, straight road."

Immediate remark thereafter, "Well, what are we going to pave it with?"

"We're going to pave it with tar."

"Well, the tar wagons don't work."

You say, "Wait a minute. Somehow or other we'll get some tar wagons that
work and try to pass it off."

"Yes, but how are we going to get it past the planning commission?"

You ever tried to do anything in this society? Everybody stands around
and they say, "Well, what are you going to do about that? What are you
going to do about those others?"

I bet your own parents have possibly even said to you from time to time,
"Well, dear, it's very, very difficult to become a - very difficult to
become a writer" or "very difficult to become a gem expert. . It's
awfully hard. Why don't you - why don't you apprentice yourself to the
bricklayers' guild or somethingsomething easy."

Every time you came up with a goal, they came up with a problem. Now get
this as a one-two in a society that you're trying to operate in on the
third and fourth dynamic.

You say, "Let's all be happier."

Everybody says, "Problem, problem, problem, problem, problem." Uhhhh!

You say, "Let's all be a little healthier."

"Problem, problem, problem, problem, problem."

Get the idea? You get this immediate reaction, and you'll get no
progress. How any progress has occurred, I don't know. It's just
fabulous.

Actually, no progress did occur to amount to anything until man
discovered that he could make MEST move MEST, and we had the industrial
age. And man right now is engaged in a very interesting activity of
making pieces of MEST move pieces of MEST. He has learned that you can
burn coal that generates steam that pushes something or other. In the
old days, he'd push it over himself. Now, why, he burns coal to generate
steam and pays the tax here and runs into some more problems there. But
he has learned that MEST can move MEST.

And so we have had a very strange and artificial revival of human
courage. See, he somehow or other got by this roadblock. He isn't by it
directly, you understand. He doesn't feel that he is totally capable of
doing this. The feeling of tiredness is still with him. His feeling of
"What's the use?" is still with him. His lack of ambition, his inability
to complete goals, these things are still with him, so much so that all
a nuclear physicist can think of doing with this wonderful thing called
atomic fission - and which I now call atomic fizzle - all he can think
of doing is blowing somebody up, you know? That's a wonderful ambition,
isn't it? He finally has gotten MEST to a point of where MEST will blow
up MEST. We're trying to put a crew together right now that will simply
as-is nuclear physics. Wonder who will win.

Anyhow, anytime you meet a nuclear physicist, please realize one is
standing in front of you.

Anyway, you see how he got around this? He beat it with his own wits.
And he got himself and gained for himself enough leisure so he could
think about a few of these things. And he's been thinking about this
furiously. He's just going to say, "How did I get here, you know? What
are we doing here? What is this all about? Something happened somewhere
- I just know that there was a collision somewhere along the track,
something occurred."

And he's been trying to put his finger on it. Yes, something did occur a
couple of thousand years ago. Somebody said, "Huh! All creation was done
by a being that you will never have any contact with and you better
believe it or we'll finish you. More importantly, we'll finish your
loved ones. That's what we do best."

Now, you say, "Well, I can at least chew up the countryside."

"No, no. No, anybody guilty of too much destroying is actually poaching
upon the preserves of a fellow by the name of Satan. And he doesn't like
that. And we protect Satan, so you're not permitted to destroy
anything." All right.

So if every time you came up with a goal, somebody - the society is
rigged that you are at once confronted with a problem, what are you
going to do? You're not going to make any progress. That's right. Isn't
that correct? All right.

Now, let's look at something else. If any time you said, "I want to
knock down this old porch that's on the back of the house," everybody
said, "Oh no, that was actually put up in Adams's time, you know, and
that - ha-ha! Don't do that." You were crushed down on the subject of
destroying - some fellow comes along and he does you in, and you're not
even allowed to point your finger at him, you know? If there's going to
be no destruction of any kind anywhere, the deadwood is going to pile up
mighty thick, particularly in the reactive bank. But, if everybody was
knocked off that, where else would they have to go in order to do a
little destruction? What covert destruction took place of actual
destruction? Lying. Lying.

You have the cycle of action from create over to destroy collapsed down
to this pale shadow-problems and lies. People say, "It's not there."
They say, "It never happened to me." They say, "I never was that
person," i.e., I've never lived before. They say, "I am now somebody
else. It is now something else." We start to process some preclear, and
instead of an erased incident - which would occur if he were able to
destroy the incident of his own creation - instead of an erased incident
sitting there, we discover something quite remarkable is sitting there.
We discover a not-ised incident, see? He has lied about it. He says it's
not there. It is there, but he said it's not there, and that is
not-isness, you see?

Instead of coming up to somebody and gunning him down with a submachine
gun or something of the sort because he's wrecked everybody, we would
say to our friend, "You know, really, I heard - I heard that his wife
told her maid that so-and-so and so-and-so and that means that he really
did do something pretty terrible about eight, nine years ago." You get
the idea? You get how boldly and forwardly and confrontedly we can
destroy this man, you see? We don't. We go way over here someplace, and
we say to somebody or other that we heard that he ... You get the idea?
Or we say the incident is not there anymore - there it sits, you know,
Fac One right in front of his face - "That incident isn't there anymore.
We've not-ised it," and there it sits, you see.

And we then have a problem in the society of seeking after truth when
our lowest level of destructiveness now allowed is lying. But lying is a
high level of creation, too, you know. Interesting, isn't it? How are
you going to get a society which is going to run smoothly and happily,
if the people in it are dedicated to problems and lying? How is this
society going to function? It's going to be an interesting game. Only it
might get too interesting, it might get too much game, might get so
there's no game there at all anymore. And that would be fascinating - no
game at all. Will not be fascinating to me. I'm a great believer in
having a decent game and everybody in it having his chance.

But I will say that in processing a preclear, we find at once that we
can reach him on one of these two levels - lying and problems. Why do we
find him reachable on lying and problems? If we can get him to lie about
something, if we can get him to invent some problems, we've started him
on his way and we can solve his case for him - providing we also get him
to create, and providing we also get him to throw away some mass - in
other words, remedy havingness.

We have him invent problems and lie about various items, and that works
fine as long as we also practice at the same time creation and
destruction with the preclear. And if we can teach him to create and
teach him to destroy in mock-up forms, he comes up to the degree of
where he takes over, at least slightly, some of his own responsibility
in having created this universe. He had a part in creating it, believe
me. I refer you to the Factors. And unless he is recalled to that
responsibility, the stuff continues to be thick, unwieldy and he
continues to be tired, and he continues also in a state of mind that he
can't do anything about anything. That's the end product of control:
can't do anything about anything.

You'd have a real able society if everybody in it believed you couldn't
do anything about anything anyhow. You would think offhand that it would
be an easy society to govern. Now, that was the first goal - the first
goal of these heavy duress religious motions that were made in man's
direction was to make him easy to govern, to make him tractable, to put
him into a slavery that was very easy to handle. If you can show me
where a criminal or a psychotic are easy to handle, I will then agree
that it was a good method.

I would say a government was an awfully weak government - whether it's
the early government of Theodosius or a late government of somebody else
- if that government had to have everybody in it completely weak and
disabled before it could govern them. I'd say that was really a big
bunch of strong, worthwhile people - wonderful! They couldn't possibly
have had any strength at all.

Now, where - where do we get such a control mechanism starting? Is it
simply a dwindling spiral? It has an exact start: It is when one person
feels that he must exert himself way beyond any actuality in order to
create an effect. When an individual, to create an effect that will
satisfy him that he has created an effect, has to blow down about six
towns - wow! Somebody really had what they used to call an "inferiority
complex." You see that?

If he really has difficulty conceiving that he himself has created an
effect so that he has to create an effect of blowing down six towns or a
nation, we see that this boy is off somehow or another. There's
something wrong here somewhere; this boy is not hitting on all twelve
cylinders - we've got a Hitler on our hands.

You think Hitler was going all-out to conquer the world. No, Hitler was
just going out to try to convince Hitler that he created an effect.
That's the totality of operation. And he'd get - keep getting the news
in there, you know, and the news would come in, "Well, we've just
destroyed eighty thousand peasants here and nine towns there, and we've
blown everything down someplace else. And we've just executed all these
villagers."

And these reports would keep coming in and they didn't mean anything to
him. He - "Zuh-zuh, well, order a charge - attack! Attack. Yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah - attack!" What was he trying to do? How far did his troops
have to go, how far did he have to go, to find out he'd done something?
Well, he never did find out. He never did find out that he'd done
anything; maybe up to the moment that he killed himself. And at that
moment he might have said, just before he pulled the trigger or whatever
he did, he might have said, "You know, I appear to have started a slight
commotion around here someplace." In other words, his attestation of
discovering he'd created an effect was to kill himself Interesting
thing. But that's about when it occurred. All right.

An individual who becomes anxious about being able to reach, becomes
anxious about the effect he is going to create. And he is also of a mind
that he has not been able to put out an anchor point. Now, let's take a
little baby or a monkey ... Take a monkey - let's get Darwinian. I was
going to draw a poster the other day and appoint the three principal
villains. Darwin was one of them. And he's a real character, this guy
Darwin. I mean - a thetan descends from monkeys. Doesn't make sense at
all.

Anyhow, you take this monkey, and you give the monkey something he
doesn't like. You see, you give him a small bit of fruit that's too sour
or something, you know. And he doesn't like this; he's already developed
a distaste for it. And you give it to him and he throws it away. And you
go to the place where he threw it away and you pick it up again and you
put it back in his hands, you know. And he throws it away. And you go
and you pick it up and you put it back in his hands. And he throws it
away. And you go and pick it up and you put it back in his hands. And he
throws it away. And you put it back in his hands. He'll finally let it
sit there. You know what you've done to him? You've taught him he
couldn't put out that anchor point. You've taught him he can't put out
that anchor point. If you've taught him that, you've taught him he
couldn't make space. You see that?

So that if everybody got everything he put out thrown back at him ...
The women know this. They very often say to their husbands - the husband
said, "Dear, aren't you ready yet?"

And they say, "Aren't you ready yet? You're always saying, 'Aren't you
ready yet?' to me."

"Isn't dinner ready

"You're always asking me, 'Isn't dinner ready?'"

"Ohhhhhh." After a while the old man is sitting there in apathy. Why? No
remark he put out evidently stuck. Always flew back at him. It'll leave
him with no space. That's the end product. All right.

Now a fellow puts something out and somebody says, "Okay." Well, the
fellow who's saying, "Okay," out there merely means, "It's here." Get
the idea? So that good two-way communication at all times tells the
fellow, "You put one out. It's here." See? Yeah, we're making space,
we're making space, we're making space.

But if every time you said hello, somebody said hello to you, and you
said hello back again, and they said hello back to you, you wouldn't
have too much communication going here. Fellow after a while, wouldn't
know whether the space was coming from the other guy or from him. You
see the difference? All right.

Now, if we've got an interchange of space getting messed up here, and we
have no interlocking space being created at any time, people are going
to start running out of it. Well, that's a curious thing. People are
going to start running out of space.

How can you run out of space? Well, that's awful easy. I'll tell you one
of the symptoms of running out of space: being able to shoot something
from Russia and have it land in New York. That's a symptom of running
out of space. It's all very fine, we stand around and cheer and say,
"Well, the Vickers Viscount" - a lovely little airplane and I'm very
fond of them, but it's still "the Vickers Viscount just left here and it
arrived there." Wham, wham, you know? Gee. You know, that puts these two
places a couple of hours apart. Well, to man at a walking pace, this
puts them eight miles apart. They may be eight hundred miles apart. You
got the idea?

Well, it's just given him that much less space. And all this hurry,
hurry, hurry and rush, rush, rush has gotten down to the point where you
can get a police action - which is a wonderful thing, I mean, it's
gorgeous. We're all in favor of law and order, providing anybody in law
and order is in favor of law and order, not just more chaos. That's a
point. All right.

If we have somebody down in Cornwall, and the cops up in London want him
- swish - he's got! Well, maybe they want him for a political crime.
Maybe they want him for not immediately subscribing to the last
antiheresy bulletin or something. Well, looks to me like under fast
transport, we have given this person less space. And giving him less
space, we have also, then, given him less freedom of idea.

You see, basically, with all mechanics laid aside, the world is only as
big as you think it is. This world at one time appeared sufficiently
large to look like a flat plane to a thetan three feet back of his head.
You exteriorize them these days and they see a sphere. They don't have
any real idea of a nice, big size connected with the thing. There isn't
much space to move around in. In other words, you've got less and less
playground. Well, if you get a playground too small, you haven't got any
game left. You see that?

So speed is all right and all that, but it's not totally a virtue - not
totally virtuous, you see, that we've condensed space to this degree.
You used to be able to go over to Devon, you know, and come back and
talk about the natives and everybody would sit around and say, "No! No
kidding!" you know?

Well, by golly, you can go to the middle of Tibet and come back and sit
around now and nobody will even listen to you. They'll say, "We saw all
that on TV last week." Difference of space, difference of interest. And
your interest level drops consistently as the space apparently
condenses.

Well, it's quite fascinating that you stop making space, you stop having
space. Takes quite a little while for your automatic machinery to run
down to a point where you don't have any space left. The next thing you
know, why, you take one step and you're in Berlin, you know. It's not
that you're that big, it's that Berlin got that small and the distance
between got that tiny.

Just a few years ago, there were some people around who were regretting
the condensation of that space. I know I talked to a few of them in
Germany, and, boy, they sure regretted it. They said, "You know that
Great Britain and the United States got altogether too close to Berlin."
Every night or so, they heard of it, you know. The rubbage is still
lying all over the place. Got too close together.

Now, where you can get a condensation of space of this degree, you also
start people running out of ideas. Why is this? It's a very curious
thing that the emission of an idea today is quite an event. It wasn't a
few years ago. You pick up a bestseller, you expect that something that
maybe twenty-five thousand people have paid - I don't know, what's a
book cost these days? Ten, twelve pounds? You pick up this book and
everybody's reading it, and you say, "Boy, this must be some book, you
know. This must be just crammed full of ideas." And you start reading
the thing and it says - well, there's John and there's Mary, and there's
... And it's a house and somebody gets murdered. And they suspect the
butler.

'Well, that's interesting," you say, "but I think I've read this
somewhere before." You have, too. Believe me! Literary modes are
condensed and stereotyped today the like of which you never heard of.

For instance, even the dramatic off-trail movie that is being made in
Italy is now stereotyped. You just film it without much light on it,
with everybody looking a little bit desperate, and you've got it.

Now, all of this has to do with the complexion of the game one is
playing. If people are getting less ideas and actually people could be
punished more for the ideas that they get. The church itself is no
longer free. It has not been free for a very long time. It committed
itself to a certain course of action and to a large degree disappeared
from the ken of man. The church is not today carrying on in the United
States, although the United States is known as a very religious country.
Yes, yes, it's still carrying on as a kind of a religious country, but
with amazement we look around and don't find very much religion.

You know, you hear a lot of talk about religion. We hear a lot of
agreement, the fact that it's a religious country. But why should some
of our people walk into a hospital and say, "I'm a minister. I've come
in to visit the sick," and have the superintendent come down and shake
them by the hand? Why? That's because no ministers have been near the
place. You look in vain for any ministers in this society. Where are
they? Well, they've just been gone for quite a while.

Now, this doesn't mean that there aren't groups - self-sacrificing,
wellmeaning groups - trying to do the very best they can throughout the
world in the name of what they believe to be true. And it'd be very far
from my design or effort to stamp upon their toes. Well, I'm tired of
having mine stamped on. I'm trying to get a show on the road here or
there a little bit, you know. I mean, I like to get my letters answered
once in a while and something like this. And I keep running into a
philosophy of "Nothing can be done about it," and "There's nothing to do
anyway," and "It's all so tiring," and so forth. One begins to believe,
after a while, that there's been a certain philosophy in this direction.

But let's go back just to the swap of anchor points - the swap of anchor
points alone. And we find out when everybody has kicked everybody else's
anchor points in, using whatever handy system there is to hand to kick
in anchor points, we find, then, that we are left without a universe.
Now, I tell you that very frankly - we're left without a universe.

You think the atom bomb is a big menace today. It really isn't a menace
today at all. That's why I started calling it the atomic fizzle. I'm
even going to write a book called "The Atomic Fizzle, The Boys That
Failed" - really dig them. Well, they started out with such happy
dreams, they were going to blow up all life, you know? Truth of the
matter is, that an atomic bomb can be blasted around here on Earth, and
we still have an awful lot more planets left. I was out the other day
and took a survey and there are lots of them, you'll be glad to know.
Several of them not even settled yet. There's a couple in a Stone Age
and if you haven't bashed anybody in the head lately, you could take off
for there.

But here we have an incapability even of putting an end-all to this
situation, see? They will have condensed, however, space here on Earth
considerably. If we think of radioactivity as something which you will
have to shun and step back from and, you know, go into horror about and
so forth, you can just see the action of pulling back in anchor points
completely different than having your anchor points knocked in. People
show you things that are dreadful enough and you recoil from these
things. Nothing you can do about them, and they follow you in. You pull
in your own anchor points. And eventually you're left without any space.
You don't have any concept of space - that's it.

But remember that religion as such has simply been used by the
unscrupulous and the unthinking in order to create a furtherance of this
situation of knocking in everybody's anchor point. And they're too far
knocked in - too much barrier, too little game.

So you have to get the anchor points out a little bit. You have to get
the people reaching just a little bit more. If you don't, there's just
going to be no space left. Don't you see what happens? And as far as an
individual is concerned, he will look out and he will see no space.

Right now, you look at Cape Town, South Africa. You don't see much
space. That's the truth of the matter. You say, "I can get on an
airplane and go down there," see. You've licked space to the degree that
you can use a mechanical means to cover the space, don't you see? And
you don't immediately interpret that as a condensation of space, but it
is a condensation of space.

Now, you take a television set, and it's sitting there and it's running
off pictures of Cape Town. Believe me, your space or distance to Cape
Town is just the distance between you and that screen. And that's just a
few feet, much less an airplane. Let's take the airplane out of it, and
we're practically dived into the television set, you know. We're
practically in the middle of Cape Town.

This kind of a condensation works on people, until people at length
don't even see the space in the road out here. They think of everything
kind of on a TV-set basis, you know. Then they - people start looking at
facsimiles with their naked eyes. Now, this is very, very hard for you
to envision, but there's an awful lot of people walking up and down that
street that are looking at a facsimile of what they're looking at with
their body's eyes.

They go around and try to get glasses fitted. Oh, people give them
glasses Put glasses on somebody so he can see his facsimiles better? I
mean, that's real - real cute. But you ask this person, you say, "Now,
how big does this room look to you?"

And he says, "How big? It looks as big as the room."

You say, "Well, could the room look any bigger to you?"

"That's silly, you know. The room is as big as the room is big. That's
how big the room is."

You say, "Oh yeah?" You give him a little bit of processing, and all of
a sudden, gee, you've got a big room.

He says, "You know, the walls went back there about five, six feet!"

No, the walls didn't go anyplace. His concept of space rose and, in many
cases, he stopped looking at facsimiles of the walls and started looking
at the walls. There are an awful lot of people around who are looking at
facsimiles of everything they're looking at. And then you wonder why
they don't understand you. They're looking at a facsimile of you. It's
probably eight or nine feet closer to them than you are, although
they're under - only standing four feet away from you, if you can
understand that, an inverted facsimile. All right.

Where do we enter this problem? Actually it's in the level of sharing
responsibility for the creation of those things which exist here on
Earth - not just the good things but the bad things, too. And also
sharing some responsibility for having created an oppressive phase of
religion.

Religion is something designed basically to make man happy, to raise his
spiritual nature, to keep him aware of the fact that he himself is a
spirit and so forth. That was the basic purpose of religion. Not to keep
him under control, to oppress him, to make a criminal or a madman out of
him. That was not the purpose of religion. So, where it's been derailed
to those purposes and supercontrols, it can be put back on the rails
again.

You have, today, in your hands, the weapons necessary to actually
accomplish this goal. You do have. There's no getting around it.
Processing as such, today, does solve these problems.

Now, there is a very crude process. You remember we used to spot walls?
Well, that's liable to run somebody out of a little bit of havingness,
and we have to be very careful these days about havingness. We spot
walls. If we could just get the fellow to look around and accept the
fact that he had - in other words, we have actually made him twist it a
little bit over and say, "Look, I can have some responsibility in having
created this wall," see? That's actually the little thing that you're
turning on in his mind. He doesn't just have a wall; he says, "I can
have some responsibility for having created this wall." That's what
happens when he says, "Yes, there is a wall there."

Did you ever have a preclear suddenly look at you ecstatically and say,
"You know, I've got a wall!" One was being processed in Washington who
just wrote me a letter and he said, "I sat there for a half an hour
being audited, wondering what I could have - and this was toward the end
of the sessionwhat I could really have. And I finally found out that I
could have this fountain pen that I bought a couple of weeks ago. So
here I am at the end of this session, sitting here writing you a letter
with this fountain pen I can have." And he says, "It's my total
possessions in the whole universe, but," he says, "it's the nicest
fountain pen you ever wanted to see." He was real pleased with this.

That's what had happened. He had taken on some of the responsibility for
having created the fountain pen. That's really the little thing that
triggered. And he felt to some degree that he had the power of keeping
and destroying, if he wanted to, that fountain pen. You get the idea? He
could also knock it apart, he could wear it out, he could use it. Do you
know many people can't use their possessions because they might wear
them out, which would be a bit of destruction - which is quite cute. All
right.

Now, as we look this over, we find then that his universe has opened up
to one fountain pen. This individual for a long time has been passing as
sane and a good chap and so forth, but he himself privately knew that he
was strictly fruitcake - really nutty, really. He knew he was off, in
some fashion. He was coping with the environment, but he wasn't letting
on. You get the idea? Hejust coping with it. And now this tremendous
gain: He found he could have a fountain pen, which meant at the same
time he's found out that he undoubtedly had some part in the creation of
the fountain pen, and undoubtedly had some liberty in destroying the
fountain pen, and therefore did have a fountain pen and could use a
fountain pen, and he was very happy about it. Quite distinctly
different. All right.

And we make somebody look over here at this wall and instead of going on
a large via of saying, "The composite of 'we' which we call God built
this wall," and going on a large line, just let him recognize to some
degree his share in it.

Well, there's a way of doing that. You have him look at the wall and
increase it. And look at another wall and increase it. And then after a
while you have him, when his havingness is increased to this degree and
he's getting along fine (this is not a good process by the way, it's
just one of those mediamedia; it's better than lots of processes, but
it's not the best one), we have him look at the wall and increase it,
look at another wall and increase it, look at another wall and increase
it. And then we finally get him to increase and then decrease, increase
and then decrease, increase and then decrease, increase and then
decrease the wall. It's a variation on spotting which is much better
than spotting. It's better than straight spotting, because it increases
a person's havingness. It sooner or later turns on some awareness of the
fact that he is at all times creating that wall. And when he gets some
slight little awareness of this, the walls cease to be oppressive, and
he can bear to look at them.

Do you know that most preclears really cannot bear to look on a real
object? They cannot bear really to look on your face as an auditor. You
say, "Is there - you got an auditor here?"

And they say, "Oh yes, yes." They know it. They haven't looked at you,
really.

To suddenly confront the actuality of your existence in that chair and
to see that they were faced with a face of a body would be too much for
them. They would sort of go bzooo! and they'd feel their heart flip or
something of the sort.

I had a fellow one time who was doing mock-ups go into a partial state
of collapse with the greatest of ease. I asked him to get an idea that
there was somebody on his right side and somebody on his left side, and
he said, "What are they supposed to be doing?"

And I said, "Well, just get the fellow - the idea the fellow on your
left side has a hand touching your shoulder."

So he said, "All right ... No, no, you don't!" Took me an hour to get
the man back in session again. He was in a state of shock. It was the
first reality he had run into. That was too real - much too real.

I had a preclear look at me one time and said, "You - you've been asking
me what would happen if I got well," (an old-time Consequence Process)
and he says, "I can tell you." He said, "I'd start seeing things. And
amongst the things I'd start seeing would be you!"

They know if they see them, they possibly never unsee them, don't you
see? So that's why you'd run this increase process actually to increase
the wall and increase that and increase it, increase it and go around,
and then finally increase and reduce, increase and reduce, increase and
reduce. You don't care what they reduce.

After a while, they'll say, "You know, I've got some share in handling
these walls." And having had some share in handling the wall, why,
they'll be happier about the walls, and one of these days find out that
it's not impossible to look straight at the wall. "There it is. I have a
partial responsibility in creating it at any moment. I also can uncreate
it. It's perfectly all right. I don't need any help along this line. I
needn't shake so in my boots."

Now, here's another process which is a Havingness Process which is quite
important because it is the lowest-rung Havingness Process. This runs on
people who cannot get mock-ups. They've gone completely below the
ability to create, completely below the ability to destroy. And as a
result, these people are usually, by the way, worried about spirits and
mysticism and things like that. They get upset about these things,
naturally. All right.

But what Havingness Process would you run on this individual? It's a
very important one. It's very allied to this "Increase the wall." Just
say, "Look around the room and find something in the room that you could
have."

They sometimes comm lag a long time, they sometimes find a scrap of
dust, they sometimes just expansively say, "Oh, I could have all of it."

Oh yeah? You're really dealing with a tough one there. "Tell me some
lies about the wall," something like this, may as-is more than they can
afford to give, so you're on a very touchy thing. But I have yet to have
this process, "Look around and tell me something in the room you could
have," fail to remedy havingness one way or the other.

Now, it doesn't remedy, it repairs havingness. To turn it into a remedy
of havingness is "Look around this room and tell me something in it you
could dispose of." And you've started the person on a remedy of
havingness, which must be both ways.

This can be varied, for somebody who's slightly exteriorized, to "Look
around the room and tell me something that your body could have." And
you would ask that for quite a while before you adventured upon such a
question as "Look around this room and tell me something your body
doesn't have to have in the room." That question might be enough to spin
somebody. That would be too little havingness, suddenly.

Now here, then, we are combating in our Havingness, in our Spotting
Processes and so forth, these actual factors, and I haven't just been
raving here to run down the powers that be and the various institutions
and so forth. I've been trying to show you as clearly as I could that we
are rehabilitating something which has gone, to a large degree, in the
individual. We must rehabilitate some of his responsibility in having
created this universe and the situations in it, bad or good. This must
be rehabilitated in the individual.

Also, if we do not want to have on our hands criminals who are
obsessively destroying everything they touch, we must put destruction
back in the control of the individual so that it doesn't sit there as an
automaticity. In other words, a person has to know when he's destroying
something. He doesn't go out here and have "accidental" accidents all
the time, you know. He doesn't accidentally blow the other fellow's head
off in a mad rage. He knows he can; he doesn't.

So we have - the other situation is an individual has to know that he
can dispose of something; he himself can dispose of something. We've got
to put these two things back to a marked degree in the hands of the
individual. And when we put those two things back in his hands, we then
are confronted with an individual who has a potential of survival. And
until we put him back in control of creativeness and destructiveness -
until he can control these two things - we have not put survival in his
hands and the net result of all of his livingness will be succumb.
Bodies die and people die because these things go out of their control.

Now, I hope nothing I have said has particularly offended anyone on the
subject of Christianity and religion. If you ever want people thoroughly
controlled, if you want the society to go downhill, why, throw in such a
mockup as was thrown in, in the early days of two thousand years ago,
and you'll probably get the same result - a dark age.

I don't say that there's anything bad about what was done; I merely say
it's inexcusable. And I say that we shouldn't be carrying with us today,
in this enlightened age, all the germs of destruction which destroyed
our forefathers so utterly.

[auditor]

BASIC LECTURE ON HAVINGNESS

A lecture given on 31 January 1956

I'd like to talk to you tonight about havingness. Now it seems that this
might be a point we could overstress, you know, and we could have too
much to say on this subject. But actually, there's very, very little has
been said on the subject. Matter of fact, it doesn't matter how many
reams I've written or how often I've talked on the thing, I've probably
not scratched the surface of the subject of havingness.

First and foremost, havingness is the postulate that one must
communicate versus the postulate that one must communicate to something.
Do you at once see that this poses a cross-postulate? I must communicate
/ I must communicate to.

Now, if there's nothing to communicate to, all he can do is communicate
through. And he would have endless, unlimited space with nothing
stopping the communication all the way.

Now, I want to call to your attention a little sport that is carried on
in one part of the world - it used to be a Greek sport, and it's been
transferred over to Spain. And it's also done in Mexico and so forth.
They get a bull who was stupid enough to pick up a mock-up in that
general neighborhood, and they get him in there and they get him to run
at a cape. It's quite interesting. He runs at the cape, and he goes
through the cape. And he runs at the cape and goes through the cape. And
he runs at the cape and goes through ... You can just watch this bull's
morale deteriorate.

Finally - finally they take some old horse that is padded with blankets
and so forth (question mark, because the padding is never thick
enoughSpanish thirst for blood) and they let the bull finally charge and
push at the horse. And usually the bull gets the horse and the picador
over between the fence and himself. And it's nice and solid. And boy,
that bull goes to town. You can just see his morale go up, up, up, up,
up, up, up. In fact, he would practically be a well bull if he could
find it solid enough.

Well, as gory as this spectacle may or may not be, the point of the
matter is that the picador leans on him very heavily into the hump with
a big fork and discourages him from pushing that hard against something
solid. And by the time they get him out there again charging at this
cape - never a man, he never hits a man, he never hits a horse, he never
hits a wall, he just hits this red cape and there's nothing there.
Nothing there. Nothing there.

The bull, without really being hurt, he's - it's - probably feels kind
of sore, but he's lost no blood to amount to anything; he's really not
in a bad state, physically. Supposed to be totally physical, this whole
bullfight, but it's not physical at all. He just loses his nerve. And he
finally stands there in terror and sinks, then, into apathy. And he gets
to such a point that a matador can come around and fixate him.

And, a good matador, if he really knew his business - they don't do this
at all well. I mean, these guys want to make a big splash and a display
and so forth. Once in a blue moon you see a good matador. And this
fellow will simply fix the bull into any position - he could probably
even stand him up in the air, you know, if he wanted to. Because the
bull is now in a state of shock. He is hypnotized into a belief that
there is nothing solid anywhere. That no matter how hard he charges, he
will hit nothing. And he's gone. He's gone. I imagine if they simply
kept him pushing at the red cape just a little bit further, he'd
probably fall over dead anyhow; probably has nothing to do with the
sword.

The physical aspect of a bullfight and the aspect of a thetan in the
physical universe are not too wide apart, since the trick in the
physical universe is to get them to charge nothing. Get them to charge
nothing and keep them convinced, one way or the other, that there isn't
anything they can charge. Got it? Until at last, they do not believe
that they can touch or lean on anything. And not being able to touch or
lean upon anything, they then have the feeling that if they did utter a
communication they would simply expend what mass they have because their
communication would just go on forever. They would not be able to touch
anything. Those walls are no longer real.

Very odd. Very odd. Here are these two counter-postulates. If an
individual supposes that he should communicate, and if his joy and game
and so forth is communication - mind you, it takes that game - postulate
there - and if at the same time there is nothing with which he can
communicate, no terminal, he has the vista of endless space. His
communication itself is making the space. And then there is nothing to
stop his communication, so there is no end to it, and it makes him feel
very weak indeed. He just shoots the roll, you might say, every time he
says anything because it never winds up anyplace.

So, he eventually does this interesting thing: He says something into a
mass which he himself puts there. Now, however we want to classify this,
whatever conditions or significances we wish to place upon it,
nevertheless follows that this aspect of man fighting himself is man
merely trying to reassure himself that there will be something to hit
with his communication. You see that?

Now, he therefore puts masses up here, he puts pictures and so forth, so
in case nothing is receiving his communication he still can reassure
himself and say, "There is something there, there is some mass, I can
accumulate something that I can go knock, knock, knock on, one way or
the other, and my communication just won't go on forever."

He just doesn't like this idea - again, merely a consideration - but he
still doesn't like the idea of speaking into a vast nothingness, so he
himself accumulates his own terminals. And we get an oddity here of an
individual constructing a universe, perforce, because he cannot have the
universe in which he finds himself - the physical universe.

Now, a thetan is totally capable of constructing a universe himself, and
the cycle is somewhat like this: He builds a universe of one kind or
another, himself. Then he, in - by agreement and so forth, finds himself
involved in a larger universe. To a marked degree, he simply invests the
universe which he himself has created into this larger universe.
Sometimes he doesn't like it, but sometimes he does.

And he then finds himself cojoining and existing with and in the
physical universe. And now, because the physical universe does not offer
him a sufficient number of terminals to receive his communications, he
then begins to manufacture his private universe all over again. You got
it?

Now, that's very important to understand, then, that the (quote)
universe (unquote) that people are packing around with them when they
come to you as a preclear are usually secondary universes. They have
come into being because the individual has found an insufficiency of
universe in the physical universe. Well, it's quite interesting that
anybody could find an insufficiency of universe in a universe which is
so capable of solidity as the physical universe. It's one of the madder
things that could happen.

But it's done by disenfranchising the individual. You tell him he cannot
address, cannot touch, cannot reach. And we interpret it as "cannot have
a terminal." Reach, touch, address, have - whatever you want to call it,
that terminal cannot exist for him. That's all it means.

And so, he stops talking to it. He says it doesn't exist. An interesting
thing that somebody would get into the opinion that the wall didn't
exist, because that happens to be the truth of the matter. It's very
easy for him to fall into that one. See, the wall doesn't exist. That's
an easy thing for him to fall into, because the wall is a consideration.
All right.

Now, as we observe this, we find him forced into truth. And I've said
before that the probable aberration, all up and down the track, is that
an individual is forced into truth and away from a game.

As long as he can ably create, even as low a level as a lie (a slightly
less low level, a problem), he still can have a game. But when he's no
longer able to create, no longer able to put anything there, there isn't
anything there. He comes upon the truth of the matter, so that all
aberration seems to add up to is an enforced truth. This is a very great
oddity. An enforced truth.

You are made to admit that what you conceive is there, is what is there
in some such a way; and of course, you get an as-isness of the
situation. And so you get a destruction of the terminals which you
normally would have or utilize or a destruction of the spaces which you
would utilize.

Mothers work on this rather hard - fathers, schoolmasters and so forth,
"You must tell the truth." And they wonder if there's anything to this
fact that a child ceases to be creative and imaginative after he's been
around for a while. They must conceive there is something dreadfully,
dreadfully destructive in this child's lying.

The person who would conceive the imaginative impulses of a child to be
lies is, himself, in the interesting state of conviction that there
isn't anything there anyhow, and there had better not be anything there
anyway.

Let me call to your attention again a manifestation of a child who comes
in and asks you for a sixpence. And he goes through various parts of the
Tone

Scale as he slides on down and finally tells you when he hits the bottom
of the scale - and even if you hold a sixpence out to him - finally
tells you that he doesn't want the sixpence.

Do you know the child could get into a position where he has to make
nothing of every sixpence he comes across. A rich father, in denying a
child money - actually, it's an interesting thing that the rich man's
son is usually the more aberrated child on the subject of money. And it
comes about since he's told all the time that he can have everything,
you see, and then he - all these things are enforced on him in some
fashion. His power of choice as far as money is concerned is overthrown
here and there, and finally he comes into the status that there isn't
any money anyway, and the old man's fortune falls into his hands and
swish! Gone.

You take the rich man's son and audit him, and you will normally
discover that he cannot have money. Money is something that if it did
come into his vision in any way, he would have to make nothing out of it
at once. This is a fascinating thing.

Now, let's just get off of such a - interesting subject of money and a
relatively uninteresting subject such as a wall, and we find the same
thing applies to the wall.

Now, this child says, "I just shot a giraffe out in the backyard, mama."
His mama is in pretty good condition, she says, "Yes, well make sure you
bury it."

Mama is very well educated in the subject of havingness, and she knows
there's no giraffe in the backyard. And she asserts this fact to the
child. "Johnny, you really didn't see a giraffe in the backyard, did
you? Now, tell me, Johnny. You realize you'll break my heart with these
lies."

This is in the standard happenstance to mock-ups in children. I've had
people turn around to me and tell me, from time to time, as a writer,
some of the darnedest things about imaginative sequences, you know. They
tell me that that really didn't happen, you know, explain to me how that
really didn't happen and be very upset by it. Of course it didn't
happen. Wasn't a word of truth in the whole sequence. Should have been
obvious. But they cannot differentiate quickly and accurately enough
between the creative and the truth of the matter.

And so, they are on such an interestingly unbalanced pivot with regard
to walls and so forth, that if you started to create a new wall, you
see, with a lie or something of the sort, they would know not only that
this wall really doesn't exist - it'd be a pretty thin thing to them -
but they know also that your wall had better not exist. And you're
trying to give them a wall!

Wrote a story one time about "Beyond the Black Nebula." Or Nebula" and,
oh I don't know if there's anything on the other side of it. I never
looked. But, gee, people got upset about that story.

It posed the fact that there is, in Orion, a tremendous barrier, a black
barrier, across this particular galaxy. And I made people look at this
fact and then dreamed up some causations behind it and so forth, and
probably this barrier as they read the story was threatening to get
actual and thick, you know, and they were saying, "B-zzz-zzz-zzz I don't
want this barrier. You shouldn't do that to us, Ron." You know, that
kind of a reaction.

Well, here's a point. Here's a point: The person who could have a wall
didn't care how many black barriers were manufactured. The person who
could have something accepted a new manufactured wall in the spirit that
it was given - the spirit of a game. But when that person could no
longer have, he could no longer accept anything offered to him.

Very interesting thing. I imagine there are a great many girls that, if
you walked up to them and gave them a pearl necklace, they would have to
assure themselves of the fact that it was a phony or it was something of
the sort or that it was worthless. They probably would take it down at
once to get it assayed, just assure - and then if they were told it was
a real pearl necklace and so forth, they would be quite upset about it.
You could probably spin them in: ruin their whole lives by giving them a
pearl necklace.

Now, here we have - here we have a case of nonactuality. This girl knows
that jewels can't exist. See? It's simple; jewels don't exist. And what
she keeps on saying is not what she is saying at all. She's saying the
rest of the way, "Jewels don't exist. Jewels don't exist." You see? "Is
it real? Is it not real?" You take to mean "Is it there or isn't it
there." This isn't what she's saying. She's saying, "Honest, it doesn't
exist." See? "Really, it doesn't exist."

Now, one of the more interesting ways that people make nothing out of
things is to misintend them. So, that you could come back the next week
maybe and find she'd used this necklace to decorate a cake or something
or other. You know - anything.

You find this amongst savage tribes, particularly. I have had numerous
experiences of handing out knickknacks and things like that to the kids
or the elders of the village, and so on. And things that obviously
should be used for one purpose or another, you know? Good can opener.
They still get canned meat filtering into the country every once in a
while. Come around, fellow's wearing it as a locket. It's almost
impossible to guess, how wide of the intention they can throw something.
Well, that's kind of, you know, to get rid of it.

Now, on a high-toned basis they would simply be trying to make it
persist. On a low-toned basis they'd be saying it doesn't exist. So, you
get the two manifestations meaning two different things in comparison to
where the person is in relationship to havingness. All right.

This whole thing of havingness then comes down to communication and
terminals. And there's a great oddity about the whole thing. And anytime
that you have difficulty with the problem of havingness with the
preclear or have any difficulty with the problem, that's because you've
departed from this rather strange maxim. It's hardly a law, but it's a
recognizable thing. There can't be enough havingness, you see? You never
get a superabundance of terminals.

I saw Helen of Troy the other day - movie. And, here are the Trojans
outside the walls. Now, you'd say, "Now they would be resenting those
walls badly." In other words, they were trying to not have those walls,
so they could have the spoils of Troy. All right. Fine. Fine.

There's a certain greed there that is interesting, isn't it? They want
the spoils inside the walls. They can't have those - the walls say they
can't have those, so you get the interplay there.

But the funny part of it is, is the reason they couldn't have them, is
because they couldn't have the walls. You can develop almost any
situation in life and resolve it on that basis.

You're trying to get over a barrier to gain something else. Well, it's a
cinch that you can't have the barrier. If you can come into possession
of the barrier, you become into possession of the rest of it. It's very
amazing.

The only reason a person can get trapped is because he can't have traps.
You see? And the only reason he goes out and gets himself trapped is
because he can't be trapped. It's really quite, quite interesting.

But the systems which we have to own and have - "own" and "have" are
really two little different things. You start owning something properly
and it doesn't exist anymore. So "have" is maybe a misownership.

If you really have all the walls and barriers of the physical universe,
they pose no problem to you. You have to select some of them out as
unhaveable. And then you can have a problem in connection with some
other havingness.

If you do not have methods of acquisition, there really is no
acquisition possible. There would then be a total acquisition. And if
you had a total acquisition, you would, own everything there is. And the
way to own everything there is, is simply to own everything there is
without any system of owning everything there is. And then make sure
that you misown it so it'll continue to exist.

You get the oddities of problems which enter at once when we counterpose
these two postulates: communicate to something. See, I must communicate
and there must be a barrier to communicate to, but of course a barrier
is antipathetic to a communication. No, a barrier is necessary to a
communication. No, a barrier is antipathetic to a communication. No, a
barrier is necessary to a communication because your communication must
stop somewhere.

Well therefore, life well played would be a game of commenting in the
proper direction toward the right barriers and not trying to go through
the wrong ones. But you could get into some interesting problems if you
tried to leave this room through that wall and take your body with you.
See, that would be an interesting problem.

It's liable to throw somebody into apathy, but the funny part of it is -
funny part of it is, it wouldn't throw him into apathy anywhere near as
fast as simply being able to leave this room with his body through the
wall. That would upset him. I guarantee you, that would upset him. No
barriers. Nothing stops anything anywhere. All right.

Now, let's look at Remedy of Havingness in the light of stops. In
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, there are a great many
command phrases. I seriously doubt if anybody in England has really
taken a look at the behavior of engrams.

These are some of the wilder things. Person gets into a prenatal engram,
something like that. These things are unheard of. They don't exist - or
didn't. They are now written up in medical journals. But, they didn't
exist.

The funny part of it is, you can take anybody and with a few magic
phrases: "The somatic strip will now go to (in a certain moment in
time), and when I snap my fingers the first phrase will occur to you."
And the fellow will roll up in a ball. He can't help himself. He's never
heard of Dianetics, never studied it. That's the way it goes.

You can run somebody through birth, and if an obstetrician were standing
there, why, he could tell you exactly what type of birth this fellow
had. Exactly what method of delivery was practiced in this particular
case and so forth. Because the fellow quite ordinarily goes into
contortions over the thing.

You run him through a sperm sequence - these are all very doubtful
things, you understand, they only exist on complete evidence. And he
goes through a sperm sequence, and it's impossible for a human being to
lie on his back and then wiggle his feet from side to side in an
S-curve; and yet, people run through the sperm sequence do that.

You can throw them into the conception engram - moment of conceptionand
you will see, in lots of them, this odd foot-switch and shoulder-switch
wiggle. They are assuming S-curves, in the wriggles on the way, which
are not possible for a human body to assume.

Another thing, you can run a person through an inoculation of some sort
or another. You can sit there and if you really know your Dianetics and
you know how to run an engram right bang, you can watch the flesh sink
in as the needle touches the flesh. It's quite interesting, because
there are no muscles to do it.

The evidence of the engram, completely aside from the electronic deposit
and so forth, is quite abundant. But the whole subject of the engram is
a subject of can't have. If the individual couldn't have the environment
and couldn't have the cirtumstances he was undergoing at the time, it's
a cinch he'll have an engram.

See how that would be? Because he resists the environment to such a
degree and considers it so foreign, so solid, and so dangerous, that he
actually makes a sort of an energy plaster cast of the thing, and so
makes a facsimile. Quite intriguing.

He really resists. You can ask somebody to stand here and resist with
energy this window, and then let him go on for another ten minutes and
ask him, "Can you remember resisting the window?"

And the fellow says, "Oh, sure."

And you ask him to remember it a little bit better and just slide him
back in time to the moment he was resisting the window. And he will
have, usually, a backwards picture of the window. You tell him to turn
it around and he'll have a print of the window. Quite amusing. All
right.

So, that tells us, then, something very important. That the visible
engrams were those of loss. Those things the individual resisted - those
things he couldn't have in the environment, he resisted - they are
backwards. They usually are black-backed. Just like you had the pictures
on the wall turned face into the wall, you see. You get a backwards
print. And the back of the picture is black. All right. That's a lot of
people's blackness, and that's why blackness succeeds lots of pictures.
A person has lots of pictures and then finally blackness. He's gone down
the role of being able to have, and then has said, "I must not lose."

Now, let's see what that is. There is a thing called a tensor beam. A
thetan can do something that a physicist hasn't yet learned to make
energy do here on this planet. But elsewhere physicists can do this.
That is to say, they make a beam grab something - tractor.

You put a beam on the chair and pull it towards you. You can get the
idea of doing that. If you can get the idea of doing that, energy will
perform it. That's all there is to it. Now, if the chair, of course,
were steel and you had a huge magnet in your hand, you could see how the
chair would come to you.

But a thetan can do this without the thing being of steel. He can do a
tensor manifestation. And he can put - actually put a beam around the
back of somebody's head and stand him there. Have you been talked to
lately by somebody who didn't have much to say? Huh? It's very stupid of
any lecturer, you know, to restimulate boringness engrams. But the
fellow actually feels - it seems sometimes as though he has a beam
around the back of your neck, and he's holding you there and you can't
leave.

The electronic structure of a pretty girl who has just walked down the
street is a very interesting thing to observe. Every guy she's passed
has put a tensor beam on her, you know, tsk, tsk. Well, that's "Mustn't
let the terminal go any further away." That's the motto of that beam,
see.

So, the individual can have, and then he'd - can lose. He decides he can
lose; and if he feels he's going to lose any part of the environment, he
will hook a beam over it. Do you see how this is? And he'll hold it
there in front of him.

And if you take a facsimile apart very carefully (aside from simply
mocked-up or copied facsimiles, that's very possible, too) you will see
that it is - if the preclear is looking at it - is cross-sectionalized
as a tractor beam. He's trying to hold something from leaving him.

Now, he tells you, "Oh, I don't like these pictures, and they bother me,
and all of this, and they're very, very upsetting to me." Take a few
away from him. He'll start to crab at you. He is actually unable to
retain to him the actual object, and so, he gets a picture of the object
which he can look at straight.

Now, below that level he goes into blackness, and this blackness is
simply pressing on things. He pushes things. See, things mustn't come
any closer. Well, that fellow has already gotten himself into some frame
of mind with regard to something. Anybody has got some blackness on his
track. It isn't true that cases are black and other cases aren't black.
Anybody has got some blackness on his track. Sometimes you start to run
a wide-open case that will just run along fine, and all of a sudden it
all goes black.

You could take almost any preclear today and start to remedy his
havingness and all of a sudden blackness will show up. Well, you better
know enough to say, "Mock up some blackness and shove it in."

So, we get the engrams of resistance. And the engrams of resistance are
black. And we get the engrams of "Mustn't go away," and they are
pictures. And an individual who can't have the physical universe, can't
have anything leaving him because he can't have anything else, you see,
he at least retains a picture and there is how he builds up this
secondary universe. Now, that really isn't his universe. It's pictures
of the physical universe which he has in lieu of

Now, an individual only gets into a frantic frame of mind about things
leaving him if he can't have anything else. He's talking to a friend,
and this friend and he have been very good friends for a long time, and
this friend says 'Well, I'm going up to Galway, now, and, I'll be up
there for a couple of years.' And the fellow goes zzzzuh, you know.
Trying to persuade him to stay, you know.

If you ask anybody who did that, he would not be able to tolerate the
amount of distance between himself and Galway, number one. He would not
feel that he had any other friend anyplace. See, he's already on a big
scarcity of friends.

All right, you've got lots of friends and one of them says, "I'm going
to Galway." You say, "Okay, fine. I'll be up and see you someday." You
let him go, you get the idea? That says you can tolerate that distance,
and he doesn't, to that degree, reduce your havingness. Person would be
in good shape, you see? He'd also be very easy to get along with. All
right.

Now, as we look over the general situation on the subject of havingness
then, we find out that it is a decline from having one's own universe
exclusively, to a matter of cooperating with the universe, which is the
physical universe; and then we run out of havingness of the physical
universe, and we get into a point of a little anxiety - we might lose
parts of it. And from that we pass into "We're liable to acquire some of
it." And we get a flip. And therefore, we must resist parts of the
physical universe, and from there we go on to total not-have. That is a
disenfranchisement - total disenfranchisement of the individual.

Now, I'll tell you a little game. You ever find yourself flinching a bit
from a pc? Pc is sitting there running something quite restimulative one
way or the other, and you find yourself flinching a trifle. You find
yourself sitting back. If you were to look at your own physiological
anatomy, you would find out that your space has collapsed to about here,
right about to the end of your nose, and he's got the rest of the space
in the room. That's you being uncomfortable.

What happens? You can't have him, so you put a barrier up there that you
can have and talk to anyhow. To that degree, you go out of communication
with the preclear.

Tell you a little stunt, horrible stunt: Sometimes a very sensitive
preclear will know you are doing this, and they get - dzzzuh. You look
over the preclear. You find out you're kind of backing off, you know?
The preclear's life is private. The preclear's case is the preclear's
case. You really don't have any business, you know. You feel, "Well,
I'll let him talk," and you kind of find yourself backed up into no
space and he's occupying all of the space. You just find out what part
of the preclear you can have. Because that's what's happened. You've run
out of havingness of preclear. That's all that's happened.

Do you know that this can happen to you, and you lose the preclear; you
really go out of session as an auditor. And do you know that if you have
too few preclears that you begin to believe that there aren't any. And
you don't reach for anybody or process anybody, because they don't
exist.

Well, that's the beginning of it. One preclear is rattling on at a
drooling rate of horror, horror, horrible fates and so forth, and you
kind of start backing up, you know? It's all for the preclear, and your
space finally gets to about here, see.

Well, you've run out of the havingness of one preclear. And then you're
liable to lose another one, and then you're liable to lose another, and
then it'll get to be a habit.

And then pretty soon you'll be saying, "Well, I haven't audited anybody
for weeks. They don't exist. I mean, it's very hard to get preclears.
It's very difficult to get preclears." This is just a case of
havingness.

But the same law applies. If there's anything wrong with the subject of
havingness or the subject of terminals it is, there are not enough.
There cannot be a superabundance of terminals.

Honest to Pete, this street could not be stacked full enough full of
preclears, see, really, to satisfy your idea of preclears if you were
really rolling. Oh, you'd say, "It's wonderful. I got eight thousand
preclears to audit between now and next month."

You probably - if you really had that and you could have them all and so
forth, boy, you'd be a happy guy. Eight thousand preclears - you mean
you're going to audit twenty-eight hours a day, huh? All right. But that
would be the frame of mind you'd be in at the same time.

So what? You know? I work thirty-nine hours a day, it's all right with
me. Audit one on the phone, one in front of me. A couple of preclears
that were in the waiting room, we'd put them in an antechamber and have
them co-audit. I've done that, by the way. Anyhow ... Don't like to have
people wait.

Now, there is a cycle of it. And it's quite interesting if you look over
the preclear that is doing this to you. You know, you're running out of
space, you just look him over and find out what he's got you can have,
you will find out that your level of havingness of the preclear has
dropped a hell of a long way. And you can build it back up again. As
you're auditing him you just quietly and privately pick it up. Sometimes
the preclear gets aware of the fact that he's all of a sudden
surrounded. It's quite interesting.

But he only gets upset about it if he can't have his body. What little
tenuous grip he's got on what little body he has left is so light that
the idea of any other influence around him drives him half mad. And if
he's in that kind of a condition and you suddenly start adding up:
(Let's see, what can I have about this guy?) "Yeah, that's fine. That's
very good. Now, tell me something else you could consider dead ...
That's fine." (Now, let's see, what can I have about this guy?) You see,
and (I could probably have the dirt in his socks or something like
that.)

And if he's in fair condition, he will actually feel better about it.
But if he's in very bad condition, he's liable to get very jumpy.

But there's an oddity. And after you've done that to a preclear or two
or six - you know, just do it once in a while, look it over - when you
get in a frame of mind where you can have preclears, you're actually
running on "What body could you have?" you see?

And what you're doing is a gradient scale; instead of reaching out of
the bin of your life and selecting a body that you can have, you just
pick out what you can have about a body, you see? You run the gradient
scale approach and build it up, and you'll find out oddly enough that
you can have this preclear. And the moment you can have him, you can
really make that guy well. You're liable to get tired of seeing him sit
there running considerations and computations and that sort of thing,
and say, "Oh, hell," and as-is the condition of his leg and mock up
another one and shake him by the hand and tell him, "Goodbye."

You think I'm joking. But if you were in a terrific state of havingness
with regard to preclears in general, why, your ability to handle them
would be rather fantastic. You would only minimumly account on sorting
out the right combination. You would keep their havingness remedied.
You'd keep them exercised one way or the other and so forth, and you'd
straighten them out. All right.

That is primarily a very practical application of these principles -
talking to you about. There actually can't be enough of them. If you
can't have a preclear or if a preclear were to make you nervous or upset
in some fashion, it's just a not-having and the answer is there aren't
enough of them.

That's an oddity, but this just works out. It's one of those outrageous
things. This shouldn't be. It should be that there should be
considerations which said, "There are enough, there are too many, there
are too few." And you should be able just to have these considerations
bang, bang, bang, just like that. Not as long as you're hanging around a
body in this universe. The consideration which works out is, is "there
can't be enough."

Funny part of it is, the moment that you get into a consideration that
there are quite a few, you run out of greed. You just pass right on out
of greed on the basis. You pass from greed into abundance. Greed only
comes about in the face of a scarcity.

Government down here says, "Prices are going to go up in August." That's
an envisioned scarcity. Well, they'll create the scarcity. "Prices are
going to go up." Everybody who's got a plugged - penny will be down at
the stores buying the commodities off the shelves at the lower price in
anticipation of a rise. So, there'll be a scarcity so the prices will go
up in August. And then everybody's got it in the back closet moldering.
So, we get into the symptom of waste. So, greed leads to waste.

Now, as an individual looks out across the face of this particular
universe, he is prone to believe that there's an awful lot of space
there with darn little matter in it. And he gets planet-happy. A lot of
people get planet-happy. Sometimes it takes very extreme forms.
Sometimes some people are being good simply because they can't have
anything; even if they stole it, they couldn't have it. You get the
idea? That's a kind of an apathetic being good, you know? That's the
sort of being good that a lot of agencies of one kind or another think
is the only sort of being good there is.

These people are just unfathomably bad to have around. You said it.
They're down on a make-nothing-out-of-it death ratio. If the government
or somebody starts to go, they are the first ones covertly to be around
the corner and pitch that cobblestone. Get the idea?

They are the food for any revolutionary. They are the troops. Because
they have no responsibility for anything. And any change they compute
then, loses them nothing. And having no vested interest, they thereby
compose a revolutionary area in a country. You want to look at the
poverty-stricken people who have nothing, but more important, amongst
those, those that can't have anything, either.

Just because a person doesn't own a lot of money doesn't mean he can't
have a lot of money. There are a lot of fellows who have a lot of money
who can't have a dime; they're very dangerous people. They're at a level
of no responsibility on the subject of money. And they will do the most
confoundedly stupid things.

There's some fellow by the name of Jackalson, I think, that owns a lot
of stores, in Jackalson. He's an interesting fellow. He just has
zillions and millions and millions of pounds. And he can't have one
threepence. If you were to walk up to him and hand him a threepence, he
would probably say, "What's that?"

He really can't have money. And so he goes on accumulating money,
accumulating - but it isn't real! He'd just as soon do in every life
form there is. He would hang, draw and quarter people to get another
tenpence out of them. And here he is, he owns everything everyplace,
getting in everybody's hair, and organizations are stumbling all over
him, they don't know which end they're going - it's a fantastic picture.

This is somebody who can't have money who has to have money. You got the
idea? Well, the truth of the matter is, he is a poverty case. He's a
not-have case. And, boy, that fellow can cause people an awful lot of
trouble. It could cause a government trouble, if you were to go up to
one of these chaps and offer them a couple of quick pounds, they
probably would sell out to any other government that came along. I mean,
they have no responsibility. Their vested interest is - doesn't exist,
you see? That's what's very, very poor. These people are not regulatable
in any way. They can't have anything. All right.

Now, let's take the opposite to that: a fellow who has everything and
doesn't have to have anything. He's also uncontrollable. He isn't
hungry. You can't appeal to this man because he's got what you are
trying to offer him. He's got the very pound that you have in your hand.

You're trying to say, "Now here's this pound and I want you to run down
to the corner."

And he says, "Why should I run down to the corner?"

"Well, here's this pound, I want you to run down to the corner."

"Well, why should I take the pound? I've got the pound."

"No, you haven't got the pound, I have the pound."

You'd say, "Oh, ha-ha-ha. It's in your hand, but it's my pound."

"You mean, for the privilege of putting this in my pocket, I am to walk
down to the corner. My pockets are full." You'd get into a very
nonsensical sort of argument.

The fellow, in other words, would be above the level of game of "have"
if he were doing this. And the other fellow's below the level of game of
"have," and both conditions can produce a randomity in an area, more
than somebody can handle.

If all the workers in the British Isles were suddenly to have no use for
any pay, goods or commodities, there would be that game. That would be a
gone game, see? At once.

Nobody pretends that anybody would get up to that level of game. The
funny part of it is, they get up toward that level of game and they go
back into action on the game. Only they play the game now efficiently
and they play it as a game. Not as a dead, serious, horror that they
have to face somehow. That's the difference. All right.

You can ask this question, "Are you enjoying life?" In other words, "Is
life a game to you?" You would ask at the same time, "By any chance, are
you in the band of havingness below owning everything there is, and
above owning nothing and having to make nothing out of everything there
is? Are you by any chance in that band?" Or, "Are you enjoying life?"
These are the same questions - identical questions. No real difference.

Except one fellow wouldn't be in the universe. He wouldn't be there to
ask. So, hypothetically it's an incorrect statement. But the guy who
can't have anything and is resisting it, boy, is he there. He's there.
He's stuck. He's stuck, thud. Right there.

Now, let's look at this thing called "stop." The old engram used to have
"stop," "holders," and so forth. Now, these are embryonic barriers.
These are barriers aborning, you might say; the statement or postulate
"to stop." And an individual who gets an anxiety about havingness begins
to accumulate out of his manufactured bank all of the stops and begins
to hold them near him so that he will have barriers that can receive
something, and he won't get into this condition of the bull.

See how he does it? He selects all the stops out of the bank, almost
knowingly, and puts them there, and he will then have a barrier. There
will be something there to resist; something there with which a game can
be played. And thereby and therefore, he forms a false wall in a
secondary universe. The primary universe is the physical universe, as
far as he's concerned, in the state that he's in.

Now, there's an earlier universe which is his universe. And that had
barriers and walls, too. But, you'll find that the preclear will thrash
around for a while - he'll eventually discover this home universe.

But for our processing purposes, we are talking about this primary
universe, the physical universe. And we're talking as - the reactive
mind, the facsimiles, engrams, energy, pictures in it, as a secondary
universe which is formed by reason of not being able to have the
physical universe. And that's how the reactive mind gets born, that's
where it comes from.

Now, you very often have to get a preclear over the humps on the subject
of havingness on his reactive mind. We do that on Creative Processes,
and so forth. But these extend at once to a higher echelon - the
physical universe. And then if you remedy his havingness totally on the
physical universe and got him to have everything in the physical - no
longer with mock-ups - you just have him look at things and find out
what he could have, and you had him totally remedied on this subject, he
would then be able to and be in a position to create a home universe or
universe of his own. See how the graduated scale goes here. It goes from
reactive to physical to home universe.

Somebody could separate out of this universe simply on havingness alone.
First he'd have to be able to have his reactive bank. Then he'd have to
be able to have the physical universe. And then he'd have to know that
he could create something else. You see how that would be? All right.

This game of havingness is absolutely necessary to auditing. Apparently,
havingness to many people means barriers. And barriers means lack of
freedom. But to you, an auditor, a barrier should mean a game. And an
absence of barriers is the trouble with the preclear. He hasn't enough
barriers.

Now, you can say this about anything. Preclear is exhausted. He hasn't
got enough exhaustion. Preclear has got a cold. He hasn't got enough
cold. Preclear has migraine headaches. Hasn't got enough migraine
headaches.

See? Anything it is, it's just, at once, it's on this: Something has
gotten scarce and the next step after getting scarce is for it to get
valuable. Now, the mechanism of something getting valuable is, first, it
must get scarce. And after that it becomes very, very, very valuable;
and then it becomes so valuable it's rare, and when it becomes rare ...
How many women have you seen with Kohinoor diamonds walking down the
street in the last few minutes? None.

Well, you might even wonder if a Kohinoor diamond existed. And I'm sure
there is many a girl who is very good looking who has reached this point
of havingness about Kohinoor diamonds. I'm sure she kind of doubts that
they exist. They're probably all cut glass. If you were to ask her
suddenly about it, she'd probably answer in that wise there, "Oh, I - I
don't see what's so good about them, you know, if they do exist." She's
in an apathy on the subject.

And that's a very dangerous state for women to get into. If they got
this way about diamonds, fur coats, Rolls-Royces, ten-pound notes - holy
cats! Think of what would happen. The whole game of the society would
just be gone. All right.

Now, as we look over, then, the subject of havingness, we must not
ourselves, in trying to do something with the preclear, fall across this
one. Just intellectually, if processing didn't measure up to it on
ourselves, we would have to say, "All right. Well, we just kind of take
this on face value and so forth: Barriers are not necessarily bad.
Barriers are necessary and what's really happened to the preclear is, is
he's run out of barriers and thus has run out of games, so he is now
detesting barriers. And therefore, we will simply figure out some way to
give him some more barriers."

Tell you an interesting process that comes along in this line. Just have
the preclear start mocking up walls flat against his nose. I don't care
what kind of walls - black walls or anything else, just have him mock up
walls flat against his nose.

This is one of these processes that can just go on and on and on with
continuing cognition and so forth; the walls will get better, and better
walls, and better walls, and he will be amazed because he will start
protesting at once about these walls. He'll say, "Oh, I don't know. Up
against my nose, isn't that awfully close for a wall?"

So, we just get walls, walls, walls, walls, and more walls; and do we do
anything with them? Nope. Nope. Just - the wall is there, just let it
evaporate or stay there or do anything else. They don't care what you do
with them. And just keep mocking up walls. Now, if we wanted to get a
little fancier, we would have him waste walls for a while. This is what
he's doing anyhow. He's wasting barriers, see?

Now, a wall, actually, is a highly special kind of barrier. But anybody
recognizes - a preclear very often won't recognize a person as a
communication terminal or something which will act as a backstop. You
don't get a backstop, you see, in a communication terminal. He's fogged
up about this; he thinks his communications go through them, he can't
conceive it. But he knows more or less that if he did run against a wall
and hit his head on it, that the wall would be there and his head would
be there; there'd be an impact. He knows this, so you have him mock up
walls and you capitalize on this amount of information.

Well, you could have him waste them for a while if he couldn't even do
that; and after a while, after you've asked him for ways to waste walls,
you finally have him mock them up, he would be able to get them.

Now, a little bit fancier on the thing: You'd have him go over and feel
the wall. But the funny part of it is, is they are very often so far
downscale on the subject of the wall, that although they feel the wall,
they are not sure of the wall. The moment they stop feeling the wall,
they're merely looking at the wall, they say, "Ah, well, it's - like
that; it's obviously a wall. If I walked over and ran into it, I guess
I'd bump my head, I suppose, I don't know." You know, certainty.

Now there, as we go up the line, we would eventually have him get into
the idea of terminals. And we would start having him waste and make
communication terminals - one of the upper steps of SLP 7 - just mock up
terminals. Mock up terminals. Mock up terminals.

If you had a preclear who was in terrible shape and you just ask him to
mock up walls flat against his nose, why, he would get someplace. This
is a certainty.

Now, you want to know what those funny ridges he's got - what are these
funny ridges he's got? He's got a ridge here, he's got another ridge
here, and he has terrible pressures against his ears, and he complains
about these things. What a nut. He complains about them. He's
complaining about them, about having them, when as a matter of fact, he
can't have them! Do you get the idea?

Now, that's what he's doing. And so therefore you say, "Put some more
walls there." And when he first starts this he gets the basic impulse of
the preclear. The preclear is in real bad shape, going to come in there
and he knows just exactly what he's doing - he's going to make nothing
out of everything. Nothing out of this and nothing out of that and
nothing out of something else and nothing out of that and make nothing
out of you, and he goes away and he makes nothing out of your bill. And
if you just let him get away with this, he's going to stay in processing
forever. But in view of the fact that he makes nothing out of your bill,
too, what's the point?

So, pc's got a ridge. Conclusion: He hasn't got enough ridges. Pc's got
a cold. He hasn't got enough colds. Pc's got a bum leg. He hasn't got
enough bum legs. Pc's got some bad lungs. He hasn't got enough bad
lungs.

Now, when we were first studying havingness three years ago, I rather
supposed that it was an interchange of energy which ran out the bad and
left the good. Don't you see? This was a matched terminal affair. We had
the preclear mock up a person with a cold out in front of him, you know?
And we had him do this several times, and we considered that the cold
discharged.

That was not the action. I always stated that kind of cautiously to
myself that it just didn't seem quite right because it was not quite
workable, because the havingness reduced if we did that too much. If we
put two people with colds facing each other, yes, the preclear's cold
would get better, but his havingness would go down in some fashion or
another. It was kind of mysterious.

Well, the mystery of the thing has to do with just this one thing: We
didn't have him mock up enough colds, and they weren't bad enough colds.
We didn't have the cold really running and dripping, you know? No sonic
in it: slurp!

And if we actually have him mock up colds and shove them in on himself,
and mock up colds and throw them away, and mock them up and shove them
in, he'll eventually - if you have him throw away things and push them
in and waste them, do anything with them at all, but mock them up and do
something with them - he'll eventually get the idea, you know, "There
are more colds in the world than this one. What do you know? Uh-huh."
And he'll let go of it. It becomes less valuable.

Now, therefore, in the treatment of chronic somatics and psychosomatic
illness, you've got an answer. It's a fantastic answer. The use of it is
a lower echelon. "What problem could a cold be to you? Invent a problem
a cold could be to you." Lower echelon. And to get a complete recession
and cessation of it, you'd have to follow through with a Remedy of
Havingness of colds. He hasn't got enough colds. Now, if you can do
this, you can handle chronic somatics.

Now, the reason a guy is stuck in a body, obviously, is because he
hasn't got enough bodies. He's not running eight or nine, he's only
running one. And he gets the idea very easily that he doesn't have
enough bodies. Obviously, the answer is, "What body could you have?"

Remedy his havingness with it. Ask him again, "What body could you
have?" And he tells you, "Well, I don't know, a duck's body maybe."
Remedy his havingness with it. You don't care what it is. And remember
that the end of a Remedy of Havingness is being able to throw one away.
He throws one away and knows it, why, that's the end of the Remedy of
Havingness. All right.

Therefore, as we look over this general situation, we discover that we
must bring our preclear into a possession of a great deal more of the
physical universe than he has. So regardless of the subjective remedies,
we've got to get him into a physical universe remedy, too. And the way
we do that, we ask him, "Look around here. What could you have?"

We don't let him do it subjectively. You make him do it with his eyes
wide-open, "Look around here, what will you have?" And you, if you're
retreating from him, look at the preclear and find out what you can have
about him.

This is, in essence, auditing - where she is going and how she is done.

I hope these principles about havingness can assist you a great deal.
There are too many preclears around still making nothing out of
everything. It's easy to get them over this - just boot them up so they
can have something.

If they make nothing out of everything, they can't have anything. Those
two remarks go together. If they've got something and are holding on to
it, they haven't got enough of it. If they haven't got anything at all,
they haven't got enough of that either. Abundance of terminal is the
answer.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

[auditor]

GE SCIENTOLOGY

A lecture given on 31 January 1956

Want to talk to you now about recent developments gained from the staff
reports and my own research and processing and your boo-boos. Now, also,
your successes.

Audience: Thank you.

I'm not going to invalidate everybody tonight; no sense in doing that.

Now, as a matter of fact, there are a couple of faces I see here, whose
recent auditing I have had very, very fine reports on. Very fine
reports. So, we evidently have turned a couple of corners. So, we are
evidently getting, as you have gotten, rather consistently good results
throughout, but we're starting to get some spectacular results, and
that's all I ever settle for. That's right. Nothing but a spectacular
result.

Now, the worst part of a spectacular result is this: is when it becomes
average, it ceases to be spectacular. You get that?

Audience: Yes.

Now, I can tell you that the last three months preceding this early
February 1956 lecture have been months of turmoil in the field of
processing and, to a much lesser degree, in the field of organization.
They have been months of turmoil. Because all of a sudden under the
heavy microscopic eye of Scientometric testing, which is always kept on
the results coming up, processing results ceased to demonstrate uniform
gain - all of a sudden.

It was about the same time that Not-Knowingness Processes were released
into general hands. Now, that is a great oddity. One would look at once
to see if it was the lack of success of these Not-Knowingness Processes.

One would look to see whether or not it wasn't some other factor because
in looking at Not-Knowingness Processes, and the profiles gained by
simply running "not-know" and "don't-know" and "exteriorize" showed
gain. So, some other factor had suddenly been introduced. And what this
other factor was, lord knew.

But I tried consistently, from the time that these gains stopped showing
up, in very remarkable style, until a relatively short time ago, to
discover what had been dropped, sort of suddenly, out of auditing. And I
eventually found that the Remedy of Havingness had been dropped out of
auditing, and although you get early gains on Not-Knowingness or
Don't-Know Processes, and early gains on all Separateness Processes, too
often - in fact, rather usually - the preclear starts to run out of
havingness and auditors had had a Remedy of Havingness so high on the
old Six Basic Processes, they had seldom looked at it. They didn't
realize it was something that you ate and slept with, you know? They
didn't realize it was that germane, that important.

And so, we had to take a complete overhaul of the entire subject of
Scientology and reevaluate all of the importances of it. Which wasn't an
auditor's fault, or it wasn't the staffs fault, really wasn't my fault;
it's just something had gone a little bit awry.

A recent report, in fact today, from the Hubbard Guidance Center of
Washington, DC, demonstrates now that a Remedy of Havingness has been
put into action (and these reports only reflect its being in action one
week there), reflect a gain once more. A good gain. And this leaves us
with some preclears that we've got to go back and process, because they
didn't get gains.

Now, what an oddity. What an oddity to all of a sudden come
alongeverything's sailing along beautifully, you're getting beautiful
gains and then suddenly, wham, no gain. Because at the same time we had
come much closer to a very distinct understanding of the human mind, the
human beingness. We came close to an understanding of life and human
beingness, closer than we'd ever been before, and all of a sudden we
didn't get any gain. What happened?

Our processes got too strong. The processes got too powerful, too
suddenly, and overwhelmed the havingness because the masses and spaces
of life are problems. And we had suddenly, just like that, reached out
and solved too many problems simultaneously and weren't holding up the
comparable gain in terms of havingness. Don't you see?

Audience: Mm-hm.

The processes all of a sudden started to burn up all the havingness on
the track because they solved oh, problems, problems, problems. In other
words, we got too good. You could say that.

Now, you can tear up a preclear with such rapidity today, with some of
the material which has been developed in the last four or five months,
that for the first time I must give you a considerable caution on the
use of Scientology. Use it lightly, if you please.

Now, this is an interesting state to be in: To know more about life than
we'd ever known before and get no gain, and then to go back and have to
pick up something that we've known about for three years and bring it up
to the fore solidly, study it all over again, reevaluate it anew and
find out brand-new data about it in the light of the additional material
we knew.

Well, that really puts us in present time with Scientology. But it also
tells us that the materials which we have had to hand have not at any
time been lacking in some power.

Three years ago when Creative Processing came out, we had ourselves a
very, very weighty tool. But we didn't know just as much as we needed to
know about the exact internal anatomy of existence, you see? And
therefore we used

Creative Processes to shave off the edges of the preclear, you know,
instead of just take an auger and bore the center out. You get the idea?
All right.

Now, today, although we have abandoned no information, we have a much
better understanding of the Remedy of Havingness. Now, I call your
attention to SOP 8; good old SOP 8, which appears in Scientology 8-8008.
What was called Step IV of that process is very interesting. It is
called Expanded GITA - means give and take, wasn't an Indian word; it's
just a short name, give and take.

So that you had the individual take some havingness and throw away some
havingness. And the way you did this was get him to waste, accept,
desire, and be curious about various items. And there was a tremendously
long list, tremendous list in that old SOP 8.

Now, that step is very workable today, there's nothing wrong with that
step, but you could certainly narrow the living daylights out of that
list, you see. Just what factors do you use?

Well, we find out oddly enough that it really doesn't matter what factor
we use in the list. The havingness is the thing. Havingness is the
thing. It isn't the significant havingness. The significance isn't as
important as the actual mass involved.

So, going back and coming up to present time on the whole subject, we
now prepare Six Levels of Processing, Issue 8. And dedicate it to old
SOP 8. And we devote the entirety of Level One of SLP Issue 8, 1956, to
the Remedy of Havingness - the entirety of Level One.

And in actuality, this is all we do with a preclear to start out with.
We get him to sit still, to find the auditor, find himself in the
auditing room. Find out if he has a present time problem and at once
begin to use a Havingness Process. At once. No slightest break.

Now, this Havingness Process is not as good a Havingness Process as many
of them. But very often it's as easy as the preclear can be handled, you
see, it's just - he wouldn't go for anything more than this.

His present time problem is, if it is there, a pressing thing. And to
take his attention off of his present time problem is, to be very, very,
very technical, a boo-boo of the first water. To yank his attention off
of a present time problem is to cave the present time problem in on him.
All right.

Now, I suppose I can be allowed a few mistakes, I suppose. I make a
practice of being right at least 2 percent of the time. And in an early
Operational Bulletin (if you ever see a file of them), you will find me
saying that if I were running a case and just running them all out, I
would simply handle everything as a present time problem and ask the
person repetitively what he could do about it.

Well, do you know you can get away with this with a person who is having
no difficulty with havingness. But as nearly every preclear you're going
to lay your hands on has difficulty with havingness, you just better
throw that out the window and say, "This we will put in solid brass to
demonstrate Ron can be wrong."

Don't ever solve it.

For heaven's sakes, never solve the present time problem for the
preclear. It may be the last one he's got!

Now, let me show you how far this can go. It can go as far as when Mr.

Jones calls up on the phone - you've put an ad in the paper that said,
"I will talk to anyone for you about anything," or something like this.
You've doneand he calls up and he says, "I have a problem, Mr. Auditor.
I have a problem, a very terrible problem. My wife has hiccups and has
driven away her boyfriend," or whatever it is. "I'm now having to
support her," you know? Something like this. He has this horrible
problem. All right, fine.

Do you know that you as an auditor could sit right there on the other
end of the telephone and defeat one, your ad; two, the preclear's case;
and three, all of your group ambitions and future basic course plans, by
simply saying, "Well, that's fine. What could you do about it?" And you
ask him this four or five times, and he feels fine about that problem
for the moment and says goodbye and hangs up, and an hour or so later,
really feels like the devil. It was the last one he had. It's very
valuable.

You are really talking, to the people who call you there, to a very high
level of the society. These are people who can at least have a problem
and know it. And that's a fairly high level of the society. You think
you're going to talk to nothing but nuts on such an ad. No, you're just
going to take the cream right off the top. When that ad doesn't work
anymore, there won't be any wheels moving out here.

You get the idea? Because it's really a high-level activity to know you
have a problem and to want to communicate with somebody and to make
things a little bit better. That's a pretty good notion for somebody to
get. All right.

Now, you could defeat the whole thing simply by solving it for him. No,
the thing to do is to tell him that that is a gee-whizzer. That is the
darnedest problem you ever heard. You don't see how he can live with
this problem. And undertake at once, on an emergency basis, to complete
his communication with grave fears that it will do no good. He'll feel
wonderful. Furthermore, he'll come around and see you. Furthermore,
he'll probably join your group. That's the way it'll go, you see? But
don't solve it.

Well now, similarly with this individual preclear who sits down there in
your auditing room, for heaven's sakes don't start out by solving
anything for him. The solution is a straight line. It has no mass; it's
very, very unentangled. The top solution to everything, you understand,
is for nothing to be here at all. Do you see that? There'd be no
universe, no planets, no bodies, no governments - nothing, you see; it'd
just all be solved. No game.

So, the ad infinitum at which we are looking is not attainable, at once,
with a preclear. What you have to do - what you have to do is give him
enough mass to counterbalance taking problems away from him. You can
actually substitute nonsignificant mass and space for actual significant
problems. Because problems are a lower inversion on mass. We got it?
See?

You do a substitution. You give him some havingness, and he will
surrender some problems, and then he'll get better. Otherwise, he'll
hang fire.

All right. We ran into a strata of processes, then, a few months ago
that simply started wiping out the whole track and every problem on it.
And naturally, we weren't giving them enough havingness to substitute
for it, and the net result was they were not showing many gains on
graphs there for a while. And that was a disastrous thing as far as I
was concerned. How can we possibly be this expert and get results this
lousy? That was a question I was having to answer for a long time. All
right.

But we answered it. And apparently, well, we're well out of the woods on
this. But in the process of answering this, the darnedest amount of data
turned up, and some of the data reaches into odd places that I am
actually quite ashamed of. I'm ashamed that some of this data is around.
But I'm going to give it to you anyhow. You want it?

Audience: Yeah.

Well, first and foremost, the datum which stands here in the world
concerning atomic fission has a great deal of chance of being used
against man. Up to a very short time ago I said, "There's some chance
that man will never use this bomb against his fellow man."

In researching havingness, in researching this problem which we were
confronted with here, I found out quite the contrary. There isn't every
chance that it's going to be used, it's a dead certainty it's going to
be used. And why?

Well, we have to go back to an old friend of ours called the GE, the
genetic entity. Now, as you know the parts of man, and if you've ever
observed these things while auditing people, you will know that the
awareness of awareness unit is the personality of the being. This
awareness of awareness unit is something that observes other things. The
masses are not the personality. They are simply adjuncts or masses
appended to a personality.

The body is quite something else than the individual, and the individual
is not his body. But something is running this body, and this something
we call the GE. And falling in line with our own researches, and
incidentally, agreeing with the ancient Greek, we discover that this
seems to be located in the center of the body or in the vicinity of the
stomach.

Now, the GE is a fascinating brute. I have had to study the Scientology
of the GE, of recent weeks, and have discovered it to be distinctly
different than the Scientology of the awareness of awareness unit, or
the thetan. They are distinctly different.

And so we are auditing a thetan, an awareness of awareness unit, over
the desire for dead bodies of the GE. And we have actually been balked,
as we know, in handling the thought patterns of the individual, by some
countercurrent in the person. There was something there arguing him into
a worse life and a more upset circumstance. There was something there.
And we were at war with this somethingness, and we didn't quite know
what it was.

It is contained in the Scientology of the GE, and this is distinct from
the Scientology of the thetan. It's distinct in this way: The overt
act-motivator sequence is not operative on or trained into a GE. There
is, then, no restraint.

Now, we know what the overt act-motivator sequence is, you go over and
hit Joe and your own nose starts hurting. You know that phenomena. Some
people get so bad off that they think a hostile thought, an hostile
thought to some organization, and immediately thereafter figure the
organization is about ready to do them in. This is a quite ordinary
sequence, but it has its own values in restraint. It is quite a game in
itself. This thing we call conscience, this thing we call "moral lack of
temerity, moral timidity." We, in other words, are restrained by our own
reactions to a very marked degree. Well, oddly enough, these restraints
are contained in the reactive mind. They are. Hadn't anything to do with
the GE.

There are many men around who are "Operating GEs," not Operating
Thetans. And this whole matter of the GE becomes excessively important
to us when we discover that the GE can be affected by a thetan but
ordinarily is not, and that the reactive mind is operative upon the
motor controls and other parts of the anatomy, but not upon its
thinkingness. And there is a separate thinkingness in the body which has
very little to do with this reactive mind. It has nothing to do with a
thetan. But boy, can it influence the body. And that is the GE.

Now, the GE is going on down the genetic line. And we first hear of the
GE, in something on this Earth called the lee Cube. He sort of tells us
that he got dumped in the sea, you know? And we've gone all over this,
you find it in the History of Man which was researched by an E-Meter.
All of this material was relatively para-Scientological. We weren't at
all unhappy about it or happy with it, it's just material which was
consistently and continually reported to us. All right.

We put this material together and we find out that the GE has been
coming along this line from some time. He has a history of being a
plankton and a clam and so forth. As a matter of fact, you can get your
best friend to have his teeth pulled out simply by telling him all about
the worries and woes of a clam. And you come on up the line and you
follow the genetic blueprint. Now, what we're looking at is the genetic
blueprint, which is on excellent enough authority - even Darwin, the
monkey man, whose hindsight only went back to apesight, and who could
have looked a lot further - even Darwin admitted that there must be some
kind of a blueprint for existence.

Well, this blueprint for existence we found in Scientology: we know its
anatomy, how it's put together, and how long it's been on the way. But
this is not the thetan or the awareness of awareness unit. He hasn't
been on the track like this. This isn't the way he operates. This isn't
where he came from. This isn't what he does. He handles and monitors
these bodies that are put together on this genetic blueprint. And he
skips off the genetic line and comes back onto the genetic line again.
All right. So much for that.

When the GE dies, it sails off like a thetan and makes another mock-up
on the same, more or less, genetic line. You see? The thetan just sails
off. He leaves that genetic line and, really, enters some other genetic
line most ordinarily. You see? So, there are two different livingnesses
in the body, and they go at death in two different directions. And one
of them carries with it the entirety of the life pattern of the last
life or lives, and the thetan doesn't bother. He just not-knows the
whole thing and skips it. All right.

Now, here's a great oddity. These two things, they're sitting there
together and responding in a coordinated fashion while you're auditing
the preclear. And one of them we haven't been paying very much attention
to.

Once upon a time, a fellow by the name of Freud talked about the
horrible ravening beast that underlie all of our motives. Most of the
time I have considered Freud was pulling, at least, a longbow. I knew I
didn't have any horrible, ravening beast. I've turned around suddenly
and I've sometimes found a mock-up of a lion or a snake in back of me,
but never any real, horrible, ravening beast that was giving me advice
and monitoring my directions. But obviously if there is dramatization in
reactive thought, there is some kind of a reaction that takes place that
the individual doesn't seem to have any cognizance of.

Well now, it is not true that a thetan has a horrible, ravening beast
and a terrible conscience and a censor and fully equipped with an
ad-libido something. It's not true that he had all this bric-a-brac. But
it is true that a thetan is in somebody's skull that has a lot of
bric-a-brac and is a beast. Get the - bit of a difference here.

The GE's Scientology does not include an underlying, ravening beast
which springs forth unbeknownst to it. It is a ravening beast. Get the
difference? It has no suspicions whatsoever concerning its own
character. It knows it's terrible and it loves it!

Now, it's perfectly all right to malign this GE because all it can do is
give you a headache, kick your teeth in, tear your head off, and cause
you to murder or sell your grandmother.

But here is a certain thing that is interesting: This thing has not been
educated into a thorough belief that when it does something to somebody,
something will happen to it. That's the thetan's idea. That's a thetan's
idea; not the GE's idea. The GE doesn't run that way at all. The GE runs
on unlimited, continual overt acts by it to others with compound
interest and no liability. And that's a fascinating view to take,
because it says that it is unrestrained.

The test of it is, is can you run - worse, can you run a GE? Yes. Yes.
The thetan, by doing mock-ups and remedying havingness and straightening
up certain other things, puts the GE under control. It's quite
interesting. So, Remedy of Havingness showed us up, suddenly, this
Scientology of the GE. All right.

Now, will a GE run on receiving motivators? Well, the oddity is the
thetan runs on receiving motivators. The GE doesn't run on receiving
motivators. Do you get the idea?

If you try to get the GE to believe, by mock-up or otherwise, that he
can be destroyed, he just gets unhappy. He isn't pleased at all. Now,
you get the difference of beingnesses here we're operating with.

To unconfuse these two is the act of exteriorization. When an auditor
gets these two things unconfused in a preclear, the preclear is better
able to handle his life and beingness.

There was something that looked, then, like a subconscious or an
unconscious mind. Only it wasn't a subconscious and unconscious mind. It
was the livingness which is a resident in and composes the stomach and
structure of the body - acting, thinking, and reacting.

The GE dines upon death. That's all a GE wants. The basic philosophy of
the GE is not survive. There is not much question about survival. The
basic premise, the dynamic principle of the GE happens to be this: "If
there is any other life form anywhere alive, I cannot be happy or live."

Wow. The "only one" ne plus ultra. "If there's anything anywhere alive,"
it says, "I can't live." Wow. How does it respond to this? How could you
possibly find this out? How could you test this?

Well, part of the processes which I had to sort out, put together, in
the line of havingness, consisted of sacrifices: Were dead bodies more
acceptable than live bodies? and so forth. Not only were they more
acceptable, they were the only things that were really acceptable to the
GE.

Now, the thetan could receive motivators. I've lectured to you about
motivators, remember, body motivators. The thetan, evidently, is the one
who receives these body motivators, not the GE. So, we're not putting
the ravening beast any more under control by running motivators.

What we must do as a process is to have the preclear mock up things out
in front of the body which are then sacrificed to the body. Now, I use
the word sacrifice, very advisedly, very advisedly, because you can go
so far as to have the "holy knife" and the altar and you can have
anything mocked up you want, as long as it's a known sacrifice.

Now, in order to keep from tearing up the fellow's track and to make
sure that he's putting new ones there instead of old ones he's picking
out of the GE's bank, you have different things occur. You have modern
dress. You have "occur tomorrow." You have green bulls and polka-dot
doves, you know? Anything that really differentiates it, so that we just
don't drain the bank down. And thousands and thousands of things being
sacrificed are much better, providing he's certain that they are and
have been - the GE is certain they are and have been sacrificed to his
livingness.

Now, this is a frightening thing to look at and examine. It tells us at
once why many of our preclears go off the rails in auditing. We have a
double direction here: the direction of auditing the thetan and
direction of auditing the GE.

Now, listen, if a GE has nothing in mind but the obliteration of all
life, what do you think his ambitions are in relationship to a thetan?
Same thing. Same thing. All right.

Now, we take a GE and examine him as to this: What is the relationships
of the GE ... You understand he actually is resident in the stomach;
he's right there in the middle of the body. What is his relationship to,
let's say, the legs? Well, there haven't been enough legs sacrificed to
him. He's got a scarcity of leg sacrifice. And he starts to sacrifice
the body's legs. And we get cripples.

He starts to sacrifice the body's head, back, ridges. We get hunchback
material and so forth. It's quite interesting material, because it tells
us the source of deformity in the body and gives us at once its
solution, which is just having anything with that condition sacrificed;
but never letting the GE be sacrificed, you see. It won't run that way.
It'll run on the thetan, but not the GE. So, we just go on with
sacrifices.

Now, this works out to an idiocy of complexity if you want it to. Fellow
walks in and he's - his shoulder is hurting. So, you say, "That's fine.
Now, mock up a fellow with a bum shoulder and have him sacrificed to the
body," and he does. And does that a few times, the shoulder lets up.

What happened? Well, there was just enough death, of all things, enough
death. And that is the motto of the GE. If he can have enough death,
he's happy.

It evidently is less important that mass occurs than that the mass be
good and dead and preferably that it be sacrificed. Now, you take
somebody who can't eat bacon, he can't eat eggs, he can't eat this and
that. He has to eat coconuts and drink swizzle tea and he's very, very
careful of his diet somehow or another. And you'll find there's only one
thing wrong with his diet: He didn't see it die.

And it's fabulous. You have small rabbits and chickens and things like
that, you know. Have him mock those up being dragged in and then have
them executed, you know, and have the soul go off to heaven (they all do
this, by the way, they let the soul go off to heaven, you know), and
wham, right into the GE goes the body of the rabbit or the chicken, and
so on. It's the fastest operation you ever saw in your life. It just
goes in slurp.

Now, the odd part of it is, is the thetan has a conscience. And he
believes that certain things should happen to him. He believes in
reciprocity. He believes he's alive, other people are alive, you see.
And if he does things to other livingness, then things should happen to
him. GE doesn't subscribe to this at all.

So, body motivators run just fine on the thetan, but foul up the GE. And
this was where I first discovered this. I discovered something was
fouling up running body motivators, and I had to isolate it and find out
what it was and where it was, and all of a sudden, I found myself
looking down the long microscope at the genetic entity as a separate
thinkingness and beingness. It's what keeps the body moving and rolling
and its philosophy is "So that I can live, all things must die."

Now, there's a cure for this. It goes on this gradient scale: You get
things sacrificed to the GE by mock-ups, you see. Things sacrificed,
sacrificed, sacrificed, more and more; and you'll find, shortly, that
things are going into the genetic entity, although they still have a
little life left in them. You know, the soul is gone but some of the
cells are still alive, and it's still acceptable to the GE.

And so, it builds up on this gradient scale very nicely until the GE is
satisfied with something alive and is no longer pulling this liveness -
this live object forcefully into the body. Two things happen: one, first
the GE can accept only death; we improve that consideration until the GE
can also accept lifeliving beings. They go in, and then living beings
that don't have to go in, and then living beings that he can let remain
or go where they please or operate on their own determinism, don't you
see? And then living beings he can throw away. You got the idea?

In other words, we can civilize the GE with a considerable betterment to
the digestion, to say nothing of the arms, legs, and the rest of it. Got
it?

Now, that is a rather fantastic discovery to make because it's a very
basic discovery in the problem of what is man doing and where is he
going. All a person has to live is a somewhat hungry youth, and all he
has to do as a thetan is to finally get beaten down to a point of where
he's in total agreement with all the ambitions of the body ... Who have
we got? We've got a conqueror.

I understand somebody spent two million pounds - I think it was Howard
Hughes spent two million pounds to make a picture called The Conqueror.
John Wayne, of all people, starring in it, and an old pal of mine, a
very good friend of mine by the way, Susan Hayward, starring in this
thing. Huh! Two million pounds this Conqueror is worth. I wonder why
this is the most expensive motion picture ever made?

Did you ever hear of Genghis Khan's pyramids of skulls? Brother, you
talk about an "Operating GE" . . . no conscience of any kind. Total,
unlimited slaughter. They used to flatten, the Mongols did, cities -
opulent cities and their populaces - so flat that their ponies wouldn't
stumble when ridden across them at a hard gallop. That was their brag.
Pyramids of skulls. Death, death, death, death, death, death. Somebody
comes along and spends two million pounds making a picture about this
jerk. You talk about the deification of the gastric origin, that's it.

So, you wonder why the populace at large can be appealed to by things
and creatures that make nothing out of everything and why they neglect
creative efforts. The GE has no idea of creation. The GE can only
consume, he cannot create. It must be that people are to some degree
running on their stomachs; must be quite prevalent.

And when you look at the thirst and rapacity on the parts of many
governments for taxes and sacrifices, from their electric chairs and
hangman's nooses and so forth, we sort of get the idea there must be
some operating GEs working in there, too.

But it would give such people nothing but supreme pleasure to have an
entire city sacrificed to them with atomic fission. Nothing but
pleasure. The moral restraint will not be present. A hideous thing to
have to face.

It tells us, if we wish to make the experiment with a few preclears,
that even those chaps that we process - we find out there is an
operating mechanism like there - and then the cases that won't run at
all, run exclusively on this. We discover at once that we had certainly
better take something into our computation and reality. Just come off
the maybe about it because there's no maybe there. That's what it tells
me.

It says within the next five years somebody's going to clobber somebody.
Why? So that somebody's stomach can be titillated. That's a horrible
thing to have to look at.

Naturally, you'd expect action of this character to come from countries
which are very genetic-entity, you know? They're very MESTy, very
materialistic, very sold on the idea that food is all, you know? And we
have such countries. And they have atomic fission.

So, not to just ... Be cheerful about it. I mean, there's nothing to it;
if we know that we can probably do something about it. We can probably
razz them off of their penchant.

But the point is that, organizationally, why, we'd better figure out a
few things. We better figure out - write ourselves a book, called
"Radioactive Burns, Their Treatment - Their Care and Treatment," or
something like that, and a basic textbook on handling radioactive
contamination, so forth, with Scientology and otherwise. And give it an
emergency address someplace or another that isn't likely to be in an
immediate bomb area, you know and spread it around, and put it in the
bookstores. Do a few things about this sort of thing and just stop
regarding it as "Well, it's very silly for somebody to even figure that
somebody'd do . . ."

People who think it won't happen are the people who think. And they are
sizing up everybody by themselves; and they themselves would not do such
a thing to their fellow man. But there have been such people who thought
and created and were restrained in their own actions in the periods of
such people as Genghis Punk, the great stomach.

Now, where we get in this deep in research, we are into something
sufficiently significant that we can start predicting what the behavior
of a certain organism is, and predict it with certainty, why, we're of
course on a more positive course ourselves. We're leaving just that much
less to chance and that much more to control. And chance is all right
for a gambler or a fellow who doesn't have much game, but when there's a
lot of game anyhow, why, you can start cutting into the chanciness of
existence and make it a little more positive. And so we can do that now
and we intend to.

Well, that's just one of the things that I wanted to tell you about this
evening, and there are several more that are equally - not quite so
dramatically startling, but they mean quite a bit to us, particularly
since it's rather necessary that we get a better grip on this thing
called processing.

Radioactive burns have, at this date, no cure. They're cumulative. It
can be rather easily discovered, however, that the bank is just
saturated with radioactive engrams. You can always throw radioaction
into restimulation if you want to. All right.

The reason radioactive burns are restimulative and cumulative, which is
the important part of them - you know, fellow gets five minutes' worth
of burn today, five minutes tomorrow, five minutes the next day, and the
next thing you know he's got fifteen minutes' worth of burn - it doesn't
wear off the way other burns do. All right.

Why is this? It's because it throws the engram bank into restimulation
so easily and keeps it into higher and higher restimulation, and there
he is.

Now, you can take a rather serious burn and on this basic law which isit
sounds incredible sometimes in the field of havingness, but on the basic
law in havingness - that one never gets enough of anything. You see,
there aren't things around which you can have too much of. That's what
throws havingness off. And that gets you to resisting and doing all
sorts of things.

There aren't things around that you can have too much of in spite of a
thetan's belief that this is so. See, he makes a game of this. There are
things around he can have too much of as far as he's concerned, but
that's his game. Factually, there aren't any things around that he can
have too much of. You see, he can always have a scarcity. And anything
wrong with his havingness is on the score of scarcity.

Individual has terrible gastric pains. And you say, "Oh, my, we must get
rid of those." Oh yeah? No, no, no. That's the wrong philosophy. The
right philosophy is "Let's see how we can get enough of those." Got the
idea?

He's got some problems. Well, the philosophy is "Let's not figure out
how to get rid of these problems, let's figure out how to supermultiply
them," you see, though that's the other factor. And anywhere we look in
havingness it's this rationale that kicks us along.

It is the same thing in radioaction. If your sidewalks and streets and
the sidewalks and streets of the world were all radioactive, you
wouldn't care two pins for any atom fizzle. See, you wouldn't just care
two pins for it. It wouldn't be anything to you. Bomb would go off -
flash! And you'd say, "Somebody's being careless today," and go on
drinking tea with somebody. Get the idea? It's its scarcity.

An individual has quite a few radioactive engrams. They are thrown
easily into restimulation, so he's already abundantly aware of
radioaction. Abundantly aware of this. And now, all of a sudden there's
a chance to get some more. A bomb explodes over there two miles and only
blows his bloody head off, you know? He'll go, "Gee, I didn't blow my
stomach out either, you know? I mean, that's bad. I've been cheated."

Well, on an injury basis, he looks up at the radioactive flash and he
says, "Oh, that's terrible, I must get away from it." Wrong computation
for auditing. See, that's his - that's the way he thinks about it and
that's the way he reacts and that's what he does.

But an auditor, looking at the case, has to think another way in order
to do something about the radioaction. He says, "Gee, that guy was
scarce on radioaction. Look at him - stone-blind. Boy, he really had a
hunger for that stuff."

And, so, what do you do? You just have him mock up more radioactive
stuff, and you make the walls radioactive and the ceiling radioactive
and the floor radioactive, on a creative basis. Or make the
radioactivity more radioactive.

You'll have a little bit of difficulty doing this sometimes. You'll
occasionally have to have somebody waste radioactivity for a little
while before he can start to mock it up easily. And boy, when he has, to
his satisfaction, the walls glowing a bright green, you know, all of a
sudden his own radioactive burns will turn off. I've had considerable
experience with this already.

The US government loves to use up its taxation money by blowing up bombs
and, in any given twenty-four hours, probably uses up twelve to fifteen
million dollars' worth of uranium or something; particularly since it's
irreplaceable, you know.

And, they use the deserts out in Arizona and Nevada and anyplace that
somebody might have a good time, you see. And, they keep blowing this
stuff off. And then great clouds of radioaction blow across the country
and burn holes in the newspapers in Chicago and everything. And the
newspaper says in glaring headlines, "Scientists Claim Radioactivity Did
Not Affect Any Other Area Than Salt Flats." You know? "Radioactivity, As
a Result of the Fallout, As Reported Increased in Wyoming, Actually Is
Only Up 200 Percent from Normal," you know. Just utterly psychotic, the
reports on this radioactivity.

They evidently can't have enough of it, can't have it, must have it; and
if they do get it, they've got to lie about it. You get the confusion
that goes on there? It must be a problem, it can't be a problem. For
instance, they blow up typical American homes and things like that. They
never blow up any Russian homes. It's really wild. All right.

People can see these flashes occasionally. Somebody will be riding down
the road or out in the front yard or something like this, and there'll
be a terrific flash off on the horizon someplace or another and he
happens to be looking at it, see. And by morning his face will be nicely
bloated and his eyes will be in very terrible condition.

Actually, if his havingness is in good shape - look at these two things
- you can expend a solution, you see. You can solve it. You can say,
"Where did you see it? Where are you now? Good. Where did you see it?
Where are you now? Where did you see it? Where are you now? Where did
you see it? Where are you now?" And all of a sudden the swelling goes
down and his eyes get all right.

But you see the danger of that? If he had a very serious burn such as
gained by somebody working in a laboratory, you'd say, "Where did you
get it? And where are you now?" His radioactive conviction is now high,
and you're going to have to run other engrams and do other things. Don't
run the engrams. Add to them.

The safe process then, or any Havingness Process, the safe process is to
add to the condition. Got it? Make more of it. Not less of it. Increase
it; don't decrease it.

So he's got pain. All right. So he has pain. That's fine. Why does he
have pain and why is he holding on to pain? Because it's valuable.

There's an interesting old test in SOP 8, Expanded GITA Step IV. You
have an individual waste pain. And he discovers something uniformly - I
don't care who you take, whether it's a butcher or a cabinet minister,
you do the same thing with him, you get the same result. You have this
individual waste pain, and he really gets so he can waste it real good,
and he always comes up with this cognition: "You know, well, that's good
stuff, pain. That's nice. I like that. I know I shouldn't be saying
that, but it's kind of nice." See, that's the oddity that enters in
there. So, what do you do?

Fellow is in great pain. It isn't that he doesn't hurt enough, it's that
pain is too scarce, so he is feeling it. If he had a little more pain he
wouldn't feel it. Now, that sounds odd, but it doesn't sound odd. You
don't push more pins in him. That's an Indian method, they understood
this too, you know. A fellow hurt like mad in the stomach, so they beat
his feet; that got his attention off of it real good.

You start the individual putting pain in the walls, and have him make
the curtains hurt and the chair hurt and put pain out here and pain
there and create pain - two things occur: At once he takes over the
automaticity of hurting, and he adds to the scarcity and makes it an
abundance.

You must always be prepared, in havingness, to waste. The individual
says, "Oh, I couldn't possibly make any pain out of the thing." He can
always waste it. Well, similarly, the GE is wasting life because it
can't have it. So, that's where you find it on the Havingness Scale.
See?

In radioaction and its treatment you have to add to it. And this is
certainly something for you to know and certainly something for you to
remember, because the least that will happen to any country in the
Northern Hemisphere is it'll get fallout, the like of which you'll have
to go down the street wearing an umbrella, you know? And that is, don't
permit yourself to get so spooked about radiation that you don't run
"Add to It" as a process. See, that would be the only danger.

You, right now, could be run on radiation sufficiently, putting it into
the walls, to completely remedy your and your body's havingness of
radiation. Nobody's tried this, but I'm sure from earlier tests and
other things, that you could probably put your hand up in front of a
stream of gamma rays that would ordinarily fry somebody, that it'd feel
pleasantly warm. I think you could do this. That's not a tested thing.
But there are many solutions in that particular line. All right.

Now, in havingness in general, we have, in havingness, discovered
something three years ago which we now drag out and add to: the Waste,
Accept, Desire scale. The DEI Scale we call it: Desire, Enforce,
Inhibit.

Now, let's take a look at this old scale and let's get what will
probably be the basic anatomy of running Havingness on Level One. Of
course, we solve that present time problem by getting him to create
problems of comparable magnitude and create other problems of comparable
magnitude and more problems of comparable magnitude. And if he can't
create, we make him lie about the problem, you see? Lying is the lower
echelon of creation. And, we go at this rather easily so as not to knock
out his havingness. That's importantwe no longer give an inventory. Got
that? We no longer give one. Why?

Because it as-ises too much energy and we may just run the fellow down
enough in energy that he can't function in sessions to solve that
present time problem, and then we're really - we've really had it, you
see?

Sometimes it's unprofitable to process somebody who is undergoing an
emotional strain if you know the emotional strain will be at end in a
few days. The best time to process him is when the strain is at end.
Otherwise you just spend all the time working with a present time
problem. Don't ever leave a present time problem half-solved, by the
way, and say, "Well, that's good enough and we'll get on with it now."

No, if this person's really under pressure with a present time problem,
you know he'll go on the next twenty-five hours of auditing under the
pressure of the remaining pressure of the present time problem. His
attention then is being yanked off it. He's picking up somatics, and
he's behaving strangely in session. And he shouldn't behave this way in
session. It's just because you didn't thoroughly solve the present time
problem, or another one arose during auditing which is too much for him
to handle. And you handle it by getting him to invent problems of
comparable magnitude, always standing by to remedy his havingness any
crude way you can the moment he goes anaten or starts to jiggle.
Something a little bit nervous, you know? He starts to go like this, you
know, and says, "I don't - sure would like to have a cigarette, you
know? Haven't we been at this long enough?" Well, listen, if he goes
that far before you noticed it, you ought to be shot. No kidding.

Auditor was running somebody the other day on spotting walls, a good
auditor, and he was running a guy on spotting walls. And the fellow
spotted a wall and a wall and a wall and all of a sudden the auditor was
aware of the havingness cut-away. The fellow's hand as he pointed was
beginning to shake a little bit. Just this much, you know? So, he ran it
a couple of more commands just to make sure, and the fellow really
started to get jittery then. In other words, he had looked and he had
found the entering threshold of a reduction of havingness. He'd actually
noticed it, and he could have remedied it easily if he'd remedied it
right then. You understand? He could have remedied it easily. If he goes
on to a point of where the fellow is twitching all over the place, the
guy is practically out of control. It's very hard to remedy havingness
when you get them that far.

Now, let's distinguish here, at once, between a repair and remedy of
havingness. A repair of havingness is having him mock up and push it in.
Push it into the body, push it into himself, we don't care what. It's
"push in"repair.

Remedy of Havingness you run a mock-up and push it in, and mock up and
throw it away until he can throw one away and be convinced that he has
really thrown one away. Now, we say we've remedied havingness on that
object. That's the difference between a repair and a remedy of
havingness.

Quite important because if you keep pushing in, you'll restimulate the
thetan's motivators - not the GE, he doesn't have any - the thetan's
motivators. The thetan will get the feeling after a while like he's done
something or he's guilty. That's just because things are being pushed in
on him. See? So, you have to throw one away every once in a while; it
makes him feel good. All right.

Now, we enter into a scale - reaching way back there and picking up the
old scale and remodeling it - right with the present time problem,
preparing to remedy havingness at any time, with this scale. And we find
for the remainder of Route One that this scale applies; and it's an
interesting scale. And it starts with "possibly motivators." That's for
the thetan, you see, "possibly motivators." That would be such a thing
as ". . . a problem it could be to you," or something like that. But
it's a shove-in proposition, or it starts with - you see, with anywith a
different individual it could start with different things. But he's
somewhere on this scale, and you're going to go up the scale, and then
the scale itself has harmonics; it repeats itself. So, we don't care,
we'll just give you the full scale, and you'll find him going through
the various upper echelons of thisrepeating it, in other words.

Motivators. That's an inflow of some kind or another. You have him mock
up things with the intention to kill him, or do something of this
character. That's not absolutely necessary; we'll find that on the run
somewhere. We'll find that condition.

The next one up is Waste which we call today "sacrifice." We convert the
whole idea of waste into sacrifice, see? All right.

And the next one up the line on this is "possession of live havingness,"
again, an inflow. And the next one is quite interesting. It's one that
we've never looked at before, but it's obviously there. And that's "What
wouldn't you mind letting remain where it is?"

And that is the stop between the inflow and the outflow. And that is a
terrifically effective auditing question. A fabulous auditing question
that was sitting right there, very observable in the action of inflow
and outflow on havingness, but we just never used it. I just never
noticed it.

"What wouldn't you mind having remain right where it is?" You know? Or
just have him mock things up right where they are, and just let them
stand right where they are. They don't go in, they don't go away; just
mock them up. See, there's that interim step. And then the next is,
"reject." "What could you dispense with?" And of course, the whole cycle
can go all the way over again. Now, that's not smoothly stated nor
smoothly worked out.

But this is smoothly worked out. And this is a process on havingness
that you can't do without today: The way out is the way through. The way
to be at liberty in this life is to be able to have or not have this
life at will. To be able to have or not have bodies, space, environment,
planets, mock-ups, anything. You get the idea?

Once you could have all these things or not have them at your own
discretions you would be free, and so would your preclear be free. And
this is a basic road to Clear. And it's simply this: "Look around this
room and tell me what you could have." The individual spots those things
he could have.

When he has a lot of these or has - actually sure - you don't keep
nagging him and unstabilizing him by saying, "You sure you could have
that thing?" and so forth - but he's actually sure he could have most of
the things in the room, you ask him what things he wouldn't mind having
remain right where they are. And we can let everything sit that way. You
next ask him what he could dispense with in the room. What he didn't
have to have.

Now, you could run that cycle and those three auditing questions over
and over and over in sequence, you see? You flatten each one, flatten
the next one, flatten the next one; then you can start with the next one
- with the first one again and flatten it anew and flatten the second
one anew and flatten the third one anew. But you will be going out into
the outer universe.

Now, I'll tell you how to keep from getting restimulated. I told you the
other evening, I'm going to tell you again because this is the hottest
thing that's ever happened as far as an auditor is concerned. He's a
little bit leery of his preclear; that's because he can't have his
preclear. If he finds himself getting restimulated by a preclear, all he
has to do is look at that preclear and little by little on a gradient
scale find out what part of that preclear he could have. What part of
that preclear he could have remain the way it is, and what part of that
preclear he could throw away.

And the odd part of it is, when he's done this drill, all he has to do
is change his mind sometimes and the preclear suddenly gets well. So,
that's not just the road to Clear, that's the road to being Christ.

Well, anyhow, you get this - the essence of the steps I've been giving
you on Level One. That a person must be willing to have, to let remain,
to throw away; and if he can do these things, why, he's going to have an
awful easy time of it.

Your preclears are obsessively pulling in, obsessively flowing away, or
they're obsessively stuck. So, we solve all these things with various
drills and other commands which we'll write down in due course; but you
solve all these problems of havingness in Level One. If you've got
anything left to audit, then you go ahead with the remaining steps of
SLP.

Okay?

Audience: Yes. Got it.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you.

Thank you.

[auditor]

THE GAME OF LIFE (EXTERIORIZATION AND HAVINGNESS)

A lecture given on 7 February 1956

Want to talk to you about the highest goal or activity evident at this
time in this universe; to wit, games. We look at a great many things, we
examine a great many things and we try to read purpose into them. When
we try to examine anything as broad, big, deep and thick as this
universe appears to us (especially Christians), we come to the
conclusion - you'll have to delete that, I mean, you just didn't hear
that - we come to the conclusion that, golly, there could be an awful
lot of purposes. In fact, there could be a complete confusion of
purposes. There could be as many intentions, possibly, as a thetan could
invent. And, golly, that's an awful lot of intentions.

And so, if there could be an intention from every separate thetan in
this entire universe, for this universe, they would probably all be
different intentions. But somewhere there may be a common denominator of
what a thetan is doing and where he is going and why.

Now, you ask a lot of chaps - come up to you and they want to know,
"What is this thing called Scientology? What is it? It's no good, of
course, but what is it?"

And you say, "Well, it's a modus operandi of making people better, more
able."

And they say, "Well, I understand it has something to do with God and
the universe."

And they - "Oh," you say, "yes, yes, yes."

Always agree with everybody. Agree with them before you call them a
liar. At least make the communication line exist before you knock them
over with it.

And, they say, "Well, that's all very well, but why?"

And you say, "Why what?"

"Well, why are we all here?"

And you say, "Well, that's fine. Scientology can make people more able
and raise IQs and do various things and so on."

"Yes, but why did God do it?"

And we say, "Well, we're not particularly interested in that particular
aspect at this time. It's very true that there's a Tone Scale and
there's the dynamics, and there's this and that." And you explain it all
for a half an hour, an hour.

And then they say, "Yeah, but why?"

A lot of people seem to have this - have this ... A lot of people have
thetans; other people have this on the brain. "Why?" Okay.

Well, just as a mean, dirty, nasty trick, I dug up the answer to that.
And this answer is, however, only satisfying to those people lucky
enough to still be able to look up and see that there might possibly be
a game involved. To other people, the answer: "Why?" "It's a game," is
not satisfying.

They know that it's serious. They know nobody can have any fun. And they
know it's all going to wind up very, very poorly. They don't know
anything else, but they know these things.

Now, the actuality is, however, that in its behavior the human race
responds nicely and neatly only on this definition. If you wanted to get
a great deal of cooperation, activity and enthusiasm, if you wanted to
get everybody's energy stretched out to the absolute limit, you would
invent a game everybody could play.

And if they really knew they could play this game, if they had any
feeling they could really play this game, they would all of a sudden
feel fine about the whole thing. It wouldn't matter whether that game
was Monopoly or tiddlywinks or shooting policemen or any other kind of a
game, if everybody could play this game, it would be a very fine thing.

And so we have war. The response of the human being to war is one of the
darnedest things that anybody ever cared to study; but nobody ever
studies it. He's involved in the war. But if you were to exteriorize
from a war and take a look around, you'd find everybody busy. You'd find
them shooting or making things to shoot or ducking people who were
shooting, one or another activity. And everybody's interest would be
focused upon this thing, and the activity, the amount of energy
invested, the things done and to be done rather escape the imagination
of a peacetime - involved populace.

Why all this activity? Does that mean man is nuts? No, it means man is
capable of playing a game, and as mankind, the closest he can get to it
is war.

Now, that's pretty far down. To have to go out and shoot people and so
forth just so that you can have a game that's convincing is a little bit
lowtoned. In fact, the last time I ducked, I didn't say, "low-toned."

Now, wherever we look in a war we find activity, concern and
participation, since in this particular instance, because it is
destructive, pervasive and anybody is a target, we have a participation
element. People are not disenfranchised in a war. Anybody can come in
and play war. Anybody can get killed. Anybody can get shot at. And if we
look around, almost anybody can become a general or an admiral. It's a
wonderful thing to look at the amount of participation that is permitted
in war.

We go into peace right after a war, and participation drops to
practically zero. They say, "Now, if you train very carefully for
eighteen or nineteen years, why, we will permit you to stand on the
bridge of a vessel and watch somebody act like Officer of the Watch.
This is if you're a good boy and don't get any black marks."

Look at the difference. In war they say, "Have you ever been to sea?"

The fellow says, "I stood on a dock once."

They say, "Fine. You're CO." Gone.

Difference of participation. If you wanted to get as much activity as
there is in a war, going in peacetime, all you would have to do is open
the doors to that much participation in the game called life, and you'd
have just that much enthusiasm. But how to do this?

We've got an awful lot of people playing "only one." We have a lot of
people that are holding all the money there is over here, and a lot of
other people holding all the goods over there, and a lot of other people
over here holding all the not-haves that want the money and the goods.
And when we get through, we have a complete participation of only one
thing: "Why?" Now they all want to know why.

In wartime they very seldom ask why - very seldom. I have talked to men
during wartime, and they had a lot of things to talk about, but they
very - only in a spare moment, such as just before the attack at dawn or
something like that say, "I wonder what this universe is all about?"

They have a feeling they may exteriorize, you know. But it's momentary
and it's fleeting. It's an unserious thought.

Now, if you wished to restore man's ability in general, all you would
have to do is restore his willingness to have people participate in a
game. In fact, one day I was reading a long textbook; it was a fellow by
the name of Marl Karx, and he was writing some balderdash or another,
someplace or another, and he was writing this stuff up. And, by the way,
you know, I keep hearing that book quoted, but I can't find anything in
the book that's quoted out of the book. This is one of the great
miracles of our times. Nobody ever really has given me the right copy, I
guess, of Das Kapital, because it doesn't have the right quotes in it.

But anyway, he actually figured out a game there. He says, "Labor should
be permitted to labor." And look what's happening. You know, that's
about all he says: it should be permitted to labor. They shouldn't be
excluded from laboring or something of this sort. They should be
permitted to work for the military or whatever the tenets are of that
particular political ideology.

But he says, "Participation is possible on the part of labor." And look
at this thing. I mean, it's about five-sixths of the civilized populace
of Earth now is gobbling it up madly. And that's all he's saying.

So, I got wise to this and I says, "Let's see, what will we do here?
This looks like a good opportunity."

So, I invented the philosophy called co-operism. Be much more, much more
popular than communism. The philosophy would have as its basic modus
operandi, "Let the other fellow play too." It'd be terrifically popular.
That's actually the meat which keeps communism rolling. All right.

Now, that could be very pervasive, because the common denominator of
activity is participation. In the first place, unless you have some
agreement, you don't have any universe. And if you have a universe and
nobody to do anything in it, you haven't got a universe. And little kids
will figure out all kinds of things to do with some of the darnedest old
tin cans you ever saw. And so does man figure out what to do with this
particular universe.

But the moment he stops figuring out what to do or just carries on with
some old plan, the moment he's saying, "All of you guys over here can't
play," we get something like the standard American or British sport
picture where everybody is in the grandstands watching a bunch of
fellows bust each other's collarbones or shins. A very few people there
are really playing.

Of course, watching is playing too, to some slight degree. It's better
than the fellow who never goes near the stadium. He's kind of sunk. If
you talked him over and said, "Is it possible to play a game?" or "How
long has it been since you played dominoes with your kids?" you would
get an awful comm lag.

Participation is the keynote of games. And where man is participating,
where he's in communication, and where he has not, from man to man,
forbidden participation, he has a civilization and he's leading a happy
life.

Now, on some of these rather cursorily examined tenets, we conclude that
there is a common denominator to this universe in terms of purpose, and
the purpose is to play a game. The universe as itself could be summated
to be a playing field. When an individual is disenfranchised from
playing the game entirely, he has an awful lot of trouble finding
another body.

Death is simply a disenfranchisement from playing the game. When one
loses something, he begins to feel he's losing the game. When one
engages in certain definite, positive activities toward a certain goal,
he will be as enthused about them as he feels that he is engaged in a
game. Therefore, a game is something we should examine very, very
carefully.

And one of the first things that is requisite to playing a game is
living beings. It's quite odd, but that's true. It's doubtful if robots
would be able to play a game amongst themselves. You could, if you were
monitoring them, you could mock up a bunch of robots going through the
motions of playing a game - if you were monitoring them. But who would
be playing the game? You would.

You could even sort of split yourself on a schizophrenic basis and play
one side against the other side and be the only one monitoring the
robots. But after a while, you get tired of that and start looking for
Joe to come over and give you an argument.

Now, here we have this first condition: it requires living beings. And
the next condition that it requires is something on the order of
communication. This, at once, gives us space and then we have to have
limits to communication, and so we get barriers, such as communication
terminals and boundaries of various characters. And then we have the
elements necessary to play a game.

This is really all that's necessary, because imagination and what to do
to whom will furnish the rest of it.

If we have these things, the first thing that a man thinks - a being who
isn't entirely crushed down and disenfranchised from all games - first
thing he thinks when he sees a big scope of something or other and a
bunch of material and some other guys, he sort of thinks to himself, "I
wonder what we could do with all this."

And if you get them all together, they'll talk for a while. They will
all agree upon some purpose which might be specious, it might seem very
actual to you, but on some purpose or another, they will get busy using
all this to do something with this. And they will invent more and more
limits and restrictions, and more and more rules, and eventually they
have some sort of a game like building houses or they have a game going,
like railroad, or they have a game going like army - only that's not
much of a game these days.

Now, here's where we see man investing his livingness, his beingness,
and the materials and the playing field with certain purposes. But the
purposes he invests them with are all junior to this one: game.

What do we mean exactly by a game? It's another thing that's quite
interesting. We mean an involvement and consecutiveness of incident
participated in by living beings, which contains an element of chance or
unknownness. We have satisfied all of our requirements but one: the
element of unknownness.

If you know the outcome of a horse race, it is highly doubtful if you
will go to see the ponies run. In fact, you couldn't care less. You know
that Ginger is going to be second and Rachmaninoff is going to be first,
and so forth and so what? No, there must be an element of chance for you
to take interest in horses.

In presidential elections and other low-toned sports, you must at any
time be prepared to have your expectations overwhelmed and to have your
mind changed on the subject. If you didn't feel that your mind was going
to be changed sometimes in life, the expectancy of the thing would have
insufficient randomity, and as a result we would have no game.

So, knowing how to play the game is very, very interesting. And somebody
who is relatively disenfranchised will sit around for a long time
wondering what he did wrong in playing the game. The only thing he
possibly could have done wrong was not to have played the game.

But what is the game? Well, that's what he agreed was the game. That's
an interesting thing. You agree that something is a game. It becomes a
game. You play it. That's it. But an individual requires some
knowingness to play a game. He has to know where the limits are, know
who the boundaries are, know who Joe is. He's got to know what color the
other side is wearing. He has to know usually the weight of the rifle or
the pen or whatever he's wielding in this game. And then he has to have
some not-knowingness as to the involvement's conclusion. He has to
not-know the end of the game. Now, maybe he's very capable of knowing
the end of the game, but the oddity is that he won't play it unless he
has not-known the end of the game.

So, not-knowingness is one of the barriers and limitations of a game.
And we find out it is very necessary in processing. Well, as we look at
this universe and we see man struggling, and we see beasts and beings
dying and living in agony and poverty, and we see the pain and turmoil
and confusion, concern, and all of these various things, we say, "Good
heavens. No game could be this way. This couldn't possibly be the game."

That's because we have become pantywaists on the subjects of how tough a
game should be. Now, that's a good thing for you to know. If there
wasn't this much penalty, you wouldn't get that much game. You see that?
Do you see all the misery and suffering as just-well, just rack it up
and say those are the penalties. You miss here, and you fail to win
there, and that's you there. Other people are very convinced. They see
you lying there and they say, "Well, you know, I just better play this
game just a little bit harder over in this direction."

What happens to a society then, when it really starts going to pieces?
Well, let's look over history and find those societies that have gone to
pieces are those societies which have no longer had stresses, no longer
had contests, which no longer had anything in doubt, where everything
was known and predictable and nice.

If you really want to put a people on the rocks, just give them plenty
to eat and lots of leisure and nothing to do. And then insist that they
conduct their lives that way. Add into it enough discipline so that
they're totally protected from anything that might menace them. That
would become a psychotic society.

It's an interesting thing that during the war in London it is reported
that nobody went psychotic while the bombs were falling. But as soon as
the war was over, everybody seems to have racked up a nice record in the
mental homes. Interesting, isn't it? Why shouldn't people go crazy under
that much stress and strain?

And the answer is, is people don't go crazy under stress and strain.
People go crazy in the absence of stress and strain. And they get to a
point of where they have so little stress and strain that somebody comes
along and drops a straw on their big toe and the big toe breaks. That,
they will have to consider as a penalty. They've been expecting some
penalties, there's - must be a game going on somehow; they can see Bill
and Joe walking around, and so they take anything as a penalty.

It's quite interesting. They're trying to say, "There is a game here. We
are doing something," when they know very well that they are not. So, a
conviction that something is going on and that - a conviction that we
are participating is absolutely necessary to the game.

Now, moving a person out of a game and driving a person mad is
practically the same thing. If you just exaggerate a disenfranchisement
from the game sufficiently, you will bring about a condition of neurosis
or psychosis. You'll find, if you really want to take the E-Meter and
find the big jolts and shocks in a person's life, it's when he no longer
could play the game, or he was not permitted to play the game. All
right.

We'll find, for instance, he's stuck all along the track on deaths; even
the death of an ally will be sufficient to more or less stick him on the
track. A lot of people come up and they got a big, black field and they
got huge, black energy. Did you ever - probably you've never heard of
one of these guys. They don't see mock-ups, they see blackness. You ever
heard of one of these people?

Audience: (various responses)

Yeah, I thought you might have.

Anyhow, these people are in this interesting state of being partially
disfranchised from the game. They lost a piece or they lost the maker of
the game, like Grandma. Maybe Grandma was the maker of the game. Grandma
dies, where are they? Well, they're still playing the game that Grandma
played. There might have been a bunch of other games presented
themselves in the interim, but they didn't notice. And so they lose
their primary game; therefore, they're disenfranchised.

And, on the death of an ally, we get the most remarkable upsets on the
part of people. When an individual is processed, you discover these
various things. Whenever you discover that he's having a hard time or
had a hard time during a certain period, you can boil all the things, no
matter how significant they seem, down to this one thing: You can say
this person, at that moment, was disenfranchised to some degree from the
game and his actions after that were consequent to that point, and he
went along rather badly until he found another game.

Now, a person doesn't just go crazier and crazier as he gets older and
older. This is a natural conclusion one should make, but a person would
go crazier and crazier to the degree that he had less and less game. And
if it got to be less game and then less game, and if it was always less
game than it had been, yes, this would be true that a person would get
crazier and crazier the older he got.

But that doesn't happen to be the case. The state of game varies. In
fact, this Earth was in a wilder turmoil within all of our easy memories
than it's ever before been, perhaps, since the days when the volcanoes
were blowing their stacks. It was an interesting mess, World War II. You
talk about chaos and a game involvement.

Well, what's very funny is, World War II, of course, produced an
enormous amount of insanity in the armed forces. It must have because
there are a lot of people in hospitals. The first time I ever suspected
this fact was the first time I ever confronted that fact: that there was
some coordination between being disenfranchised from a game and going
mad. Found that out. It was quite interesting.

I was flown in from the South Pacific as the first casualty to be
shipped out of the South Pacific war back to the States. The war had
been started in Pearl Harbor, and I'd been down in the South Pacific and
- a lot of things happened down there. And the outfits down there were
pretty well wiped out, as you can remember before the US and Great
Britain started to fight and go back in. All right.

Most of the guys that were shipped out of there who had been wounded,
were shipped out by slow boat. And I didn't, I wasn't that seriously
done in. I hooked a ride on the Secretary of Navy's plane; produced the
right set of orders (I hope nobody ever kept them on file) and got flown
home. And when I got home, they turned me in to the hospital.

And I thought, "That's an interesting place to get turned in to, and -
but it's nice. Fine as far as I'm concerned."

And I was lying very comfortably in my bunk about eight o'clock in the
morning when there was a funny looking joker with glasses about a foot
thick standing down at the bottom of my bed. And he looked at me very
piercingly and he said, "How many fingers am I holding up?"

Well, I did a double take, and I was all of a sudden going to give him a
facetious reply in . . . and - because my morale wasn't very bad; his
was, though. And I remembered a friend of mine had been thrown into
Bellevue Hospital for ten days one time when he was drunk, simply
because he had answered silly answers to these obvious absurdities. So,
I said carefully, "One.

And he looked at me very piercingly and he prowled around the side of
the bed and he grabbed ahold of the clock that was sitting there and he
pulled it around and he says, "What time is it?"

So, I told him. He looked very disappointed. He asked me for my name,
rank and serial number and I gave them to him. He left.

All day long there was a parade of people walking in and saying strange
things to me. At the end of that day, the whole hospital had deserted me
except, of course, one very good-looking nurse. But anyhow, the point
was they had lost interest and they were very confused.

Everybody knew, up to that time, that no man could stand the stress of
modern war. They knew that a Stuka bomber, in diving, drove men mad.
They knew that the terrific, unexpected attacks and heroic forces being
employed were such as to plow you in. Your psyche would get unpsyched in
a hurry if you were shot at enough.

And yet here, a fellow, a young officer, had the utter brass to come
along and throw aside this theory. They didn't like me anymore. In fact,
they simply reported to Washington, DC that I was in good condition - I
was, by the way, walking with a cane. I was in good condition. I
couldn't see. I had dark glasses on, but I, you know, I was doing all
right in a kind of a dumb sort of way, and they sent me to sea in the
North Atlantic the following week. That shows you what happens to people
that disprove people's theories.

But during the remainder of that week, I became very curious at their
tremendous and absorbing interest in neurosis, not in me, but in this
fact, because their psychoneurotic wards were full - jammed from door to
door with members of the armed services.

From where? There were no casualties home yet - till I established this
very interesting fact: they had all gone nuts in navy yards. Of course,
I can imagine somebody going crazy in a navy yard. But not with this
wild abandon. And as the war progressed, I discovered consistently and
consecutively that the people who were going into these places were the
people who were not being permitted to fight the war.

Interesting, isn't it? During the armed - the amphibious forces, I had a
vessel that was carrying attack cargo during the last few months I was
at sea in the war, and that vessel, for a long time was getting -
because it was pretty upset and there were a lot of people aboard it -
it was getting a couple of psychos a week. It was not a combat ship.

There was a story made about that vessel, by the way. It was called
Mister Roberts. You may have seen this picture or read the book. Now,
the boys were going crazy on that ship. Inactivity. They would very
often be permitted to see a beachhead being blown up, and take no part
in it at all. They were beautifully protected. They always slept in warm
bunks, and it was too much for them, and they were going mad.

So, if we look at madness, we had better also examine not-doingness. We
had better also examine where did this fellow get disenfranchised? Where
was this fellow not permitted to play the game? That is actually more
important than any other single factor in the case.

Well, let's get more factual than that. Let's look up here very, very
carefully and get off memoirs of the old soldier. You know, the old
sailors and soldiers have a horrible habit of discussing their memoirs
all the time. Yeah, I'd better write mine in a hurry though, because the
next war's going to be a lot more interesting.

Anyhow, where we have a game, we have at the same time ideas, actions
and barriers. If we have barriers of one kind or another, an individual
then can measure the amount of action and doingness in which he is
involved.

And let's be very plain and break this right down to processing, just
snap. Processing becomes the improvement of the ability to play a game.
It is not, definitely not, freeing a thetan. That is not its goal. The
goal of processing is to improve the ability to play the game.

What's the matter with the criminal? He can't play the game called
society; he's got to play some stupid game called cops and robbers. As
if any cop can play a game. And we get this interesting thing, that the
man is involved in some game we know not what of and that is not real in
his day and time, really. He's not playing the game that the citizen in
general is playing. He can't participate.

In order to keep him from descending lower into criminality, or to raise
him, actually, out of criminality, we have to restore his ability to
play the game.

Now, here's something very, very funny: that this works. And what I'm
talking to you about now, after this lapse of three years, is based upon
empirical data of such startling content that we really cannot overlook
it. The matter is very well proven at this time because we use these
tenets I'm giving you right now, and we arrive with excellent results.
We restore this criminal's ability to play the game - no matter how we
do it - and we discover that we have an honest man on our hands. That's
an oddity, isn't it?

Now, supposing we merely ran out J. Edgar Hoover's idea of a criminal.
J. Edgar Hoover thinks ... Did you ever hear of J. Edgar Hoover? He's an
interesting chap. He's a criminal uh-uh-uh-uh investigator in the United

States. And he tells you, at once, that the criminal has a criminal mind
and that is why he is a criminal, and that's all there is to it. And
this sage observation has, to date, led to no cures of criminals: "His
mind is different than other people's."

Mind works just the same as everybody else's, with this exception: He is
less able to play the game called "citizen." In fact, he's less able to
play all games, oddly enough, so he has to get that hectic in peacetime
in order to convince himself there's any game going on.

Well now, as we look over the situation, then, and we apply this to
preclears, we find out if we simply restore the elements of the game, we
push him into a position of where he'll play the game.

How do you restore the elements of a game? Well, the elements of a game
consist of separatenesses and barriers, and in auditing terms that would
be exteriorization and havingness. Exteriorization versus havingness. A
chap can be as able as he is capable of leaving a game and coming back
to it, by the way, and that's an exteriorization.

And he's as capable of having a game as he is certain there are barriers
wherein to play this game. Those are the two elements of auditing; all
the mind changes you get evolve from those two elements. So, we at once
get the two key processes of Scientology, and that's quite important to
us to have the two key processes.

Number one, are they key processes? Well, their omission in auditing
produces minimal gain in psychometric tests, if any. If you just drop
exteriorization and havingness out of auditing and use anything you find
there left, you get no tone rise in the profiles, you get no increase of
IQ, no changes in ability or personality.

It's fun. You sit in the chair and he sits in his chair and you chew up
energy, but it doesn't change any preclears. That's fascinating. We
introduce havingness just all by itself and all of a sudden we get a
change of game level, because the individual has to be reassured that he
can have a barrier, and as soon as he gets certain that he actually can
have a barrier, and he's certain there is a barrier there ... Remember
old-time Certainty? Well, that applies very definitely right with
havingness. You have to have a certain element of certainty, and "Can he
have?" before he really benefits from any of his havingness.

He finally discovers there's a barrier, and as he discovers there is a
barrier, he then says, "Well, there are some limits, you know? Maybe I
can rack around a little bit, maybe I can move in a couple of small
circles, maybe I don't have to sit here and hold on tight. Maybe there
is a wall over there, you know?"

There are limits. Therefore he gets to thinking, "Let's see what we can
do with these limitations. This freedom within these limitations."

The next thing you know, he's in the same frame of mind as a fellow,
walks out, sees a big field, a lot of material and he gets a
figure-figure, "What are we going to do about it?"

All right. You as an auditor know better than to tell him what to do
about his new-found case level. You know that doesn't work, so it's up
to him, actually, to reenter the game. And you get him to reenter the
game, you could, just on this one basis only, simply remedy his
havingness until he is sure that there are limitations.

Sounds funny, doesn't it. Your preclear will tell you, "I don't want
this body. I don't like this body."

He will tell you, "I don't want that wall."

He will tell you, "This is the most horrible universe anybody invented.
I don't want anything to do with it. I don't want that floor, I don't
want that ground. Get it away from me."

He will give you eighteen different varieties of things that are too
terrible to look at. He will quote you papal bulls to tell you there are
some things in life which must not be confronted or confused, or you
will go someplace where you won't like the barriers.

Now, he will give you all sorts of arguments. And if you are a very,
very foolish auditor, you will listen to him and you will say, "All
right. He doesn't want his body. He doesn't like bodies. Well, we'll
just help him out, and we will take his body away from him."

And he gets so unhappy. Now, he says he doesn't want his body. All
right, let's as-is it. Let's chew it up. Let's keep on running
significances, significances, significances until he's eaten his head
hollow. Let's get him so he chews himself and is in clear space right
down to his neck. And he sits there getting less and less head, and less
and less body, and he's getting less and less happy. And as you exhaust
this energy, these masses and these barriers for this preclear, he will
eventually jump up and tell you, you are doing him in.

He'll find that out, usually, quite late, but he'll still tell you.
Well, you were helping him out. You were trying to take his body away
from him. You were being a nice guy. He wanted it lost and you were
trying to lose it for him and he still objects. Shows you how ungrateful
some preclears are.

Now, that, we can demonstrate empirically is the wrong way to go about
it. What, then, is the right way to go about it? Well, there are several
tricks and dodges. You could get him to waste bodies until he could have
one; we know that works. Or you could simply ask him what kind of a body
he'd like to have, and then have him mock up bodies like that and ask
him what he could have of the body he just mocked up. You know, we could
run on all kinds of gradient scales and do all sorts of interesting
things with mock-ups, until he suddenly says, "You know, well, I could
probably have a goat's body."

You know, he's all set. Now he can have a goat's body. He'll feel better
about that thing. He doesn't want this old thing, he'll tell you, that
he's sitting in. He'd like that goat's body. That's fine. He can mock it
up and remedy havingness ...

We go on running bodies, making him mock up more bodies or black bodies.
A person who sees only blackness can still mock up black bodies. And he
goes on working with more and more bodies, and more and more bodies, and
more and more bodies, and more and more ... And all of a sudden you say,
"Well, now how do you feel about it?"

And he says, "You know, this body I've got is not so bad; I - I - I
don't - I don't have to stay with it, but, you know, it's not so bad."

Very funny part of it is, its chronic somatics were his expression that
he didn't want it. An interesting thing. They cure up. You gave him
enough bodies. Then, the direction he was actually going was toward more
bodies, saying the while that he wanted less.

So, we find these fellows that say they don't want anything to do with
the universe, we find they don't want anything to do with the universe
because they don't have it. He didn't want anything to do with his body
because he doesn't own it. He doesn't have it, actually. He doesn't have
anything to do with, and he objects to, all the problems he has because
he can't have a problem.

And if you improve his ability to have any one of these things, you then
improve his ability to play the game because, of course, you have added
the factor that he can have some barriers. And as soon as you give him
some barriers, he gets real happy with it.

Well, as I say, we could solve the whole thing in this category of
havingness, very interestingly solve it. There is one series of commands
which are fascinating, and one of those commands is "Look around here
and tell me what you could have."

First thing he's liable to say is, "Anything, everything, I could have
everything around here -uh-da-duh."

Shoot him. He's no good to himself or anybody unless you finish the
auditing session. That's a fact. He finally picks up a grain of dust or
something like that, and he says he can have this, and he improves his
consideration until he can actually have many things in the room.

It might or might not be safe at that time to change the auditing
command to "What wouldn't you mind remaining right where it is?"

And he tells you finally there's a lot of things that just - he just as
soon they remain where they are.

And you say then, "What things could you dispense with?" And you are
then running the exteriorization part of havingness.

You might also ask him at the same time, "What are you separate from in
this room?" You'd get the same result. All right.

So, you run this very simple gradient scale, and you could run it in
sequence, and then again in sequence, "What could you have around here?
Would it be all right if it remained?"

And you could run it and run it and run it until you had included the
entirety of the universe in that scope. And at that moment, he could
have or not have the universe at will, and you would have exteriorized
him from the universe as long as you ran that third step. That third
step: "What are you separate from around here?"

You could express it, "What are you separate around here . or "What
could you dispense with around here?" Now, that's the exteriorization
part of havingness.

A remedy of havingness, then, to some degree, is a misnomer. It's a
remedy of havingness so that one can have or not-have. It's a little bit
of a misnomer. That's not quite right. What it is, is he is put in a
condition where he can have or exteriorize. And that would be a better
statement of what we are doing.

If one can leave the game under his own determinism he, then, isn't
kicked out of the game, is he? Well, that's a nice, neat, mental dodge
for a person to make. But on that dodge depends his sanity. Is he
choosing to enter or leave the game? Or is the game choosing whether or
not he leaves or enters? And when it's the game that's choosing, watch
out! And when he still has a power of choice on the game, he'll be all
right. Therefore, we have exteriorization versus havingness as the two
elements.

Now, let's look over here and take a look at exteriorization. And here's
something very interesting. Could you use this totally? Could you
totally put a preclear way upscale by only using exteriorization
processes and never touching any havingness or barriers? Not with
ninety-nine and forty-four one hundredths percent of the preclears you
will handle. Why? Is they can't have what they're exteriorizing from.
What they're exteriorizing from is so unreal that they would not be able
to leave it. You see that? It's a very simple thing. You disenfranchise
them by exteriorizing them.

Do you know that there is an interesting process, though, that attempts
to do this? And I'll tell you about this process and this is new to you
- most of this material is not. Very interesting process. You'll find
your preclear gets very nervous the second his havingness runs down just
a little bit - oh, very nervous. Or he dopes off almost at once.

You - for instance, there's an ashtray sitting there, and you move the
ashtray from the arm of his chair over onto the side table while you're
auditing him and he boils off. You know, you just reduced his havingness
one ashtray and that's too much for him, you know. All right.

Now, we take this critical preclear, we take this highly critical level
preclear, and we find that he is worried about exteriorization. Now we,
as an auditor, come along and say, "Well, now if you just get an
intensive I'll exteriorize you." Uh-uh. No, you could sell him an
intensive quicker by saying, "I'll interiorize you so you'll never come
out again."

No, he won't like that. He won't like too much. Or he's obsessively fond
of it. He'll say, "I've got to get out. Yes that's what I want you to
do. I want you to exteriorize me."

The second you say, "Be three feet back of your head," he says, "What
are you doing to me? You are killing me." You've had this sort of thing
happen, I'm sure. All right.

Now, is there a process which would blow him out? Yes, but
unfortunately, you'd have to remedy his havingness the while. But maybe
if you did it very delicately, you could almost get away with doing it.
You would just ask him for something which unfortunately remedies
havingness off the track. So, you're not quite escaping from havingness.
You would ask him for a time when he wasn't exteriorized. Very
fascinating process: A time when he wasn't exteriorized. You've asked
him for a time when he hadn't been told to leave the gamea time when he
wasn't exteriorized.

"That's fine," he says, "this morning."

You say, "A time you're not exteriorized."

"Well, I don't know, I was in an automobile accident once and pinned
inside. I certainly wasn't exteriorized on that car."

You say, "That's fine."

Of course, you realize if he's picking things up off the track like
this, you would, in the ordinary course of events have to remedy his
havingness in one fashion or another, otherwise he would start to boil
off. So it's not practical to assume that you could just exteriorize him
without reassuring him of the barrier. But you keep on asking him this
question: "A time when you weren't exteriorized. A time when you weren't
exteriorized."

And this is what becomes fascinating. And this would become very, very
fascinating to anybody researching man, because they would discover past
deaths at once.

Most of the preclears that are having a great deal of trouble one way or
the other have disenfranchised from the game too often. They have been
pushed out of a game and they've been convinced they can't have a game.
That's the one thing they can't have. They've been shoved out and shoved
out and shoved out. They don't like it. They get the idea after a while
that "Oh, there's a game going on, I'd better leave." This sort of a
reaction is an immediate reaction.

But you ask them (this type of preclear) for times when they weren't
exteriorized from something or weren't separate from something, and they
will almost invariably pick up an operation or accident which is totally
buried and forgotten about on their part in which they did exteriorize
from the body in this lifetime and did experience the phenomenon of
death and have since covered it up absolutely.

Interesting observation that I have made with regard to it. There's a
hidden this life exteriorization.

Fellow's in a tonsillectomy and all of a sudden, bang; and he went out
and he said, "Oh, no, here I am with no body." And he came back in
woosh! (sigh) "Well, they didn't kick me out this time. The body will
still wiggle when I wiggle."

"All right. That's better," he'll say. And then he will forget about it
or he'll try to tell somebody about it and they'll say, "Oh, no, that
didn't happen."

He'll sort of know about it all the time and have it all covered up. And
he's liable to tell you about this if you start asking him this
question, "A time when you weren't separate from things," or "A time
when you weren't exteriorized." Either way, you get the same response.
To a Scientologist you say, "Times when you weren't exteriorized."

To a person who didn't understand anything about it at all, you could
run it and sneak up on him and practically ruin him because he wouldn't
know what was happening: "A time when you weren't separate."

He'll tell you about these times if there are hidden times in this
lifetime when he did get blown out of his head. Maybe he was a little
boy riding down a hill on a bicycle and the bicycle hit a stone, and he
went appetite over tin cup and hit his skull, and he went out, and he
came back in. And that's the deadliest engram you'll find on the track.

What is the deadliest engram? That one. It's a disenfranchisement from
the game. He made it back, but ever since, he's been a little anxious
and a little worried. And somebody comes along to him and says, "You
can't play marbles" and he'll go into a fit. This one particularly,
he'll go into a fit about it. All right.

If you kept on asking him the question, any preclear, this question, and
remedying his havingness the while, he would suddenly say, "Just a
moment. What am I doing in Brighton? That's funny, I seem to be ... I
got a picture of being up above Brighton. Hmm, that's very funny. I have
the funniest recollection. You know, I think I lived once before."

And you could say, "Oh, no, course not," and skip it over and keep on
asking the question.

He'd get awfully upset with you. He'd say, "I did. My name was Harvey
Doakes. I lived at 862 Plum Street, Brighton and that's that. (sniff) It
was a good game, too." And he's liable to blow a grief charge on his own
death. You ever wonder why people blow grief charge on death?

Now, there is a process which, even run by a psychologist, would produce
the same phenomenon. That's a lot of latitude, I know.

Now, you would have to know how to remedy havingness though, to keep it
run. To keep it running, you'd have to remedy his havingness because
he'd get nervous, agitated and start to flick out, one way or the other,
because you're as-ising-there are a bunch of these as-ising processes
which are killers. Anything with importance in it becomes a fascinating
process because it apparently adds to the person's havingness on the
whole track, you see?

You say, "Now tell me a time when pictures seemed important to you."
He'll get another one, another one, another one, another one and
hisapparently his havingness will be good. And it'll stay just fine
until that night when he collapses.

Why is this? Because you've picked up the energy masses off the track
and you've actually left a hole in the bank that nothing fills up. And
he gets a temporary burn-up of energy. And it's just like you take,
well, did you everof course you never have done this - but did you ever
take a couple of good, quick drinks that made you feel fine and walk out
and practically fall flat on your face?

The only thing that happened there is you burned up a great deal of B1
and energy out of the body at one fell swoop, you see? And that kept you
going just fine, you know. And then the next day you're going like this
...

That's because the havingness is reduced, that's all.

Well, similarly, you can beef up a preclear in this fashion by pulling
stuff in off the track. You ask him this auditing question without
directing his attention to present time. "What could you have?"

Oooh. Why, he'll just feel fine. For the first session, he'll just feel
wonderful. He'll think that's the greatest process he ever heard of
until next day and he's going like this ...

What did he do? He picks the stuff up off the track, you see. He caves
his bank in on himself to give himself havingness. His reassurance for
barriers comes off the body's track or off of his track. And that's what
occurs. All right.

As long as we keep his havingness repaired, we could exteriorize him.
The person who doesn't exteriorize is actually actively worried about
exteriorization. And he is worried not about some odd phenomena
connected with exteriorization, he is worried about exteriorization.
That's it. He is worried about going three feet back of his head.

Why, I knew a chap one time that was so worried about exteriorization
that he kept worrying about the fact that he wasn't exteriorized, but he
knew that he - kind of fashionable in Scientology to be exteriorized,
and he wasn't, and he - it upset him. And finally he got an auditor to
audit him and he - they exteriorized him and he got about three feet
back of his body, complete with a theta body and everything, you know.
He got about three feet back of his body and started to shove off for
the between-lives area, you know, the callback. You know, "You're
supposed to report back here before you pick up another body and . . . "
you know. And he started to shove off just because an auditor said, "Be
three feet back of your head."

He almost went back. Scared him half to death. Nobody's been able to pry
him out with a crowbar for - or nobody was - for a couple of years.

If we were to run this process on him now, "A time when you weren't
exteriorized," if he'd forgotten this, this one would turn up. But this
one would turn up on another one in this lifetime, not just a past life,
and that would turn up on top of perhaps another one and then all of a
sudden he would hand you some kind of a past death.

And if this is antipathetic to those people who sell hell for a bit,
that this sort of thing can be plowed up and presented on a silver
platter of this character, and found in anybody, why, I'm sorry for it.
But I won't refund what they lose in the collection plates. I refuse to
do that.

Now, the main thing about it is, the fellow's concern about
exteriorization or his concern about havingness is all you really audit.
Life and its activities are based on postulates, considerations -
postulates, considerations. One considers there is a wall, so there is a
wall. The wall is actually an animated order. It stands there and says,
"I am a wall, look at me, here I am, you are seeing me," whatever you
want to phrase it up as. And if you go over and hit it and boy, it's
nice and solid and you say, "Boy have we got a game going here. That's
good. That's good. That's fine."

But if you can't accept an order, it gets thin. It gets thinner and
thinner and thinner. And pretty soon you go around wearing specs;
directly coordinated with "can't receive orders."

You start running, "What order would you be willing to receive?" Or
"What kind of order . . . " on those that are very nervous about it. Or
"What idea could you receive?" for those who are very touchy and
delicate. Or "What kind of idea. . . " on the average preclear.

And he'll go on downscale and all of a sudden he'll tell you this
alarming fact. He'll say, "You know, that wall is an order." And it'll
go sort of wham to him.

You say, "I better leave this alone."

Had a chap who was an ex-chiropractor and naturopath and he came down
just to learn how to make people well, and he didn't have any reality on
the subject or anything of this sort, and he was being audited by
another chiropractor in one of the clinics. It was quite interesting
because both of them were arguing madly with each other about what,
basically, one did to spines in order to bring about all this phenomena.
And we were having a fine time, and all of a sudden one says, "Uh-oh."

"What's the matter?" the other one says.

"Well, I don't know, but something funny happened to that wall as you
had me answer that."

And they were running "What around here is an effect?" See. It's a
leadpipe cinch that this will produce some sort of phenomena. And they
ran it two or three more auditing commands, and another hole appeared in
the wall. And the fellow was looking through the wall. This worried him
considerably. He went around very thoughtful for a couple of days before
he finally fessed up that he was scared stiff of being audited anymore
on anything. He wanted to leave.

We repaired his havingness and he finally got so he could look through
the wall or not look through the wall as the case may be and he was
happy about it.

So, these things are basically a consideration. We change the preclear's
considerations. We do it by demonstrating to him his capabilities in
making postulates and creating things and in making things disappear.
And when we can show him that he can have a wall or not have a wall, and
that it is a good, thick, solid wall, he is then perfectly free to have
or not have the wall, and at that time he's changed his mind about
havingness.

Havingness is not a quantitative thing. You don't remedy a fellow's
havingness ten pounds' worth. You remedy his havingness a consideration
worth that he can have that particular item or not have it at will.

Similarly, with exteriorization. Exteriorization is merely a
consideration. I am out or I am in. It's still a consideration. But when
one is in, afraid that he will go out, the tremendous number of
considerations associated with are liable to worry him.

Now, those that are in and know they should be out can worry about it
simultaneously and certainly. And yet we exteriorize some preclears and
they tell you, "I'd just as soon be exteriorized, and I know it's the
fashion, but every time I get back of my head I feel so sad." Why is
that? It's the grief charge on his own death. That's all there is to it.

You know these chaps that we could never run the death of the ally off
of occasionally when we used to be auditing engrams and things - grief
charge. We just never could clean this fellow's allies up. We never
turned on any visio with him, so on.

The allies, the people he had lost, were simply locks on his own demise
a life or two ago. If you run that out, they'll change the other way to,
and the allies will blow as secondary situations.

But all of these things are changes of consideration. That one must cry,
that one must laugh, that one must have a game even, are considerations.
But that one, strangely enough, is something I've never been able to get
a fellow to change his mind on, except in one direction.

We lose more preclears this way. I know preclears that were the finest
cases you ever saw and I ruined them. Just ruined them, flatly. The
finest cases you ever laid your eyes on. I mean, they were all involved
and mixed up and confused, and I started auditing them and audit them
and audit them and audit them and say, "Now you need just about one more
session, and you'll become an Operating Thetan, go soaring around the
universe and everything is fine."

And you come back and never see him again.

You find out what he's doing. He's gone out and he's got a better job,
he's working harder, he's having more fun over there, he's something of
this sort, and you say, "Hey, how about finishing up this project?"

"Oh yes," he said. "Well, that's fine. Sometime. I'm awfully busy now."

They go up to game level and they're gone. You do this in your own
groups. You audit people in the group: group sessions, group sessions,
group sessions. All of a sudden they're all busy doing something else
and they don't come back to the group anymore. And you feel very sad
about the whole thing. Your havingness has been reduced.

The thing to do is teach them Scientology. Don't keep auditing them in
these groups. And they will then know enough about the game called
Scientology so that they don't immediately blow the whole thing the
second that they themselves feel compelled or interested in the game at
large. That's the answer back of it.

Now, we could be very exact, we could give you an awful lot of material
concerning the exact anatomies of the barriers, and so forth, that make
up the game. Well, we could add this up; we could be so Germanic about
this thing we could have texts that thick as to what is a game.

But you know what a game is. I know what is a game. And all we really
have to know about is the preclear wants to play a game, and you want to
regain for him his ability to play the game, and the game is a game of
exteriorization versus havingness, one way or the other. You jockey
these two things together and his imagination will enter in and he will
start playing the game of life. And when he does that, you're through
with him. He's no longer a preclear.

Where man is failing is where man no longer feels he is able to play any
kind of a game. And he's failed, then; he's in a mental institution.

I hope that look at the situation, as you look it over, I hope that look
at the situation will clarify some of your own ideas. I want you to take
a good look at this; I want you to take a good look at this in
preclears. I know in advance you'll find out I'm right, but use your
determinism on it.

This isn't a game I'm laying in your lap and telling you, you must play.
Look it over, see how it looks to you. And I think you will find out
that your preclear is being as well audited as he is being returned to
an ability to play a game; not as well audited as he is getting free.

Freedom can become a horrible thing. Very horrible thing. Talk to some
fellow right after he's been discharged from the army. He doesn't know
what he's doing.

Now, where man fails is where man disenfranchises man. He kicks men out
of the game and then he wonders why he has trouble with criminals, why
he has trouble with the insane, and kicks out some more people out of
the game just to make sure that he'll have more trouble. His game is
trouble. Our game isn't trouble. Our game is solving it. I wish you a
lot of luck with these ideas.

Thank you.

[auditor]

SIXTH DYNAMIC DECISIONAL PROCESSING

A lecture given on 9 February 1956

Well, I want to talk to you tonight about a nasty problem that we've
cracked here lately. Very interesting problem and we've cracked it. And
although we don't know all there is to know about it yet, it looks to
me, looks to me as though we have made a further advance on this
particular subject than has ever been made before at one fell swoop, so
I just want to tell you about it.

And the subject of this is the sixth dynamic, the physical universe, the
MEST universe - matter, energy, space and time and its relationship to
life. It's become a very interesting subject in the last few years.

They used to teach something called natural philosophy, and that
included the birds and the bees and almost anything you could think of,
including a few poems by Anaxagoras. But of later times it merely
includes - it has included various physical sciences and we began to
understand it was chemistry and physics and things like that.

And then time went along and we found something else, we found something
else of great concern, and today it seems to be totally a fixation for
just one subject - atomic fizzle. And the nuclear physicist has become
very engrossed with matter, energy, space and time on the idea that he
can make it explode in some fashion and so blow it all up.

Now, we have a different theory. We have a different theory about it.
And a lot of old-time Dianeticists that spent most of their time making
nothing out of everything, these fellows think they can erase it. You
know, if we could just run that wall long enough, it'd disappear.

Well, many years ago - three years ago - we did an analysis of life in
its relationship to matter, energy, space and time, and what all this
meant to us and we came up with what we called the Prelogics.

And these Prelogics were of considerable use because we discover that
the life unit, a thetan, the awareness of awareness unit (which has been
called the soul and the spirit and lord knows what all), but this
awareness of awareness unit is actually capable, demonstrably capable in
the production of space and it's capable in the production of mass and
it's capable in the production of energy. It's quite interesting.

It can measurably produce energy. You ask an individual - I know this
flies in the teeth of physics and chemistry - we're used to this now,
those of us that have done quite a bit of processing and so forth - but
the basic stumbling block of physics and chemistry might interest you.

They start - all sciences start with the basic assumption, and that
basic assumption usually is wrong, and therefore they don't progress
beyond a certain point. And then somebody comes along and he gets a more
basic assumption and he can, of course, work out further problems along
this line. And the basic assumption of physics and chemistry (the
physical sciences) is the conservation of energy.

That's a fascinating subject. It says, "Energy is there and even though
you burn a piece of paper, all of the mass of the piece of paper and all
its component parts are still there and it's not destroyed." And the
physical scientist is saying most of the time, "It's not destructible,
it's not destructible, it's not destructible - conservation of energy."

In other words, you put in so much heat and you get out so much heat and
it goes somewhere. And no matter what you do with energy or matter, you
get the same energy or matter. And then it seems like kind of a
pointless argument, but this is the basis of the physical sciences.

And now they ran along just so far on this assumption and then with the
works of an Italian and a British mathematician, both of some renown,
the American nuclear physicist, with the help and the calculations of
several Britishers, upset the whole thing with boom - atomic fizzle.

And they haven't had a good opportunity to exactly measure how much
conservation of energy has been knocked over, but in the last year - and
I don't think now I'm letting anything leak because it's mostly in the
textbooks in the library, even though this is in confidential government
publications. I love the way - I love the way governments leave on
library shelves complete textbooks of what they call top-secret. But
they are doing that today with nuclear physics. This work is to be found
in Halley, Dirac, all kinds of guys have gone over this and their work
is all available. And we read in a bulletin "top-secret," and then we
read something that can be found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Anyway, where this work is concerned they have, more or less, proven to
their own satisfaction that the conservation of energy is, to be very
technical, for the birds. And they have discovered this interesting
thing. The worksDirac discovered this and then they proved it up at MIT
and then the government made it top-secret. Anyway, they would send two
alpha particles at a lead - pardon me, one alpha particle at a lead
plate and get out two. And they kept doing this and this was very
upsetting. And they looked for some trick, they looked around to see if
there were any George Wichelows or something in the vicinity of the
thing, and they couldn't find any trick. None. No trick at all. They'd
throw alpha particle, they'd get two. Wasn't coming from anywhere, so
they had to assume a hole in space.

Anybody might start regarding this with a little aplomb because they
could not yet bring themselves to desert their basic datum of the whole
science of physics - conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created,
it cannot be destroyed.

And as a result, when they started to create alpha particles, in this
fashion, by radiation, this upset the science of physics. And during the
past year, practically in - the entire science of nuclear physics has
gone completely adrift.

I talked to a couple of them in Washington, they didn't have them in a
cage yet, but it just is a matter of time. And these two chaps - these
two chaps were telling me in a rather strained tone of voice, "We don't
know where we are. Even you might be right."

And so - and so our stable datum, of course, of physics has blown up and
left a confusion. And in Scientology we can understand what's happened
to them but they don't understand it in physics. They're just running
around writing new formulas and hoping that somebody someplace may come
up with enough answers so that they can look at a tremendous bulk of
answers and say, "Well, it's in there somewhere," and walk off and leave
it. That is evidently the hope.

Well, anyway, the fact of the matter is that we have another experiment
that can be conducted along this line. We can ask an individual to mock
up, create a mental image of an energy mass in a space of his own
creation and shove it into his body. Well, we all know that process,
it's a very simple process.

We keep this up, and we put a fellow on a good scale, and then we run
him on this for about six weeks, and he'll go up thirty pounds. It's
very fine measurement, you know, you have to have on this. That's a
fact. The first time the experiment was conducted it was on a
two-hundred-pound man and we ran him up to two hundred and thirty
pounds, and then we had him throw away havingness until he went down to
two hundred pounds again. Interesting isn't it?

Because it wasn't his food that we were varying, it wasn't anything else
we were varying, it was simply we were asking him to mock up energy and
shove it into his body. And he did until he really had gotten to a point
of where he was a little bit afraid to sit down in chairs. He could hear
the legs kind of creak, you know. We were adding to his mass, we were
increasing his density.

And if we'd had something there that increased - measured the increase
of his density, could have done it. Well, we did this many times and it
became apparent - two things. What we were trying to prove was not what
the physicist would have been interested in. We were trying to prove
something entirely different. We were trying to prove that mental energy
actually had a relationship with physical universe energy.

Because the old-time mystic, God bless him, back in India and so forth,
he always told you, you know, "Well, mental energy is one thing and the
physical universe is something else. And the physical universe is the
work of the devil and mental energy that's something else; it's the work
of the imagination."

And he kept telling people this till people thought their imagination
was incapable of creation or production, and science could at last fall
into the hole that there is such a thing as a conservation of energy. It
cannot be created.

Well, I would like to know what was interacting on that scale if it
wasn't physical universe energy, and where it came from if it wasn't
mocked up and created by the individual. All right.

Now, as we look this problem over, we discover that we have, at once,
encountered what we sought to prove, and continued to prove, the
relationship between mental energy and physical universe energy.

When an individual looks at light, he can actually resist the photons.
If he is asked to resist these photons, he can actually pile them up on
his eyeballs.

This sounds very, very wild and very strange, but the truth of the
matter is, you can drive a man almost blind this way. He'll finally
build up a little ridge over his eyeballs. And it'll stay there for a
few minutes and he'll get dazzle of one kind or another so that he looks
- it isn't the eye pupil contracting, because you conduct the experiment
two ways.

You say, "Just accept that light from that light," you know. "Just
accept it." He's happy about it, everything is fine. He looks away, he's
got a little image of the light, doesn't bother him any.

You say, "Now, all right, resist those photons." And he sits there and
he catches them as they come in.

The next thing you know he's got dazzle. He's got things going
clickety-click in some fashion out in front of his face. He has flashes
of reflective vision.

Sometime a preclear has complained to you about this, I'm sure. He's
said,

"I - I've got spots in front of my eyes," or "I've got a sort of a
dazzle that's going on out here, all the time, all the time, all the
time, and it's very upsetting to me."

Well, he's just had to resist light too often. Now, if you ask him to
have some light or throw some light away or increase the energy coming
from the light or decrease it and handle it and control it for a moment,
these spots will go away in front of his eyes. There's - that's
something we have to know in our business.

But over in the field of the sixth dynamic it tells us that there must
be something wrong in the science of physics if the science of physics
itself at length went into chaos, which it did. Must be something wrong
there someplace and if we find chaos, we Scientologists, we would look
at once to see who had disturbed the stable datum. And the stable datum,
certainly enough, was disturbed, and that was the conservation of
energy. All right.

Not to get too technical or long-winded about this sort of thing, we are
about as modern in this and in the physical sciences as the year 2500. I
mean we're pretty darn modern. It may be that - it may be everything I'm
saying now one of these days will become top-secret.

Now, I had a chap tell me once that looked over the Axioms of
Scientology that they all ought to be top-secret. I've had students tell
me they were certainly top-secret to them, they couldn't understand
anything about them. All right.

As we look over the field of Scientology, though, we go back two and a
half years and we find the old Prelogics, and these Prelogics are quite
fascinating.

Prelogic one (I'll just read them rapidly), Self-determinism is the
common denominator of all life impulses.. Today we're saying the same
thing only we're saying, "power of choice," because self-determinism was
too widely misunderstood. Then we used another term later. We said,
"pan-determinism," meaning self-determinism along all eight dynamics.
Well, that isn't quite sharp, so today we'll say, "power of choice." And
power of choice could exist along all eight dynamics. So, if we get
power of choice along the eight dynamics of self, sex, group, man,
animals and the physical universe (one that we're talking about tonight,
the sixth dynamic, the MEST universe), spirits and God - if we talk
about a determinism all the way along that line, we'd say there is a
certain power of choice connected with each one. You can see at once
that one does not have to be God to have a power of choice concerning
God. One can have a power of choice concerning God. The atheist, for
instance, has exercised his with great thoroughness. He says, "There
ain't no such being." And so, that's still exercising a power of choice.

However, if an individual is being forced into some choice by some
energy mass like a ridge, an engram, some other energy mass contained in
his thinkingness, he is not exercising power of choice. Something else
is doing the choosing and he is accepting the choice.

So, we have power of choice as opposed to acceptance - no matter under
what duress - acceptance of some sort, of a choice. A man who is
dramatizing an engram is simply accepting the choosing of some energy
mass which has this inscribed on it. This is a simplicity. Well, so that
still holds good that old one, doesn't it? Okay.

On the Prelogics number two we have the definition of self-determinism
is: the ability to locate in space and time, energy and matter, also the
ability to create space and time in which to create and locate energy
and matter. Wow. See? Choice, power of choice. Very interesting.

Now, today we know a little bit better than this. We know that power of
choice has to do with the origin or choosing to receive, on a
knowingness basis, postulates. We know we're basically working from
considerations, and that these considerations stem simply from the
ability to consider and to postulate. And one postulates that he can
make energy and postulates that he can perceive energy (we have answered
up both conditions) but we have, in energy, just a specialized thing on
power of choice.

So, the totality of self-determinism is not merely embraced by space,
energy, matter and time. Power of choice would be demonstrable in any
field of thought or endeavor. But on this one particular one, the
physical universe, what an interesting thing that it occupies so much of
our time that two and a half years ago we would write an axiom that
would define self-determinism as power of choice in terms of matter,
energy, space and time, and would neglect a consideration.

Well, that's just about where we were with our research on the Tone
Scale at that time. We were still struggling with some considerations
about considerations which were eventually resolved.

Actually, it wasn't until about fourteen months ago that we came up with
the actuality very, very clearly demonstrated, the actuality that a
consideration was senior to any space, any matter, any energy or any
time. And we were led further along that line in running not-knowingness
and discovering that it itself was a basic consideration underlying
time. So that time started to do odd things when we started to know and
not-know at intervals, and we found out time was simply knowing and
not-knowing, knowing and not-knowing, knowing and notknowing, and so we
got the flick in and out of the time track.

Well, all this is very cut and dried - you know this material. But
what's interesting is that we had such a concentration on it at that
time, and at the same time, earlier than that, we clearly said that the
physical universe - matter, energy, space and time - only occupied
one-eighth of the total urges of existence and we called it simply
dynamic six. Dynamic six: the urge to survive along with and about
matter, energy, space and time. That was the total importance of it, and
really has been the total importance of it throughout. So,
considerations, postulates, the ability to consider, the ability to make
statements and have them come true, these things are still superior to
this.

Just going over the rest of these Prelogics, three is: The
identification of the source of that which places matter and energy and
originates space and time is not necessary to the resolution of this
problem at this time, See, "The identification of the source," nice
dodge isn't it? "Let's not worry," it says, "about thetans. Let's just
skip it and get on with our processing."

In the next Prelogic, however, having thrown everybody off the track
with the red herring of number three, we say, Theta creates space,
energy and objects by postulates, which you find as the first and second
Axioms of Scientology. This is the background history of those first and
second Axioms.

Now, five: Universes are created by the application of self-determinism
on eight dynamics. Interesting. So, you could have all kinds of
universes being created, besides a matter, energy, space and time
universe.

We could have a universe simply created by the thought that there's a
universe over there. We just look over at the wall and we say, "Well,
lookit, there's a whole universe over on the wall." We've located it to
some slight degree, but the rest of it we've just let slide. We've not
put any space into it, no energy, no matter, no time, it's now gone, you
see, just like that. So, by consideration alone, one considers that he
can do this.

Now, six: Self-determinism applied will create, alter, conserve and
possibly destroy universes. That was a long time ago, and many a
preclear since has been looking holes through walls.

So, obviously an as-ising of matter is feasible in our own little simple
way. We don't have to have atomic piles in order to have a preclear
as-is a wall. The nuclear physicists are going about it in a rather
crude way.

And the oddity is, is because he's stuck on his conservation of energy
thing, he has become very hectic and he is trying to make nothing out of
things any way that he can. So, he's saying, "Look, it won't possibly
disappear. So, the only thing I can do about it then, is to blow it
down." And that's where he's been led on his track.

Well, it happens that there is another truth involved here. And the
other truth is, that you mock up something and do certain things with it
and it will disappear. If you do certain other things with it, it will
persist.

If you mock up something and then say that Joe mocked it up, and get the
fact that Joe owns it and that you're facing it, it'll have a
persistence. You have let go of and negated your self-determinism or
operation of that mock-up. You've said, "I have no choice or control
over it," when you've said, "I have misowned it." So it stays. So there
it is. It's quite persistent.

You take somebody who regularly has nightmares, who, as an awareness of
awareness unit, is simply mocking up dreams and dream sequences to get
himself oriented when the body no longer furnishes him with tactile,
which is the real source of dreams. He's trying to orient himself. The
body is asleep and he simply dreams, dreams, dreams, dreams and that
gives him a few anchor points. And he said, "Well, at least I'm not lost
in nothingness, I am in some sort of space. And just to convince myself
that it's real, I'll make it as horrible as possible and then I will say
that something else did it."

And you get this chap who has just had a nightmare and you say, "Get the
idea that somebody else created this nightmare."

Oh, he'll do that easily. He'll say, "Yes I had a very bad dream," he
will say.

You say, "It really bothered you, eh? Well, all right now. Just get the
idea what really happened there, you understand, is that your psyche
originated it to worry you."

"Yes, I can get that idea. That's true too."

"All right. That's fine. Now, just get the idea that it was a force
other than yourself that created this dream." And, boy, he's going right
back into it again. These horrible faces and flame-eating dragons are
getting bigger and thicker and thicker and bigger, and you can talk him
right down into the total atmosphere of the dream just by getting him to
misown that dream.

Now, you can soften your heart a little bit and turn around and process
him the other way. And you say, "Well, get the idea you mocked it up."
Psst, gone. He did mock it up, and so, when he declares this proper
determinism over it, he says at the same time, "I mocked it up so I can
control it." He's saying at the same time, "I mocked it up and there it
is." He's gotten the proper ownership on it and it's gone.

One shouldn't get the idea, however, that everything is done by you.
Many people get this idea. They grip this to their bosom and they say,
"Oh my, if I just say about life that I am the cause and fault of it
all, I will be all right." And 50 percent of their nightmares disappear,
75 percent disappear, and then eight or nine horrible engrams start to
get more solid. And then a lot of the body's bank starts to get solid
and a lot of mock-ups that have been shoved at them start to get solid,
and instead of solving the problem they have simply as-ised about 50-75
percent of their immediate havingness and then acquired other havingness
which they don't control at all.

As far as your life is concerned, you have done some portion of the
things which you consider yourself possessed of And if you still have
those things, and you consider you did them, I can assure you, somebody
else did. It's interesting isn't it?

But the other proportion of those things which you consider other people
did, if you consider other people did them and they are still persisting
and you're still worried about them, you did them. Just get the opposite
ownership.

But nobody by saying, "Mea culpa, magna culpa," something like this,
"It's all my fault," and, etc. That, by the way, is taken from the Druid
services, I think. Isn't it? Mea culpa, magna - it isn't from the Druid
services. I don't know where I got it. Anyway ...

By just getting a guy to repeat this time after time after time, you
would drive him mad in a very short space of time because all of the
things which he didn't do, that he was now saying he did do, would
become overpoweringly huge to him, and solid and factual.

But if you let this chap go at it this way, you'd have something very
interesting. You say, "It's all their fault. It's all their fault. It's
all their fault. It's all their fault." You would accomplish the same
goal because the proportion is distributed between the two. See, he did
some of these things, and again we would have at least 50 percent of his
bank thoroughly misowned. All right.

Now, as we look over this problem we see, then, that the ownership of an
actuality, such as a wall or an engram or a mock-up, an ownership of an
idea or an obsession, is quite important. Quite important. Because it's
only persisting if it's misowned. Well, that's a fascinating thing.

There is something, however, militating against your immediate solution
of all of your difficulties in that the difficulties themselves have a
value. Problems have a value. And havingness, itself, just plain mass,
has a value. People have an idea they should have so much mass; when
they have less than that, they're unhappy; when they have more than
that, they're unhappy.

Have you ever tried to give a tramp a tuxedo and a top hat? You would
understand at once that he was not very happy about it. You see him a
half an hour later and he'd be back in his old clothes. You've given him
too much. Well, too much or too little actually depends upon the
consideration of the individual. There isn't any exact formula you
write. He thinks he has to have this much, well, that's the amount of
havingness which he would consider his balance. When he gets less than
that he feels bad, when he gets more than that he feels bad. So, if you
suddenly started to own everything properly you would lose, one, these
cherished problems which make life interesting and a game; and, two, the
havingness, which by misowning, you were continuing in a state of mass.

Well, that's simple. So, actually processing comes down to havingness,
freedom, problems and, of course, an unpredictability. And it's the game
of life. And these factors have to be balanced one against the other in
processing, and if they are not, then an individual's havingness upsets
and so on, and he pulls in other problems to replace the problems you've
gotten rid of, and you just get into an awful spinning mess. But you
balance these factors one against the other, and a person is, then,
capable of accomplishing greater and greater freedom. All right.

But all the time, on the sixth dynamic, we have a factor working on the
subject of power of choice, the like of which has no overbalancing or
counterbalancing factor. If we work in a world that we assume we cannot
destroy, if we've given it this much power, then it, once having been
created, will go on and on forever, making our decisions for us. And it
makes these decisions for us as to where to place what - get those
Prelogics - a thetan creates energy, space, and places and locates
objects and energies in that space or takes them out of it.

In other words, he is a locating, orienting, causative unit. Well,
supposing that he now takes nothing but solid orders from the energy,
the space, the mass; and this energy, space and mass order him
continually where to be, where to go - they will eventually have
overwhelmed his power of choice. His basic self-determinism or power of
choice, as you might call it, depends upon his location of things and
even his creation of space in which to locate things depends on that to
a very marked degree. So that if we get a constant otherdeterminism of
location, we get difficulties.

Now, we know this, this is old material; this is real old. If you were
to take a puppy dog and give him an anesthetic while he was in one room,
and then take him in another room and turn him upside down on his head
in the corner and make him wake up, he would be a very puzzled, upset
and rather neurotic dog. Why? He won't be able to account for the change
for one thing, and he will have been placed while entirely helpless, so
thoroughly, that his power of choice would be upset.

Now, even when you call him and you say, "Come here Rover. Come on," he
still can choose to come or not to come. Of course, you may have fixed
him up with training so that he kind of feels guilty if he doesn't come
and we can overcome his power of choice one way or the other. But he
still has some little tiny bit of choice about it, he thinks. If he
didn't think he had, he would go mad and he would be neurotic as a dog.
By the way, dogs do go neurotic and it's quite amazing how well they fit
these specifications.

Now, the location in space is the one thing that is upsetting. It's
really not - this was the first thing that scouted this into view - it's
really not the energy or the flow or the mass; it's the location where
it happened that is the senior engramic or upsetting factor. That's the
place, the place it happened. Individuals will avoid places where things
happened.

Some chap will even go this far: He's eating salad in a restaurant and
he all of a sudden bites down and there's a bunch of sand in it, and it
chips his enamel and upsets him no end, and he's so - so forth. And
while busily eating salad in another restaurant he tells us he'll never
go back to that first restaurant again. Well, he can even drag some
logic between these two things, you see.

But the fellow who has been shot on the corner of Wumph and Wumph
Streets, oddly enough doesn't react in any different fashion.
Thereafter, he'll handle guns, bullets, he'll talk about fellows being
shot, but darned if you can get him without a tremor, to walk past the
corner of Wumph and Wumph Street. It's the where he was shot that's
important.

Now, this of course applies more natively and understandably to the fact
that a fellow doesn't much maybe object to having been cut with a knife.
See, I mean in general, cutting things with knives. He gets cut with a
knife. He hurts where it was cut. Now, that sounds, if you reduce it
that way - a little more sense. He hurts where it was cut. Well, you
say, "Well, naturally the wound is still there." Why does it stay there?

The oddity is if you move him in time, it isn't there, to that degree.
But much more rapidly, you tell him to come up to present time, he isn't
quite so cut. You can stop a cut bleeding simply by changing a person on
the time track. We've done that. All right.

Now, an individual who has been cut and is still bleeding will stop
bleeding much faster if you say, "Where were you cut?"

And he'd say, "Oh, I was cut over there."

"Oh yes. Well, where are you now?"

"I'm here."

"Well, where were you cut?"

"Over there."

"Well, where are you now?"

"I'm here."

"Well, where were you cut?"

"Over there."

"Well, where are you now?"

"I'm here."

And you can watch the bleeding dwindle right on down.

The most notable cases of this sort of thing is the stopping of
hemorrhages. Hemorrhages begin, it seems that almost nothing could stop
some of these things. And I have seen one that was - that bade fair to
kill the patient, stopped in a matter of two or three minutes by a
visiting auditor in a hospital, much to the amazement of people. This
person was not expected to live, and they're not bleeding now -
something's wrong. And they think it was the drug they gave him or
something of the sort, because it's unthinkable to stop bleeding or do
something like that.

But the odd part of it is, the sensation of the cut will turn on much
faster if you spot where it was done and then where he is, than almost
any other process you use, save one: mocking up cut arms and shoving
them into the cut arm. He obviously doesn't have enough cut arms; this
is what this sort of says, you see. Well, if he didn't - if he had
enough, he wouldn't have cut himself. Now, this oddity is, is he mocks
up the cut arms and stuffs them into his cut arm and you'll get, to some
degree, the same thing.

So, we have the two opposite ends here. We have space. That's not as
fast, by the way, that's a slower process than spotting it, if he has
enough energy to carry out the operation. You start spotting space and
you start losing energy like mad. All right.

Where are we going with this? This is all old stuff to you, you know all
this material. There's nothing much to this. We've seen this at work,
we've seen it happening; it's facts that we live with, they're not
terribly engrossing. But what if I told you that this overbalance of
power of choice on the sixth dynamic had been solved? Supposing there
was a process that existed - a process actually did exist, which, when
applied, did resolve this power of choice.

One's power of choice goes to the degree that he's pushed around and
moved around by the physical universe. Let's say he's pushed around and
moved around all the time. Did you ever see a fellow that just got out
of the Army? Interesting, very interesting. His power of choice is
pretty bad. He's been moved around, moved around, moved around, moved
around, moved around, moved around, without his choice, until he feels
kind of apathetic about the whole thing. That's interesting. But he
considers himself more MEST than he does life. It's an odd frame of
mind.

Now, an individual who is pushed around (against his power of choice,
remember - has to be resisted, something on that order), individual who
is moved around to that degree, against his power of choice, eventually
gets into a rather apathetic state of mind.

In order to be alive, he himself would have to do some locating,
wouldn't he? Well, an auditor does this by giving him an order and then
having the individual locate things with the order. You get the idea?
And this is a very, very low gradient of this thing, power of choice.
And we gradually bring him back up on power of choice and he begins to
feel better. All right. So much for that. We do feel that the physical
universe does, to some slight degree, overcome our decisions.

Now, power of choice is one thing, but postulates and decisions are far
higher and do much more. Remember, they're quite senior to this.

If you can make a postulate, you can have an energy mass appear out in
front of you that you can see. If you can make another postulate, you
can unpostulate it and make it disappear. The ability to make postulates
- nothing to that. But that depends on decision, just above power of
choice, and above the decision we, of course, have the postulate itself
without any choosing. So between power of choice and postulate, we have
this interim grade that we call decision.

Now, maybe you've talked to government employees - maybe you - maybe you
have. And you've asked them for a decision. And they've comm lagged and
comm lagged and comm lagged and comm lagged and muttered and given you
something out of the files. There wasn't any reason why they couldn't
make the decision, nobody would shoot them if they made a decision. And
yet they didn't seem capable of making a decision.

The wife runs into this all the time when she asks her husband about
something her husband never moves around in space-cooking pots and pans
and groceries. The husband moves stuff off the plate into his mouth and
into his GE, that's that. But he doesn't move food around. He moves
paychecks around or maybe bales of hay or something, but as far as the
food he eats is concerned he doesn't shove it around. And she says to
him, "Dear, what do you want for supper tonight?"

And he says, "I don't know, uh - any old thing."

"Now dear, please tell me." She's doing this with malice aforethought.
She's trying to get a contract with him that no matter what she serves
him he won't have the right to complain because ...

Now, where we get this kind of a chitchat going we actually have power
of choice being least exercised about those things which the person has
least moved around in space. And you can count on that as a rule. If you
want an individual to regain power of choice on any object, you get him
to move that around specifically from spot to specific spot in space for
a while, and he'll regain his power of choice on it.

The very simple example of this for a fellow to have control of a car,
we have him drive the car around, start and stop it. He regains his
power of choice over the car first by deciding he wants to drive a car.
And then he recovers his power of decision (something else) by simply
positioning the car here and there. Quite interesting - fascinating,
nice, neat, easy operation.

It's a little less easy to see this in some other measures of life. We
look at somebody who is supposed to make decisions all the time about
things which he never really sees. Let's take an executive and he's
asked time after time where he should lay down this bale or that bundle
or this delivery or that package or something of the sort. He's just
asked to make decisions about this. He never touches these things, he
just says, "Put them here, put them there, put them someplace else," and
eventually he becomes an old man with ulcers.

He is making decisions all the time but he never knows if he's right, he
doesn't even know if the location exists. He's subjectively ordering
things all over the place. He's not himself positioning them. That's
still better though than having to make a decision about something you
have never even made a decision about, you know. All right.

I want you to decide right now at what moment Earth is going to start
turning the opposite direction. Interesting question, isn't it? You know
that's beyond your power of decision. Why is it beyond your power of
decision? It's just because you've never decided it. You've never
positioned Earth.

I doubt very few of you have been out there with a little pinky giving
Earth another twist so that it'll turn faster or slowing it down or
something like this. And I haven't seen any one of us, at least in the
last week, putting Earth a little closer to the Sun or a little nearer
spring.

So, we make a decision on the subject of the position of Earth and we
say, "That's just idle." If we can't make a postulate on the subject, it
becomes very difficult to make a powerful decision about the subject,
and one loses his power of choice. All right.

Immediately, I have not seen anybody in this room tonight sitting four
feet (with his body) sitting four feet off of a chair, in the air,
unsupported. I just have not seen anybody sitting in that position in
this room tonight.

In other words, gravity has some effect upon your body. Now, why does it
have an effect upon your body? Here you could will your body to be four
feet in the air, and maybe if you had a lot of processing, you'd
accomplish it.

But ordinarily in human concourse if we ask the bank manager downstairs
or some of these chaps to sit four feet above his chair, he might have
some doubts about okaying our loan. But what is it that makes it
impossible for him to sit four feet above his chair?

Well, for one thing he hasn't made a postulate about Earth for a long,
long time. He certainly has made no decisions concerning Earth. He said
- he hasn't said to himself, "Oh, I'm bored with this place, I think
I'll go live on Venus for a while. I've heard about the girls up there."
He hasn't said this, hasn't remarked any part of it, and as a result his
power of choice about moving away from or close to Earth totally depends
on Earth. And Earth says to him, "You're right here fella, sitting right
in this chair and that's where you are." That's all there is to it. Now,
mentally, that's all there is to gravity.

That thing which has totally overthrown one's power of choice, of
course, is something about which he has made no decisions, and which he
knows definitely he could not affect with his postulates.

Now, the number of postulates we've thrown at Earth lately have been
very few. We haven't said, "the Sun will now travel apparently - because
Earth is going to move differently - north much faster and get rid of
this winter weather." We just have not said that, any of us. Well,
except myself, I tell - ask people why they haven't done it. That's one
of the things that throws people (if you ever saw embarrassment), but
they're always flattered. Say, "What are you doing turning on weather
like this?"

And the fellow says, "Oh, I . . ." And they fall right into it, "Well, I
really didn't mean to turn it on this bad," or something like that.

In other words, he can accept into his realm of action the actual factor
of postulating weather. He can imagine this. He, himself, wouldn't
seriously postulate it; he can merely imagine postulating it.

But his power of choice about the weather is horrible. He hasn't said,
"Tomorrow - tomorrow it will be seventy-two degrees, and the Sun will
come up at 5:32 and there will be nice white fleecy clouds all day
long." He hasn't said this for a long time. He's hoped that it would be,
maybe, but that's as close as he's come to it.

Well, then he goes outside and it's cold, and the weather makes him
cold, or it's hot, and the weather makes him hot. In other words, he's
subject to these decisions called weather because he hasn't decided any
weather. And it's been a long time since he's made any postulates about
weather. You follow me?

So, in every line of endeavor we get those duresses to which the
individual is subject, and over which he has no determinism to be those
duresses, about which he has made no decision, and earlier than that,
about which he has made no postulates. And there's gravity, and there's
why a guy stays on Earth. There's all sorts of odds and ends of
mechanisms. A fellow who has been positioned continually by his body,
and has not done any positioning of the body, has no chance of
exteriorizing, he's dead in his head. You follow me?

So, that in order to pick up horsepower you certainly have to - pardon
me, thetan-power, I didn't mean to be insulting. Centaur will be politer
- centaurpower. A thetan would have to regain to some degree his power
of decision.

Now, what do we mean by power? Naturally, it's a figurative term used by
people working in the field of the mind because they don't have another
word for it. They talk about "willpower," "personal power"; they talk
about "magnetism," talk about all kinds of things, you see, with this
word power mixed up in it somehow. Well, they've never forgotten the
tradition, but that's about as thin as it is these days.

When we talk about "power of choice" we are using the word very
advisedly. We mean amperes, volts, terminals and bolts. We actually mean
energy traveling through space having measurable current. How can we
possibly generate such an energy? Well, we already know we can generate
it. We can mock up mock-ups can't we? We can stuff them into this fellow
and make him weigh thirty more pounds. You ought to conduct that
experiment sometime, that's a ball - I mean, the preclear gets so
uncomfortable. You have to do it for weeks to get him up thirty pounds.
But you can actually stuff enough mass into a good preclear in an
afternoon to make him sink if he looks at a dishpan. And here - here,
however, we are talking about energy in space. And if we're talking
about energy in space, and we're talking about a thetan creating energy
or uncreating energy we certainly must be talking about watts and volts
and amperes and all the rest of it. We are talking about power of
choice.

Now, how about this fellow that everything eaves in on? How about this
preclear? You say, "All right. Now, let's go back two years in time and
look at your engrams. Now, come up to present time."

And he says, "Gawww." Can't do it. Well, the energy has sort of caved in
on him. The energy finds him to be a sort of a vacuum. He's not putting
out anything to resist that energy, he's incapable of it. The energy
wiggles, he wobbles. That's the end of that.

He's got an engram of his mother bawling him out. He's walking down the
street, it also has a telegraph pole or something in it and a mailbox,
in the engram. And he's walking down the street and he sees a telegraph
pole and a mailbox, and he all of a sudden feels sheepish like a little
boy. And he kind of asks himself, "Well, I certainly feel young today,"
something like this, and never questions it any further than that. What
happened?

He had a mental energy picture of the telephone, the mailbox and his
mother bawling him out. He saw the telephone, the mailbox, that called
the mental energy picture into view on a sort of a copy or duplication
basis and it got into restimulation and he reacted to it.

Why does he react to it? Because his power of choice is gone. The amount
of horsepower or thetan-power or centaur-power that he has, to tell that
energy, "Get back in the spot in time where you belong," is gone.

We go into an insane asylum, we tell some insane person, "Move that
bench." And he's just as likely to dump a wastebasket on our heads. He
can no longer differentiate from object to object much less do anything
effective. More importantly, we ask the bulk of them to come up to
present time and they stick right where they are. They cannot handle
energy masses; this is the one common denominator. Their spaces are off
and they cannot handle energy masses. This we know about them. Well,
then a sane person must be able to handle space and energy masses; I
mean we can draw that conclusion and we look it over and we find it to
be true.

Where does this go? It's the rehabilitation of the power of decision,
that's about all there is to it; rehabilitation of the power of
decision.

Well, where is decision missing, if an energy bank like the reactive
bank can cave in? Where? How can an individual get these mental image
pictures caving in on him or not caving in on him, simply by power of
decision? It must be that there are some energy masses in the
individual's ken, or knowledge, continually, which overcome his power of
choice. He must be continually overcome and handled by mass, energy, in
predetermined space and time. And he's being totally positioned all the
time, totally positioned all the time. He never has any choice about it.

If you want to go to a restaurant, you walk down to where the restaurant
is. The last time you picked the restaurant up where it was and sat it
where you were was a long time back, and I bet the proprietor was mad
too.

Now, in other words - in other words, wherever you look, wherever we go
into this problem, we find that the individual has to walk to the
postbox to mail a letter. The postbox never walks to the individual.
Interesting. Observable too. The postbox says, "You've got to walk over
here." It's decided where the preclear's going to go, hasn't it? It's
sitting down there. It's decided the whole neighborhood's going to come
over here and mail their letters. "Hah, I guess I've got you guys
trained."

But it's just an energy mass isn't it? There's no livingness there to
amount to anything; it's just an energy mass. But everybody comes over
there. You say, "That's all right."

Well, it's all right maybe for the first billion years, but after that a
guy sort of starts to be worn away by it. He notices one day as he's
sailing through the blue that the lightning bolt he just threw didn't
even stink. The ozone content of it was poor. So, he goes over, you
know, and kind of tests it out, he says, "Zap, zap, zap." Thin. And he
says, "I must be running down, I will have to get some lightning
someplace else." Later on you'll find him eating.

What does he do? He's depending on other sources now for his power of
choice and for his decisions mainly, and so he starts to depend on them
for his energy and he stops making any more energy. And after a while he
makes the idiotic statement like, "Conservation of energy: no energy can
be mocked up or destroyed." Wow. That's way down track, isn't it? Boy,
is that down Tone Scale.

But all the time, what's happening? The investigator particularly is
drawn into this and made to feel the weakness of his position. He says,
"I wonder what is wrong with this? I think maybe it is so-and-so and
so-and-so," he says, about this piece of apparatus. "I will hook this up
to this and see if the MEST universe decides to work that way." And it
doesn't, so he hooks it up some other way and sees whether or not - you
know, he finds out whether or not something happens, you see.

But look at it this other way: "Finds out whether or not the MEST
universe decides to work that way." Is that the decision of the MEST
universe? Is it terminal one to two or is it two to one? Which is it?
Well, the MEST universe is going to decide, it's going to be energy and
mass in space that's going to decide how it works.

So, a fellow works and works and works and he gets a terrific, oh, an
awful lot of stuff here, laws and rules, he makes all these postulates
and so forth. And when he gets all through, what's the first question we
ask of him? We say, "Does it work?" In other words what we ask is, is
"Does the MEST universe decide this to be a fact?" And we wait before we
draw our conclusion to discover whether or not the MEST universe agrees
with the decision, at least. That's the least we would do.

But people in general simply let the MEST universe decide. And they let
it decide and they let it decide. They let it decide that its postboxes
will be here, and its stores will be there, and you have to take an
airplane to go to where, and you have to walk in order to get someplace
else, and you will move in order to be around in it. And that's what it
decides. It decides how far you've got to go, it decides how long you've
got to be on the way; this is all decided by energy masses operating in
space. Fantastic! You mean to say somebody can stand up to this?

Well, not only can somebody stand up to it, but they can also whip it.
They can also look it over and say, "There's something funny here." A
fellow who doesn't have good control of energy then must be making
himself accept at all times the decisions of the energy. In other words,
he must be accepting energy decisions from the physical universe of the
sixth dynamic.

Now, what does he do here? What does he do? He runs a rather simple
process. The process is, is have the MEST universe invent some decisions
about havingness. That's the process; that's all it is. Have the MEST
universe invent some decisions about havingness. It belongs up in
Decisional Processing and is the key factor that has made it possible to
turn out SLP, Issue 8 with considerable assurance that now things are
really going to work around here.

Because it, at once, places a person back into possession of control of
energy so that energy can be away or near at his decision. If energy
always decides for him, his engrams will be in restimulation. So, we
have him invent decisions for the energy to make. And oddly enough, by a
trick of mind and mass, we discover ridges going this way and blowing up
that way and coming under somebody's better control at a rather heady
rate.

Now, you understand that's just one step of what you'd have to do to get
back to lightning-bolt voltage, you know. Lightning-bolt voltage is very
interesting stuff. Uncomfortable, uncomfortable. I knew a thetan one
time ... Well, that's a long story.

Anyway, what - what else would you do? Well, actually it's not really
necessary to factually do anything else, because if one required his
ability to handle energy, he would come into possession of a power of
choice over energy.

Now, this is a very interesting thing, but it is this process and
researches centering around this process which makes it possible to cure
radiation burns. One starts to handle an energy of which he is usually
deathly afraid, because he can become contemptuous of it.

Now, it's - becomes a fascinating factor here then that by his own
mental action he can actually invent decisions for the MEST universe
about havingness. And, of course, he starts to have the MEST universe
invent new positions for everything under the sun and then invents new
things for the MEST universe to have positions about.

And he goes on up and the next step that would be indicated would be of
course doingness. Have the MEST universe invent decisions about
doingness, and that would be the second stage.

And then here's this fellow walking down the street, he knows he's a
bum. An auditor gets ahold of him, tries to process him, processes him
for several hours, makes him feel better, look better. The fellow goes
off still, privately maybe, thinking a little bit he's a bum. Why?
Because he's a bum. I mean it's just as - like that. Why is he a bum?
It's because he does not have enough force or power to disturb the
degraded masses around him which are his beingness.

In other words, energy has given him an identity in a certain space. His
name is John Jones, he's never been a success. You know, we've got a
whole lot of energy identification tags. His beingness is all cataloged
and it's unchangeable. Why is it unchangeable? Simply because the MEST
universe and the society at large has continued to assign this identity
to him. So, he's lost the power of beingness. So, the next auditing
command on the line is have the MEST universe (or any dynamic this time)
invent a beingness or an identity if the preclear isescape.

You know girls are pretty high-toned ordinarily. You can never quite
tell about a girl. You're liable to meet her on Wednesday and her name
is Elizabeth, and you're liable to meet her on Monday and her name is
Jessie, see. She changes her name very easily. Not only that, they get
married and change their names. They do change their names. We do know
that. Girl, up to the time she's seventeen, has been very, very well -
nicely known as Clarissa, you see, and she didn't like that and you meet
- next time you meet her she's twenty-two and she calls herself Butch.
There's no telling what's going to happen on it. Women do this, probably
which accounts for their ability to hold on to a better-looking mock-up
than men, because men become factually themselves. At whose assignment?

Well, they get a poor little innocent baby just after he's been born;
he's completely defenseless. They fix him up by dumping stuff in his
eyes that'll make him a little more anaten, and then they say, "Your
name is Joe, ha-ha-ha-ha." He's stuck with it, he didn't have any choice
in it at all. His power of choice has been overcome by his own name, in
other words. Well, therefore his beingness gets frozen.

Now, conversely this is how you would freeze somebody's beingness or
identity, his doingness or his havingness. You can use the same system,
just keep overcoming his power of choice on the whole thing and you
could freeze it into almost any state you wanted to freeze it into.
You're performing the same action as the physical universe.

Many people have fought the physical universe so hard and so
consistently that they themselves have assumed the valence or the
identity of the physical universe. They think of themselves as the Earth
or physical universe. Genghis Punk and so forth, began to think of
himself that way.

Anyway, we get the universe to invent decisions and we run out the
automaticity of the decisions it's made. Actually the odd part of it is,
it hardly upsets havingness at all.

There are a couple of other processes which you'll see in the finished
version, but this is the basic route to power of choice. And by that we
mean electricity that snaps. A fascinating process, it's a long time in
the making, you might say, it culminates those early Prelogics and it
makes use out of them. And if you run this on a preclear, his engrams
will start to stay away or come near, as he wants. He will cease to be
the victim of all of his environment, in other words, and can, to some
degree, command the environment around him.

Thank you very much.

[auditor]

AIMS AND GOALS OF SCIENTOLOGY

A lecture given on 14 February 1956

I want to talk to you now about the dissemination programs of the
organizations of Scientology and the definite and immediate goals of
Scientology.

Once upon a time (and somebody probably has heard me tell this story
before), a very little known battle was fought, called the battle of San
Juan Hill. It's a fascinating battle. Had a lot of contradictions and
paradoxes. One of them was, the people who fought the battle of San Juan
Hill were the Spaniards and the Rough Riders. And the Rough Riders were
infantry who had left their horses home and were operating as dismounted
infantry. And in the hot climate of Cuba, the Rough Riders were supposed
to take San Juan Hill. And they arose one fine morning with the orders
of the day as follows: "Proceed and take San Juan Hill." See, nice set
of orders. So they proceeded.

Now, there's a certain reason why they didn't take San Juan Hill until
about six o'clock in the afternoon. That's because the orders also said,
quote, "Jump off from El Caney and take San Juan Hill." The only
difficulty was, is they had not taken El Caney. And they fought until
noon to take the jump-off point called El Caney, and then jumped off and
took San Juan Hill.

But of course general headquarters, looking at this battle from afar, as
general headquarters generally do, you know ...

Well, anyhow, general headquarters was very, very upset with the Rough
Riders for not arriving on San Juan Hill at noon. They had arrived at El
Caney at noon.

Well, we don't have any general headquarters watching us, but the funny
- very funny part of it is, is we've been trying for five years to take
El Caney.

What would El Caney be to us? It would be a good, predictable processing
result done by any and all trained auditors in the entire field. That
would be one part of it. Another would be a solid and constant
organization which could carry the responsibilities and burdens of
carrying on the general dissemination and training. Another part of El
Caney would be a publications program which brought dissemination to the
various levels of society to be reached by Scientology. And that would
be about it. Add some other things if you'd like.

But the predictable result, done by each and every auditor in the field,
was not ours. That was not a point. Very many of us did splendidly. Some
of us did poorly. And it wasn't a question, so much, of the auditor
being good or bad, it was the question of the quality of his training,
and the tools with which he was asked to work, plus the great randomity
entered into the problem by all manner and types of preclears. And this
combination of circumstances was a difficulty.

Today, with the new type of training which is undertaken and being
carried forward, we have discovered that there is a difference between a
technique and processing. So that we have auditor procedures and
techniques. They're quite distinctly different.

You could use any technique with an auditor procedure, but first you had
to codify what was an optimum auditing attitude, what was an optimum
procedure, what exactly is the auditor supposed to do and say, when and
where, never to get caught flat-footed in any way. Just what was he
supposed to do?

Well, we learned these things and it took a long time to learn these
things. And then it took quite a little while to find out exactly how we
could train individuals, here and there, in order to produce in these
auditors, a state of mind which at once did not render them
restimulable, and which brought in, on behalf of the preclear, a raise
in tone. Just by procedure. That we are right today, is demonstrated by
the fact that the indoctrination week is, with dummy auditing - which is
zero processes, no techniques - is exteriorizing people and breaking
cases.

Everybody is very mystified as to this because no techniques are being
used. The actuality is, it's just nothing but auditing procedure, and
that's all they're learning how to do, and that's all that's being done.
So therefore, a proper attitude all by itself, on the part of a human
being toward another human being, can produce an increased gain. Just
that.

Well, as soon as we know the elements of this so well that we can teach
it, and know processes which put it down painlessly, we of course, have
established with the professional auditor an answer to the questions he
himself has asked, "What is my best response? What is my best attitude
toward this preclear?" And of course, it would be the most workable one.
And we have established this, and in addition to that, have worked out
an indoctrination which puts it down painlessly without making a robot
out of somebody.

Now, that was quite important. But how about the randomity of this
preclear? We had to answer the question "What is this preclear really
doing?" We have the answer to that. This preclear is either trying to,
or trying not to, play a game. And if he is well off, he's capable of
playing a game called life, and if he's not well off he is not capable
of playing the game called life. And you ask what is the why of the
totality of his existence and I'm afraid it is contained in that
interesting phrase "play the game." That's all. I mean unfortunately
there doesn't seem to be anything lying outside of this.

Now, we use game of course, because it's a microcosm at which we can
look. We can see individuals involved with the contest of existence, and
seeing these individuals involved with the contest of existence in the
macrocosm, we can thereby understand them. In other words, we take the
little microcosm, we take a look at this fellow playing tiddlywinks. We
take a look at him playing football and we can understand his motives
and what he is doing. And now when we apply everything he is doing to
the macrocosm, we now understand what he is doing and that is really
why. So you might say we have a datum of gradient magnitude by which we
can achieve a vaster understanding of the entire situation.

Now, once we fall away from this modus operandi in processing and
neglect those various factors which we can isolate immediately in a game
of marbles, tiddlywinks, we discover that we are not improving somebody.
And that is the final test: does it work in the physical universe. And
it happens that this works. And so, we have established, fascinatingly
enough, a series of processes and an attitude, and a definite goal of
processing which makes it possible for us to say, "Well, we're at least
that far." And this goal of processing, of course, is not toward greater
freedom, but toward the ability to play a better game: the game being
called life. And that is where the preclear is going.

Now, you will see this as you use these processes, but, at the same
time, it is quite amusing that looking at these various limitations, we
see exactly where a preclear hangs up as he's coming up Tone Scale. And
to say that we are about to free all of man would be the same thing as
saying we are about to kick everybody overboard. You see? I mean that's
as outrageous a statement as that.

We hear a great deal of political claptrap; people pounding the drum and
saying "liberty, liberty, freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom."
And we have eventually worn this word freedom down to a point where the
only way they can get the public to accept it is to say "freedom from."
The next freedoms they'll be teaching will be freedom from eating.

You reevaluate this word and we get all sorts of oddities. But when we
say "freedom" we mean "not connected to." And an ultimate or absolute
freedom can be described, and maybe is attainable and maybe not, but it
is not even connected with space.

You get the idea? We had the idea freedom is lots of space. Actually
that's a low-toned definition of freedom. You wouldn't even have to
worry about space if you were really free, you see? You wouldn't - also,
you wouldn't have to talk to any of your friends. Also, you could never
enjoy a movie. Also, you'd never have to go through all of the worry of
what you're going to do with your winnings. You see, immediately we have
- we can immediately run down this whole thing called an ultimate
freedom.

As a matter of fact, I imagine that sometime or another, some pundit or
philosopher has come along and he's said, "Why, what we need is
slavery." And he's gotten a complete revolution going, simply because
people objected to being that free, you see? And he said, "What we Want
is slavery for the masses." And, you know, had everybody in there
fighting to get more slavery. And everybody fighting to get it too, you
see? Very possible.

I mean, it's quite as idiotic to take an ultimate freedom as an ultimate
goal as it would be to take ultimate slavery for an ultimate goal. Both
of them are quite unreasonable and certainly not within, one, our frame
of recognition and, two, unfortunately, not within our experience in
processing. That's what's important. If we start processing somebody
toward freedom, we're going to have to make nothing out of everything,
including space, aren't we? Well, you just start making nothing out of a
preclear in all directions as a consistent level and find out where he
goes. He goes down, down, down; no preclear. It's an interesting
phenomenon, an auditor sitting there wondering where his preclear went.
Sometimes embarrassing. I remember one time at three o'clock in the
morning sitting in an auditing chair looking at the limp body in front
of me saying "Well now. . ."

Anyway, as we look over this problem of games, it receives further
confirmation when we realize that the preclear, very often, processed in
a certain direction toward freedom hangs up when he arrives at a lack of
havingness. And so we restore his havingness, and it would be quite
interesting if he would hang up further. Well, he does hang up further.
He can be restored to an adequate havingness and an adequate freedom and
still not move up the Tone Scale.

Well, the thing that is missing is problems. And if he hasn't an
adequacy of problems, we discover he's not going to move up the Tone
Scale. So after we give him a whole lot of problems, get him so he can
handle problems adequately, then we find out he's still not moving up
the Tone Scale. That's because we haven't restored his freedom. And we
restore that a little bit, and we find out he isn't going any further
and we look over here and we find out we have to give him some more
havingness. And in such a ways and some gradient scale of each one of
these things has to be worked on before he frees up to the next level.
He has to be reassured at all times, "I am going to have a game." He
won't go any further than he's sure he can have a game.

Maybe his game at the beginning is just to show you you're a bum. Maybe
that's his game, but nevertheless it's a game. And now you're not going
to take that game away from him without giving him a better game.

One of the ways to give him a better game, is the way we do it: we very
often show him somebody else is a bum too, and thereby broaden his
attention.

Now here we have this interesting thing then, that what was advanced
about three years ago, as an -strictly in hypothetical height - as the
highest activity that man can recognize as a game, comes true in the
lowest levels of processing.

Now, it's hard to believe that somebody who is lying there in catatonic
schizophrenia is playing a game. But I'm afraid that's about all the
game they can play. It's not much of a game, but it's something like it.
And your task of restoring a better game to them is quite considerable
because part of their game is not communicating with you. So we get into
these lower levels.

Now, of course, the human race is apparently playing a game called
penalties more than they play anything else. Of course, there's
penalties under freedom, penalties under problems and penalties under
havingness. Problems can be penalties, havingness can be penalties,
freedom can be penalties, alike. And so we have also the mood of game.
And the mood of game is simply that mood which an individual believes is
best to use in the playing of that particular game. And he gets his
games mixed and his mood mixed, and loses control of them, gets fixed
one way or the other in some mood and we say "he's fixed on the Tone
Scale." And so he is.

There's a little deeper significance into it than that, but we have a
mood of game with regard to problems, we have a mood of game with regard
to havingness, we have a mood of game with regard to freedom.

You see that an individual has various parts of these three parts then.
But, they all break back to three parts. It isn't true that you can let
somebody - make somebody invent a problem every time. First they maybe
have to lie about them. Maybe they have to go on a gradient scale of
problems. Maybe they're so low in their levels of games that their idea
of a problem is picking up one foot and crossing it across the other
foot, and this is a terrible problem. And maybe that's the game they
happen to be playing. But that's at least a level of problem. Maybe
their problem is how they are going to get back into the game they just
got out of, which is still a game within a game, you see? And maybe
their game is the fact their game has just been unmade, and they're
trying to unmake the fellow who unmade their game - vengeance, and so
on.

But they can make a game out of almost anything. And you have games
within games, and telescoping and running across games and you're busy
playing a game, something or other, and somebody comes along and is
playing another game with a little more heavy ammunition and shoots you
up while you're playing another game, you know? And it becomes
confusing, and so you lose sight of the fact that it is a game. You
weren't playing the game that hit you. But nevertheless, it does come
under these headings. The proof of it is, does this process well? Well
believe me, this processes well.

Let's just look at goal posts. Let's take an elementary game situation.
You have two goal posts and two teams. One team is trying to keep the
other team from coming into its goal post, and the other team is trying
to keep the first team from going into its goal post. So you ask the
preclear, "What can you protect?" See, there's something there that must
be partially attainable in order to be a game, and must be unattainable
in order to keep the game going. So, "What can you protect?" And he
finally tells you something he can protect. Remedy his havingness on it,
and immediately afterwards have him create problems connected with it.
Well, you have an elementary process there. You'd have to finish it off
by saying, "What can you reach?" You see? "What can you protect?" -
that's his goal. And "What can you reach?" - that's the other fellow's
goal. But you'd have to balance up havingness, freedom and problems with
regard to whatever he named that he could protect.

Maybe you ask this individual, you say, "What can you protect?" And he
says, "cigarette lighter." After a long comm lag, he can protect his
cigarette lighter. Fine, that's fine. Remedy his havingness with a
cigarette lighter, and then have him give you some problems connected
with the cigarette lighterinvent some. Sometimes you'd have to get him
to tell lies about the cigarette lighter before he'd invent anything
else but a lie about it. And then invent problems about it, and then
"What could he be free from?" with regard to a cigarette lighter. "What
could substitute for a cigarette lighter," anything like this, in order
to establish a freedom factor. And then "What could you reach?" And if
he's in this same groove, he could say, "I can sure reach Ronson for
selling me that bad lighter," or something like this. He'll get a game
activity going here. There must be somebody else, or something else,
attainable at this game level. We process him in this wise and he has a
tendency to come right on upscale.

One is pan-determined, then, on any game one is senior to with his game.
And one-sided in any game that he is playing.

So, we can rehabilitate these factors. It does work. And we do have a
predictable result. Now, even without this additional game material, we
are getting today tremendous gains on test profiles, consistently, under
good auditing with the ad interim SLP which appeared a short time ago in
the Operational Bulletin, and which you here were given. The ad interim
SLP, that's just merely, "What body would you like to have?" Remedy
havingness with it. "Good. What body would you like to have?" Remedy
havingness with it.

Now we're getting good results with just that, because the individual,
sooner or later, will run up into higher levels of processes. And this
is to be run with Invent Problems, and it is to be run, at the same
time, with some Separateness, which is part of the Remedy of Havingness.
So all factors are in that ad interim SLP and it's working very
smoothly, and it's showing very, very smooth gains. The difficulty with
it, of course, is that it doesn't undercut all the cases that we
process. All right, so much for that.

Just giving you a fast rundown here of what we have, and we can then
exteriorize from the problem of wondering whether or not we have a
predictable result. Yes, I can tell you very factually now having lost
some of the items for a short time, and having found them again with
some ardure, I can tell you and give you assurance on the fact that we
can get a predictable result in auditing without any worry about losing
some of it again.

We will go on getting these tremendous profile gains which are being
demonstrated in our Scientometric Testing sections. Our tremendous gains
in IQ. Of course this can be improved, but the funny part of it is, is
this is pretty darn good enough. It is just about 9000 percent better
than anybody ever did before, and we'll settle for that.

So, as far as processing is concerned, we have the Issue 8, SLP which
has to be graphed and set down properly and issued. But with this - with
this, we're actually at El Caney. There we are, there we are. There's
been a tremendous amount of know-how gone into this, tremendous amount
of experience. But look, we can not only produce these results, we can
train an auditor who can produce these results. You see, that is the
difference. See?

Now, organizationally we can, today, make a super executive. That sounds
very funny, but we're doing it, we're doing it. We're one by one, taking
the guys and gals in these organizations and saying, "The moving finger
points and you're it: three weeks intensive. When you come out of there,
you got an IQ of less than 160, we'll shoot you." And that's sort of a
spirit - an attitude. All right.

We always had trouble before with management. Me included. And it's a
relief right now, having just made another super executive on the other
side of the pond, it's a relief to get acknowledgments back without
anybody being urged to acknowledge anything. In fact we get
acknowledgments back so fast - and origins come in so rapidly - but the
acknowledgments come back so fast that they almost pass the cable we're
sending. It's wonderful. Things are happening; things are happening.

Well, all right. As we progress along that line we exteriorize a little
bit from the immediate organizational concentrations which we have had
and we start to think about a guy - in FDR's early campaign days he
would have talked about "the forgotten man," you know. He would have
said, "My friends, the forgotten man must now be remembered," something
like that. And that's the professional auditor.

Now, we have, still have, at this moment here in February of 1956, about
twelve hundred professional auditors in full practice throughout the
world. It's not very many, but it's still an awful lot when you look at
the awful beating the professional auditors had to take all these years.
What with techniques coming out and changed techniques and, "Let me see,
maybe if I get that last PAB maybe it will have in it the process that
will crack this nyrhh that's sitting in front of me." And this kind of
an uncertainty on exactly what he was doing kind of kept him
interiorized into techniques, just like I was in the organizations, and
their clinics were, you see? And you had to bird-dog it awful fast.

Of course, this does have its uses on a far continent. The other day an
auditor who had been away for three weeks, had been over to an island
and - on a vacation - came back and his center is a bit on the squirrel
side and not very popular locally. And a couple of the auditors who are
"right there on the orthodox line," you know, they were kind of waiting
for this boy to go crash anyway. And they were delighted to find, when
this chap came back, he sent out a bulletin to all of his friends and to
everybody in the area and said, "Come in and listen to all the latest
techniques." And they all came in and he stood up on the stage and he
read them material which they had had for three weeks. That was the end
of him. So it did have its advantages, did have its advantages. But here
was a point where if you had an advancing science which was very, very
alive and yet it didn't leave you with a complete and utter certainty
that every preclear you faced was a cracked case just because you were
sitting there, see?

This type of - actually it isn't cockiness, but this type of competence,
that when you'd look at somebody and he's limping, and you'd say, "Well,
he sits down in the chair, he's as good as well. That's that. That's the
end of that." You see.

No fumbling for "What am I going to run on him?" You just run this and
this and this on him and that's going to fix him up. You could relax,
couldn't you? You could certainly relax under a condition like that. Of
course, it's costing you a game and the game is: "What is the latest
technique?" So at once, at once, we must supply another game to fit in
that place. I'm not going to release SLP Issue 8 until I've got that
other game well established. I don't want to create chaos here.

So here we have - here we have then, this interesting fact of the
forgotten man, the professional auditor, getting some attention from the
two chief Central Organizations in the world in the United States and
the United Kingdom. I don't know whether he'll be able to stand up under
it. I think very - probably at first he won't believe it. And I think
that he will think there's a hook in this someplace, and he will wonder
about this, and he will a bit comm lag on it, and maybe not use it at
once and immediately, but I'm sure that he will come around to using it.

We have developed three methods of dissemination which places
Scientology out into the public ken, and which forms for the auditor a
group, to the degree that he cares to be active with these three plans.

Plan One is a very simple plan. It depends upon a newspaper ad.
Everywhere this thing has hit and has been well tended by the auditor,
and he's been quite alert to it, he's gotten rather swamped. And that
is, it says, "I will talk for you, to anyone, about anything. Call
_______" and the name, and the phone number, and the hours.

This actually is capable of producing enough commotion that it always
brings the big city papers around. And having been run in New York City,
Dick Steves claims that he has cut, I think something like a quarter of
a million dollars off the New York relief rolls or something on this
order. He's doing terrible things. I don't know whether he was joking or
not because - I don't doubt that he was - because when a guy like Steves
gets around, and so on, things happen; not always good, but they happen,
that's for sure. He's a genius at that. And he has been piloting this
program in New York.

Actually, the organization in the United States simply sent Dick up
there and said, "Run it." We had already tried it in Washington. I
dreamed this up in Washington, got it started in Washington and gave it
to a very, very poor auditor who was noted for blowing up on everything.
Horrible thing to do, but I did. I got ahold of him and I said "You run
this." And he made a howling success out of it, so much so, that he had
to leave it, quit and run.

Now, terrible libelous thing to say. I told him the same thing. I mean
I'm not saying anything I didn't say to him. I said worse to him; there
are ladies present here. When he cut out from under and left this setup
that he had running, we just stood and looked appalled, you know? He was
getting on the basis of four or five preclears a week. He would have to
have hired two or three more professional auditors to have helped him
out. He couldn't get a big enough room to have everybody meet in, and he
just skipped it. Too much havingness. We couldn't get our hands on him
and audit him. All right.

So immediately after that we sent Dr. Steves up to New York City and
said, "You start rolling." And we gave him a couple of dollars so he
wouldn't have to pass the hat and sell lead pencils on the street, and
started him in. And he's been most tremendously, interestingly involved
in everything. The only trouble is, he's not doing the thing whole-hog,
all the way. All he's doing is beating up the field, and people who come
to him he hands over to other auditors and groups in the immediate area.
He's not running his own group, which puts a little flaw into the
channel, as far as he's concerned. That is to say, it just splits the
program slightly because he frankly couldn't handle the number of people
who come to him. They call up day and night. We've even had the Problems
Unit in Great Britain and the Problems Unit in America being contacted
by the husband and wife of the same split-up couple. This is quite
fabulous. All right.

And then having developed this technology, we developed further
technology right here in London, and we found out this again is
tremendously workable. All right.

This does require a little finance. It requires enough money to put an
ad in the paper, and to have a place for people to meet. But we have
learned many things about this. One of the things is, don't solve the
problems when they call you up.

They call you up and say, "I want to communicate with my husband. My
husband has left me, and here I have these eighty-four kids, and so on,
and he's gone."

And you say, "Well, what could you do about it?" (This is the way not to
do it.) "What could you do about it?" Well, that's fine, "What could you
do about it?"

All of a sudden they solve the problem. You never hear from them again.
Well, that's all right, you've helped one person out and probably took
the last problem that person had in the whole world. You just wrenched
it out of their hands with a little hot auditing, you see, over the
phone.

You don't do that. You say, "Who do you want me to call? Come up here
and see me." And when they get there they say, "Fine, I've called them
and it is in the works, but very difficult. And here is some literature
about Scientology, and we have a group that meets here every Sunday. Be
here."

Not quite that crude, be a little kinder about the thing. But if you
look at his - on the Tone Scale, be tougher. Anyway, then you go ahead
and smoothly complete the person's communication.

If this person is in all that trouble with people in the world, they can
use a little understanding of life. And if you solve that one problem
for them, they're going to have another one next week. Thing for you to
do is to give them some processing. And the thing for you to do is to
get them in that group.

But, having gotten a group together, let me assure you that you will
again defeat your purposes by processing them in group every time you
turn around. You just lose your group. Group walks in, they get
processed, they say, "Terrific, wonderful, where's this been? My
goodness, up and at 'em." They get a raise and become general manager of
the firm - you never hear of them again. You know why?

They didn't know anything was there. They thought that you were a very
engaging person, and that it was a lot of fun being with these other
people and they had some idea of why they got that way, just because the
other people were so pleasant and they found out that everybody in the
world wasn't mean after all. And so they went away from there feeling
fine, and they thanked you very much and that was that.

And then they get out battling life, with no greater understanding than
before, no better tools with which to handle their fellow being, they
gradually go on down Tone Scale again to the place you found them in the
first place How's that? Because on a group basis you don't get the
strings of cognitions you get on individual auditing. You get some, but
you certainly don't place these people in any other than - well, they're
in good condition.

But we have something. Scientology amounts to something. There is
something there called Scientology. It isn't just a bunch of Group
Auditing, you see? And if you were to talk with these people, you might
have the experience, which one chap had, who had a mother-in-law of a
fellow who was being processed. Can you imagine a mother-in-law
interrupting somebody's wanting to be processed? But he - this fellow
did have a mother-in-law, and she was just death on Scientology. Oh, was
ughhhhh! And this fellow would go home from a session and "Yow-yow-yow,"
all night long, you see? The wife was a mild, meek, little thing and she
went to bed and the mother-in-law stayed up and chewed ... Anyhow, here
he goes.

So all of a sudden the auditor got a happy thought. Nice bright thought,
great big electric light bulb, blooming between his ears. And he tucked
a copy of Dianetics in his pocket and went over to see the
mother-in-law. And in spite of the fact that she obsessive comm lagged
at him, yappety-yappety-yap, he still got in the four dynamics - not
even the eight, see. The four, the first four dynamics; explained what
these were.

And finally toward the end of this time she started to cognite that
there was something organized about this, there was something there that
was useful, and she all of a sudden kind of got people separated apart
from a lump and herself. You see, people were divided into these two
categories - a lump and herself - to the categories of herself and
families and groups and man at large. And this was a tremendous gain and
it did her so much good she was just as friendly with the auditor, and
was insisting now that the son-in-law go get processed.

Now, here was an interesting thing, wasn't it? Well you and I are so
used to such a thing as the eight dynamics that we don't think for a
moment that anybody could go along without knowing these things.

Well, your groups don't know them. I can say that very bluntly.

You say, "All right, come on kid, give me the fifth dynamic. What's the
fifth dynamic?"

They'll say, "Dah." They'll say, "Me."

We have then, in that elementary technology, just that little stuff,
eight dynamics. If a fellow really knew these, rattled them off and
really had a good idea what the dynamic principle that life seems to be
progressing on was, and if he just knew this, and he knew that well,
he'd be able to handle life better.

And through that knowingness, would be able to handle people better and
get along better and he wouldn't keep slumping, because he wouldn't keep
meeting these tremendous, unsolvable problems like "a lump and me," you
know?

He could say, "Well, that fellow's awfully short on the fourth dynamic,
isn't he?" You know, that would mean something to him. He could get an
evaluation through about some leader, ruler or some friend. He could
classify opinions to some degree. He could get things into slots and
compartments and separate in his mind and think about them, and to that
degree would become a thinking. . . "Well, what's this? Eight dynamics -
that's nothing, is it?"

What if we started in, and after teaching him the eight dynamics, we
then started right in and taught him good old ARC. Affinity, reality and
communication, and the interdependency of these three elements and how
they were used.

Well this would be fascinating, and they, tsk-tsk up a bit, huh? Here
they go. A little greater understanding of life. What does life amount
to? What is the value of communication in life? In other words, they
could think about things. You're giving the man tools with which to
evaluate the universe about him. And as he evaluates it, so can he
understand it.

And what if after we did this with this group, we taught them a Tone
Scale? We taught them the various responses that people can have, the
moods of game, in other words. And we taught them where these responses
were, and how you could evaluate and predict people by finding them and
placing them on the Tone Scale. And then the Chart of Attitudes, and if
along with this we taught them just old Book One Axioms and nothing
else.

It's very fascinating how many of these people - they haven't any idea
what pain is. They couldn't possibly cognite on a thing like this. "What
is pain?"

"Well, pain is - uh - it hurts." Get the idea. I mean, "Pain, it's - it
hurts." They don't even think of pain as a penalty. They don't even
think of pain as something that could occur. They just hurt. They can't
even define it or isolate it or anything else.

Well, if you were to take these simple elements which you and I know
with such ease, you would find out that they had actually put their feet
on a ladder of knowledge and livingness so they could understand what
they were doing and understand what somebody else was doing, and so make
something more out of life than they're making out of it. And then if
you processed them along with this, they would be able to hold their
gains because they'd know what they were doing and where they were
going.

Fantastic to see that thee and me, but probably only really me, has
miscalculated to such a degree, on the basic knowledge not had by the
human being in general. He just doesn't have any basic knowledge. And to
some degree, I'd miscalculated this. So that you, in talking to people
about Scientology, possibly have a tendency to go upstairs someplace,
and you find out that if you could explain the first one of the eight
dynamics, you'd probably be in agreement with the chap. If you'd explain
to somebody how to handle agreements in order to create reality, or
something like this, you would have made a terrific advance.

It's - most of you have gone beyond any idea that these things are
fundamentally powerful to the individual in livingness. You live with
them all the time, it's so easy, you see, nothing to it. All right.

Now, if you did this then, you would do something else if you simply put
into action a couple of simple little auditing assists. A couple of ways
to get somebody to feel better. Then you would have given the
individual, with all of these understandings, a control of a part of
life he has hitherto been afraid of. And so giving him control of a
little part of life, he can knock out pain, something like that. With
what you teach him, he then becomes less afraid and more capable of
playing a game, just like that. And if you were to teach all this and
call it a basic course, and it was to be highly formalized against a
textbook, you would be doing an awful lot for your group. In other
words, if you were to teach these people these things maximally and
process them minimally, you would discover that your group would hang
together, would operate better, and would reach further into the
society. This is a certainty. All right.

Now, there are a couple of mechanisms that the forgotten man and girl
can use with regard to this. Supposing the Central Organizations were to
turn over to you any and all fees collected by reason of teaching a
basic course. Maybe you'd only charge three guineas for a six-weeks,
ten-weeks, evening, two or three-times-a-week course, you see. Maybe
you'd charge this much over a period of time. You could buy a textbook
that had an examination paper in it. You could give it and you could
then send the examination paper back to the Central Organization. It
would be marked and a certificate would be issued, if the person had
passed, to that person - to you, to give to that person. Be quite
interesting, a little certificate that says he's taken a basic course
successfully. He's really a basic course auditor. Now, that would be
quite interesting.

And you didn't send the organization any money at all. You, of course,
had to buy for a couple of very - some very small price, the basic
training manual, naturally, just as you sell books in anything else.
Little basic course manual which - I don't know, a couple of bob - with
its examination paper shoved in it in order to issue this person so he'd
have his instruction manual. And then you kept any fee that was charged
by you for that. That's yours.

I think you could collect an awful lot of people who would take that
sort of thing. You've got one dissemination there - that plan has been
very well tested and worked - you talk to people for people. You get
people calling in all the time, shove them into the group, teach them
how to live.

In addition to that, people who are only casually interested very often
don't like to invest in heavy or large memberships or anything of the
sort, but they will buy an associate membership.

Now, supposing after you'd formed your group, you could send to the
Central Organization and you could buy a card with a little pin. The
little gold

"S" with the double triangle behind it, and the little pin is shoved
through simply a postal card. And you can buy those things and you sell
them to group members for, let's say, five bob. All right.

You sell them to the group member and he simply buys it to buy the pin,
and sends in to the organization this card with his name and address,
the name of the group and your name on it. And he gets back directly
from the organization, by reason of this, an associate membership card.
That's simple enough, isn't it?

It's another small source of revenue, much smaller than the other, but
still a source of revenue, isn't it? And if you're going to teach people
Scientology and they're going to find out what they could expect from
Scientology, they could be expected then to get a little bit of
individual processing from the leading auditor of that group.

Now, how could the organization possibly afford to do this? Well, as a
matter of fact, occasionally out of these people will come people to be
trained as professional auditors, who themselves want their own groups
and so forth. It would work out. The sale of books and that sort of
thing would carry the expenses of doing that. But it does provide an
income.

"Well," you say "I don't want to go into this business of putting an ad
in the newspaper and having people calling me up day and night. And
besides, eight other fellows are doing it in my area."

There's another one: "Research foundation desires to examine polio
victims." That's the way the ad reads. You put it in, they start walking
up to the door. Because if there's anything polio victims, asthma
victims or any other chronic somatic victim - if there's anything in the
world that this individual will go and do, is go and be examined. This
is the one thing that he does well. And you examine him three hours and
he recovers. And you'll get a certain number of those people, because
this has happened, of course, will be very happy to join a group and
you'll get again some individual auditing from such people.

The third plan is called "casualty contact." You just read the
newspapers and wherever you see anything has happened, you call in and
give them an assist and leave your card. That doesn't require any
finance then to put an ad in the paper. The lawyers used to get into
practice by chasing ambulances up and down the street. And I don't
expect any of you to chase ambulances, because it's not dignified. I
want you standing on the front porch of the hospital.

You would be amazed. You probably are not totally cognizant of the fact
that the portals of the world are open to you. They were for many years
closed. But when an auditor qualified to be one is ordained as a
Minister in the Church of Scientology or Church of American Science,
which, by the way, has considerable requisites behind it, you
understand; it isn't just a DOD. This auditor discovers a new world. You
see, ministers never go casually to hospitals, sanitariums, police
stations and stray-dog meets. They just never go. They're home, worrying
about how they're going to talk the archdeacons out of a new wing for
the church.

Now, it's a horrible fact, but a very broad, extremely broad coverage of
ministers at large demonstrated that only 2 percent of these people even
vaguely considered that Christianity could do anything for anybody. Now,
there's the world of ministry, and the public is sitting right there
expecting ministers to turn up. And you turn up. Society believes you
exist, you exist!

You walk in, you've got a card, you are one. And probably you're much
better constituted, by the way, in our present organizational setup than
- well, I don't know. I've never asked a Baptist minister for his church
charter but I bet it's not as good as ours. That's a fact; it's a fact.
I have my doubts about some of these upstart churches that have spread
away from the faith of the founding church. They - I do, I definitely
do.

Anyway ... By the way, the organization is even in the - getting into
more and more of these - this lists all of the churches in the world and
their ratings and so forth. The organization is in those. And the head
nurse looks over and looks you up or looks at your card or something of
that sort. And then you want to go visit the accident ward or you want
to go visit someplace in the hospital. By the way, you can go anyplace -
surgery, contagious ward, anything. Evidently ministers don't carry
germs. You can go into contagious wards and walk out just easily. It's
very interesting.

So anyway we - you'll find consistently that, however, you won't get
much chance to visit patients. This is the bad part of it. All these
years these people knew ministers did this and nobody's ever shown up.
And there you are. And it's just like walking in and standing in front
of a vacuum.

The chief nurse of an insane asylum which is very, very ornery about
Dianeticists and Scientologists (that insane asylum is) - this auditor
went in there, and he had qualms because he'd never before made a call
as a minister. He had just had his ordination a very short time and
actually had only been out of his professional course for about two
months. He was still finding his feet, you know.

And he walked in expecting to be arrested, you know, expecting whenthe
second time when he'd go back that they'd have the police waiting for
him, at the very least. That they would throw him into a cell, that they
would recognize him as an enemy agent, almost any of these things could
occur. And he walked in and he just wanted to look over and find out if
any of the patients needed looking after, is anyone he could comfort in
the place, you see. That was the only thing he said and he kind of had
these lines stiltedly ready to get forth. He never got a chance. The
chief nurse got hold of him and escorted him through the place, all the
time talking to him about her problems. Very, very remarkable.

He, by the way, did quite a bit of good with regard to that particular
place. He went back every now and then, straightened things out, made
certain recommendations to the head of the hospital, and - who accepted
them very humbly, I assure you, and put them into effect. And things ran
a bit better because he had been alive.

What auditors normally do when they do visitation of this, and casualty
calls in general, calling on homes where somebody's been awfully upset
or somebody almost got drowned yesterday or the parents almost lost
little Betty, you know, anyplace you can pick it up in the newspaper. Go
around and pay a call and give a little assist.

What they do is they get embarrassed usually and forget to leave their
card, and they just never quite get brash enough about saying "Sunday,
you will appear at such and such a place." Because if they said that,
the people would just appear and that would be that. And they do a lot
of legwork, which they don't get group members for.

The other thing they do wrong about this, as long as we're on the
subject of the horribleness of it all, is they get the persons there and
they've got them there and the people are sitting down and following the
Group Processing all the way through and just doing wonderfully about
the thing, and they just never spark up and tell them any individual
auditing is available. Or they never tell them that there's anything
else available. See, they just don't push it. All they need is - it's
the tiniest little technique.

You'd be surprised, but people have to be invited, usually individually.
You know, you send out a form letter to a whole bunch of people telling
them to come in. Nothing happens. You have to individually invite them
to come in for exactly the same thing. In other words, it isn't enough
to put some literature in their hands saying "this service is available"
unless you also say, "Arrive. You have our permission to arrive."

Another thing is that ministers sometimes get embarrassed when they have
weddings or funerals dumped on their heads suddenly. You'd be surprised
what a young auditor looks like conducting his first marriage ceremony.
You'd think he was the bridegroom. But anyway, that is merely an entree
which is available, just as many things are available. But the main
point is that people handled in this fashion contain the answers to good
groups, individual auditing and so on.

Occasionally auditors get so successful at procurement that they stop
procuring and the group runs along beautifully for a couple of months
and then falls flat on its face. You know, they stop the program of
procurement and dissemination. They should always keep this up, always
keep it turning over. Treat the actuality of the group and handling it
and its preclears as a routine, and the other as a routine too, which
must be continued at the same time. It's very embarrassing for an
auditor to have a tremendously successful group in July and all of a
sudden have it disappear on the first of September. Very embarrassing.
He often stands around looking embarrassed, you know, when the landlady
comes too, and says, "Where is that rent?"

The organization is well aware of the fact that an auditor faces highly
practical problems. And these problems are the problems of food,
clothing, shelter, cash. And the organization today, in its
dissemination planning, would rather an auditor face the problem of
whether or not the Rolls Bentley is the right color, or whether or not
the Cadillac should have automatic changing tires or something of that
character. This is the kind of problem a fellow ought to have. As far as
these big chunks of masonry you see sitting around with big steeples on
them and all that sort of thing, they're not being used at all. And one
of the problems an auditor really should have is, to what use are we
placing these things. That's one of the problems he should have.

Quite distinctly, another problem: he should have the terrible problem
of the appropriations for mental patients and things like this, you
know.

The forgotten man, actually, is not very badly forgotten. But just
exactly how to place in his hands a considerable amount of give and take
in communication in life and the elements of immediate financial success
and practice were difficult problems. They were as difficult for the
organization as they were for the individual auditor, I assure you. And
these problems here, through the alertness of the organization and so
forth, have been piloted out and most of the answers have been
discovered along this line.

An auditor who has a group less than thirty or forty certainly ought to
be thinking in terms of, "Boy, there's an awful scarcity of people
here." And if an auditor has about fifteen hundred in his group, I would
be rather satisfied. I'd say, "Well, he's doing fairly well. He's young,
of course." This would be the spirit with which we should be tackling
things.

Now, having attained an El Caney, having attained an El Caney in how do
you collect a group and what do you do with them and how can revenue be
obtained along in this line, and an El Caney of stability on processes
and predictable results on the thing; and the organizations, having
attained some semblance of order which at least the organizational
people can live withand you'll learn to live with it too, sooner or
later, because it's not as disorderly as you remember.

You'll discover that another factor of course is needful, if we've taken
all these things, and that factor is San Juan Hill. That's a necessary
factor. If you've got all of these things, then what do you take?

Well, let me tell you that every great political leader who succeeds in
making nothing out of the mostest in the society, gets elected. Do you
realize that? You can look at every overwhelming landslide election and
discover that just before he was so elected, that political leader had
made nothing out of something, on a grand scale.

The populace then goes toward any organization or group of people who
obviously are making nothing out of something. That's a fact. They go in
this direction. It's a rather indicated thing.

Now, I invite you, by the way, to look over history and find the
popularity succeeding the great nothing-makers. US presidents and
British prime ministers alike have succeeded to enormous popularity, and
to their positions, on the heels of some salient victory over something
or other. It doesn't much matter what, as long as they made nothing out
of it.

Well now, on Earth today there is an element which threatens to make
nothing out of a great many things. Namely us, too. And that thing is
called atomic fission, and it is - threatens to make nothing out of the
works, to be technical about it, you know. It's going to smack
everything fiat. That's what they say. And that will be the end of all
of us, and it's so horrible nobody dares quite look at it. They get sick
at their stomachs in theaters and leave when they show too many pictures
of it.

Well, they're of course the - they're the big men these days, they're
the big men the way the gangsters say in Chicago, big men.

What's San Juan Hill? Well, I don't know, how about making nothing out
of the atom bomb? That's an interesting thing though. The thing that
everybody knows is going to make nothing out of everything places a
certain category of the society in an enormously powerful and
influential positionthe scientist, the physicist, the guy who couldn't
care less, really, even about that position; he's your key player today,
not your government. Nobody's interested in fighting governments,
nobody's interested in Scientology tearing down or building up
governments. Governments are governments.

Scientology is interested in the Scientologists in any area assisting to
the best interests of the populace as a whole, the government which
exists in that area. We're not a revolutionary group. But there is a
revolutionary group ahead of us on the track and that is the one that's
going to - says it can make nothing out of everything. So we could
easily make nothing out of it. How?

We are today the only people whose processes will actually cure or
handle, in any way, shape or form, atomic energy burns. And I stand on a
better security on that tonight than I did a short time ago. It is a
very odd thing that you'd flash a light at somebody, which light goes
through concrete walls, but it burns this body. That should tell you
that something is haywire there.

Actually, all - most standard processing - you get some guy's case in
order, and then you can cure his radiation burns with fair rapidity.
More work has to be done on this, but I can tell you right now that it
is the one thing that does something about it. Gives us a monopoly. More
importantly, it gives us this interesting position. Just being able to
cure this makes us the only civil defense agency on the face of Earth
today. Think of that for a minute. Because no other agency has the
knowledge or equipment to even vaguely handle it.

Now, our researches are going out at once in the direction of proofing
human beings against being affected by atomic radiation, which of course
makes nothing out of the bomb. Now, mind you, you know that an
exteriorized person who is no longer yanked back into the body (you know
this as auditors) of course is not influenced by things that hurt the
body. So it is true today that a thetan is not affected by atomic
radiation. We can put a being, a thetan, into a position where he cannot
be affected by atomic radiation. This you know in your experience line.
You think it over for a moment and you say, "Well, that's right. We run
a pain test on him. We get him used to the idea and of course he
wouldn't be affected by it."

We're trying to go further than that, much further than that because
that has no salability. That's pie in the sky as far as the public is
concerned. But proofing a body against atomic radiation is quite another
problem. And that problem is under study at this moment. And we have
gone so far in this program that we're already establishing the exact
format, and so forth, of the publications to be called "Radiation Burns,
Their Danger and Treatment," published by the organization saying, "See
your professional Scientologist and if you can't see him at least go to
a group and get some Group Processing. If you can't do that, why, god
help you."

Now, this program is a far look ahead. This program takes form about
August, complete with publications in the various bookstalls. And
between now and August we need groups. We need membership. We need big
membership already, and we need a lot of people who know that
Scientology is a formulated series of ideas which can do something,
because in every one of those people you teach in the basic course, you
have potentially a technical, not trained, but just a technical pattern
auditor.

In other words, by substituting for five thousand professional auditors,
five thousand basic course auditors, and then working toward five
thousand professional auditors in the very near future and then
increasing that, we can achieve the goal of actually having enough
people handy to make nothing out of the effects on a human being of
atomic radiation.

Now, maybe you're not interested in atomic radiation at this time. You
haven't just wasted enough of it, that's all. Maybe you think you can't
have it; it's delicious stuff.

But, the point is - the point is that the organizations today are the
only possible civil defense agency against the only threat which is
trying to make nothing out of the human race. And therefore in our
hands, whether we like it or not, there is resident considerable power
which is - assistive to those governments we are closest to. And we
therefore must be soundly trained and must be soundly organized and must
conduct our business soundly, because whether we like it or not we are
faced with a major responsibility that anyone can accept on this Earth
today. Because if we don't accept that responsibility we've got no
Earth, and that's the end of it.

All right. Now, if we, organizationally, can measure ourselves up to
doing something about this and to carry on forward with this, no matter
how poorly, at least take on some of this responsibility and carry it
forward in the direction of that goal, that's San Juan Hill.

Thank you.

Male voice: Thank you.

Thank you.

[auditor]

GAMES PROCESSING APPLIED TO AUDITING

A lecture given on 14 February 1956

Okay. Well, not having anything to talk to you about, I think that it's
possibly best if we go into a rЋsumЋ of games, and talk a little bit
about games and talk briefly about their comparisons and so forth to
processing, and the handling of life and preclears as a result thereof.
Would you like to hear about that?

Audience: Yes.

All right. The main difficulty in understanding life is the answer to
the question "Why?" And let me show you at once why this is a difficult
question.

It is obvious that the only thing that does a thetan any good, really -
very obvious - is separateness. This is the most obvious thing you ever
witnessed. You can put somebody in an auditing room and ask them to get
things they are separate from, one after the other, and their tone will
start to rise and do a very nice job of coming up the line.

If they don't mess up any energy in any way, if they are run very
smoothly with no breaks in the Auditor's Code, actually they just come
right on up. It's an almost - has to be almost an impossibly smooth job
of auditing however, because somewhere along the line something may
happen that lets them slip a little bit.

Well now, if we do that, and if this is very beneficial to the being we
call a thetan, to a human being, then we must ask this question: What in
the name of common sense is he doing getting all messed up with
havingness? Why do we see chaps going around driving these
eighty-nine-ton lorries and just loving it, you know? If it's so good
for him to be separate, why on earth does he insist on being connected?
For if we run "Tell me some part of this room with which you are
connected," he goes down, down, down and out the bottom.

So obviously there's no sense to it. There's no sense to any of this. We
say, "All right. It's very interesting. An individual goes out and he
keeps getting run into and he runs into things and he eventually
develops an obsessive inflow. And out of this inflow, he thinks he is
being separate when he's being connected and he gets badly mixed up. And
after that he doesn't know what he's doing, he merely gets confused, and
he becomes a - oh, a human being, a Homo sapiens or something." You
understand? All right.

Now, why, though? Why does a thetan who runs only on postulates and
considerations - and of this we are very sure - why does this being have
such a mechanism that will invert? So you hit him with a bullet, now he
wants to be hit with bullets. This is a fact. You could operate on
somebody to a point of where he begs to be operated on. I've seen men
lying in hospitals, lying there and smiling and so forth; they were all
very happy, you know, because they were going to be operated on the next
morning. Tzzzuhh! And I have seen - I have seen men lying in hospitals
in a white, cold, rage at all the medical doctors around and about,
because the medical doctors refused to operate upon them.

Well now, that's a funny state for a being to get into. We must then be
able to say, "Well, it must be that he really can't get into any trouble
and he's playing a sort of a joke on himself. He's pretending he can get
messed up and he really can't get messed up, and really then it's all
his fault, and he's as strong as he ever was." Only this doesn't obtain.
We start processing this individual and we find him lost somewhere in
the shuffle and unable to generate any further power or activity such as
he was once capable of doing.

Now, what about this? This sounds completely mad. And it is. Here we
have this individual, he does go down Tone Scale, he does need to be
picked back up Tone Scale. And the fact of the matter is that whereas he
will always exteriorize - when he, to be technical, kicks the bucket -
he will always exteriorize. He doesn't leave a bunch of dead,
underpowered thetans scattered in the body, he just shoves off. Whereas
this does happen, he does need help.

Well, how does this being ever come to need help? How could he possibly?
How could anybody ever need any help if at any time that his body
expired, he simply went free and there he was in an ideal state, flying
around through the clouds or nirvana or someplace?

Now, immediately we have these considerations. We could say to
ourselves, "Then it's just a sham. He really never needs any help - he's
just - it's something he's doing. I mean, he's just kidding himself.
He's just trying to be something." And we could shape these things up
and come up with no answer, because we would have missed the one thing a
thetan is doing regardless of what level we find him in: He is playing a
game. But to us this might mean, superficially, that he is involved in
such a way that he cannot really be sincere about it - he's being
insincere about what he is doing; he's pretending in some fashion.

No. No, no. Have you ever seen the faces of football players while they
were playing a game? Is there anything pretensive about them, hm?

Male voice: No.

Have you ever faced a lineup in a football game, looked at the opposite
side? Crash! There you are.

No, he's playing a game in a much wider sense of the word. He is playing
a game which he takes more and more seriously and then falls out through
the bottom of and gets interiorized into, at which place he finds
another game. And he starts playing this game and he starts going down
and he falls into and out of that game, and he gets into another game.
And he is pan-determined at any level where he is playing a senior game;
he is only pan-determined on games lower than the game he is playing.
And what do we mean by lower? We mean "of less magnitude."

Thetan gets down to a point of where he's just playing a game with
himself. You ask this question of Homo sapiens, you are struck with the
answer - the answer is fabulous. You say, "Can you get the idea of
fighting with something?"

And he'll say, "Sure."

And if you run this for a short time, "Now, what have you got the idea
you're fighting with?"

"Well, myself."

Oh no! Why should a man fight himself'? Why should a man be standing
here, evidently at the same time standing here? He's poverty-stricken,
he is sick, he can't support his wife, his children, he can't pay his
bills, he can't do anything, he's almost totally incapable and disabled,
and yet he is engaged in a fight, he says. Fight with who? A fight with
himself.

You say, "Well, that's fine. Then we will just simply process this out
so he won't have to fight himself, and he's all set." So we process him
and we drop him into a lower game. And now he can't do anything - not
even fight himself.

A boxer gets in the ring and starts boxing, and the next thing you know,
he's holding his punch a little bit; he's restraining his punch. We know
the mechanisms by which this occurs. We know that every forward motion
earns for itself some sort of a backflow. So he starts holding that
punch a little bit more, a little bit more and a little bit more, and
after a while, why, he wouldn't hurt - he wouldn't hurt a pup with his
blow. And of course, there he lies on the canvas. But there goes the
prize money, too. And afterwards, why, you'll see him hanging around the
showers saying, "Well, that big fight I'm going to have tomorrow." He's
had his big fight tomorrow - it happened years ago, the big fight he was
going to have tomorrow. He's punch-drunk, he's silly. He's still in the
middle of that game. That was the last important game that he played. Of
course that's in the line of a sport.

How about a scholar? He plays a game called "university." And he goes on
playing this game for years called "university." And you find him years
afterwards with a crew cut and his nose still stuck in a physics
textbook, and still right there in school. You'll find him stuck on the
time track in school. It was a fairly successful game, but here and
there he lost, and he interiorized into it and he's never gotten out of
it. This man is being employed - at the present moment, let us say -
he's being employed as an architect. And there he sits, apparently at
his architectural bench, happily drawing up plans of this and that. But
do you know he never feels satisfied with these plans, because nobody
ever comes along and marks an A on them. Fabulous, but we see these
manifestations.

A thetan is dead serious about one thing - playing a game. And he gets
so serious about playing a game, and he accepts its penalties and its
responsibilities to such a degree, that he tumbles into these games and
becomes parts of the game. Just like a hockey player becomes his hockey
stick, and then after a while of being the hockey stick, which controls
at least a puck, becomes the hockey stick and the puck. And because
these are both connected with the ice, winds up eventually a chunk of
ice. This is a fact. He's just getting into the game deeper and deeper
and further and further and further. He is so stupid about this, it's
fantastic. He never looks around and says, "The whistle has blown. The
gong has rung. The game is done. What am I doing out here in the middle
of this arena, lying here as a chunk of ice?" He never says this. He
evidently runs on an obsessive line which is strictly thisentirely this:
"There must be a game and I must be part of that game."

Fact of the matter is, I seriously doubt if anyone can process a thetan
to the total serenity which is considered so wonderful in that game
called "sit on a mountaintop" practiced by a bunch of my old friends in
India. I seriously doubt this. You could get him to play this game, but
examine one of those chaps sitting on the mountaintop, and you don't
find him at serenity on the Tone Scale at all. He may be sitting up on a
mountaintop, but to an auditor he would be down below minus below! He's
playing a game called apathy. "I mustn't have. I must deny my body. I
must deny all worldly things. I can't possess any of these things.
Something bad about them all. I must therefore be serene."

We get people every once in a while, take Scientometric tests, and they
go way up to the top on serenity. Oh, they're right there at the top. In
other words, they answer every question in it which puts them at top
serenity - 200 percent. We give them a little bit of auditing, and you
know what the next point is that we find them on? Zero serenity.
Complete agitation. They've gone where they should have gone in the
first place, but the test couldn't take them there. And we had to give
them some auditing to get them on the ladder. They're totally serene,
nothing bothers them.

The criminal is also of this characteristic - nothing bothers the
criminal. Nothing. He can go out and slaughter more old ladies, more
women and children - it's all right with him, doesn't affect him, affect
him, affect himbecause it's part of the game. And part of that game is,
"Nothing affects me when I'm cruel." It's fascinating, isn't it?

Now, we can chart the succession of games down through which people
fall, and we find that they go down the Tone Scale one right after the
other. But the funny part of it is, the Tone Scale only marks one thing
about games: It marks the mood of play, the mood of game - that's the
only thing the Tone Scale marks. It really doesn't characterize what
kind of a game he's playing. That game depends on his relationship to
the dynamics from one to eight. And he starts to play inverted games
below one.

Now, as you know, the first dynamic consists of the life unit of the
bodythe body, the reactive mind, the somatic mind, the various automatic
mechanisms, the thetan machinery - this is the first dynamic, the way we
look at it. We have to get clear up to the lower order of dynamic seven
before we find one of these all by itself, which is to say, the life
unit independent of body or mind. It's very curious, very curious.

What is this wild obsession? If it gets a man into this much trouble,
why does he do it? Just why does he do it? To play a game. Well, I know,
but that's not an adequate reason. Oh yes, it is. The thrill and
excitement of playing a game is good recompense. It is all the pay any
thetan ever needs. It is an adequate pay to let him go through almost
any trouble to achieve it. And he always has the feeling like he himself
is inviolate, really, down to the final analysis, and that he himself
will somehow or other come off the whole thing in the end. At least this
universe someday will run out of time track, and that'll free him from
all games. And of course he doesn't want this to happen.

Now, you think that an individual - that an individual is braced into
the past because the past was so inviting. Actually, he's braced into
the wins and loses of the past. And the wins are as bad as the loses -
they're just as bad. I know more preclears who have been processed on
loses, loses, loses, were actually stuck in wins. And I tell - I asked
an individual, "Is there any time when you won something? Can you recall
that?"

And he never gets any mock-ups, you know, or anything like this. And he
says, "Yes," he said, "I won a - I won a skating contest once."

And I say, "You have any picture?"

"Yes, as a matter of fact, that - is that what a facsimile looks like?"
He's stuck in the win. Because an absolute win takes the game away from
you just like a lose.

The mechanics and the considerations which go along with playing a game
are not very complex, but the activity of playing a game may very well
be very complex, and is sufficiently complex as to make evidently the
entirety of what we call life.

Why does a thetan wish to stay in conjunction and connection with other
thetans if he doesn't like anybody? Well, he has a hard time playing a
game if there's nobody else present.

Now, let's take the dynamics, and we go from one right straight up the
dynamics, and we discover that - without an inversion - that a person is
as capable as he can actually work up the dynamics as far as games are
concerned. He's just as capable as he can do this.

It takes a very capable man to be a member of a team, actually. The
capabilities of his immediate play, such as throwing a football or
batting and so on, are not his characteristics with regard to the Tone
Scale. Some of these star players are minus and below one. But the
fellows who are in fairly good shape can play up there at dynamic three.

Now, how about the fellow who is in an inverted dynamic three? He's a
group. He is compulsively, obsessively forced into being a group, like a
- oh, like somebody who's been grabbed by the government and thrown in
the army. They say, "You're a member of this company." He's on a sort of
a reversed third dynamic. He's - you know, he's not there by his own
choice, and he's playing a game that isn't quite his game - he doesn't
quite believe in it. There is no enemy, the country is at peace, and
there he is. And it's a real sour situation to him. He comes out of that
and you'll find him a little bit antisocial. See, something has happened
to his third dynamic and it is an inverted third now. In other words
he's forced to be there.

Now, if he is willing to be there, and if he's capable of being there
and if he can carry his own weight as a member of the team, you could
say he - and by "member of the team" we mean member of a nation, member
of a professional group or anything like that - just call anything a
team, any group. And we find that this individual is relatively
unstressed by the group. He can exist in groups easily. Groups are of no
great concern to him. He'd feel kind of happy if he was all by his
lonesome half the time and, you know, that sort of thing. He'd hate to
have to fall out of association with his fellow man.

Well, after you've forced him to be in association with his fellow man
for a while, then he starts to fall away with groups. Why? The other
factor of games has entered in: penalty. And one of the penalties can be
"forced to play a game." That's the worst penalty that could occur: to
be forced to play a gamewhich is the only thing he wants to do - play a
game. But the other ingredient is power of choice. Is he playing this
game on his own choice, or is he playing this game on somebody else's
choice?

Now, actually, you don't have to introduce too much power of choice into
a fellow to make a good team member. At least you have to say, "We pay
pretty good in the army. We give you good chow. There are a lot of good
fellows in here. Do you want to join? Okay, sign on the dotted line.
That's fine. Here you go." At least say that - even if you draft him,
say that, for heaven's sakes! Don't say, "Come here, you!" - send him
down to the supply sergeant and misfit him. He's had it from there on.

Now, a great many of the current games in which people are involved are
unknown to them. All they are is an effect of a game they are not even
onesided about. You see, they're effect of a game which is senior to
their game. You see that position?

So that this funny thing happens: Here you are, you're playing a game,
you're getting along all right - you're playing a game called store,
let's say, and you're doing all right. The customers come in, and you
sell them stuff, and the store down the street is trying to sell them
stuff, and you try to sell them stuff - you know, just a standard game,
it's - so on.

Somebody suddenly sweeps in from somewhere who is playing a game that
you know not what of, and suddenly tells you that your prices are now
double. And you say, "Oh no, double prices, less customers. Oh well,
we'll get on with it." And he gets on and plays the game, but he's a
little bit leery, because - what's happened to him? He's become aware of
another game that he can be influenced by, which he himself can't really
influence or play, you see? He doesn't have any real share in playing
this other game, but it can affect the game he's playing. Fabulous. He
gets along all right, he's a little bit leery about the whole thing.

Then one day somebody comes in and says, "You've been nationalized.
You're now part of the national distribution centers for cocoa." And
there went his game.

And he says, "Well, you can't do this to me." And he tries to think of a
reason. He says, "You'll - you'll - l - I won't - I won't be making any
money."

And you say, "Oh, well, yes. Nationalization - everybody makes money.
Here, take it! It's all right. You'll get more pay than you had before -
than you made in profit. See, you'll get more pay."

The fellow kind of says, "Well, all right." But the efficiency of the
store goes down. Why does it go down? Because he didn't have a part in
the larger game.

Now, democracy has entered in an ingredient which at least makes this
acceptable and permits a game to go on. In democracy he is the one who
can - no matter how small that vote is, and microscopic - influence the
government, and so he can have a part in the larger game.

Therefore, he always says, "Well, I voted against it and this is what I
get. But other fellows had the other idea. And well, I'm stuck with it.
All right. We still had a say about it. If I'd gotten out and talked a
little bit harder," and so on. But if he did vote for the organization
that did nationalize his store, he can then say, "Well, I did it," you
know, "I've had it, that's that. Here I am." That's the other game.
"Okay, I'll stay in here and play a game." In other words, there's still
an observable game.

Now, let's get two things then. There is the person who is involved in
an unobservable game and the person who is involved in an observable
game.

In the Western world, we have systems of government which permit the
individual to play an observable game wherever he is influenced by the
government or otherwise. He still has some little power of choice in
there, even though it's just one vote or his speaking up at a meeting of
his party or something of the sort, which influences that greater game.
If we were to take that away from him, we would get this other situation
where the unknown game suddenly sweeps in, knocks out his customers by
doubling his prices, suddenly puts everything on a ration - he knows
that all the warehouses along the river are jammed with cocoa and they
say, "You can only sell one pound per day."

"Oh no," he says, "this is it." So he begins to resist, resist, resist,
resist. So he's resisting the games in which he's involved. He doesn't
want to play that game.

Now, he may take up hobbies. He may take up something else. But if he's
in a government that doesn't permit him to vote, he won't get much
chance to do that.

Do you see, then, how the power of choice influences the game? It
doesn't much matter how - now get this, get this real straight - it
doesn't much matter how tough the game is. It doesn't much matter how
thoroughly arduous - you might say, to be colloquial, "hard-boiled" -
and mean this game is, how vicious are its penalties, how often he runs
across heads hanging from the telephone poles. He can survive in that,
don't you see, as long as he has some power of choice. He's - at least
belongs to one side - he's a member of the Green Shirts or something of
the sort. It's a brutal society but he can still survive in it somehow
or another because he has elected to be a member of the Green Shirts and
they're fighting the Blue Shirts, you know, and they're hanging
everybody. It's still a game, it's an observable game that he sees.

But, supposing everybody makes it very nice for him. Supposing everybody
takes care of him. Supposing there's no Green Shirts fighting any Blue
Shirts everywhere, and he has all kinds of leisure time. You know he'll
get an idea that a brutal game is being hit by a match straw. Do you see
what could happen there?

Now, the funny part of it is, if his power of choice is not consulted,
and he is put into a position of complete leisure and complete and utter
relaxation with no worries at all about food, clothing and shelter, the
next thing you know, he's down there in a dark meeting room saying "raw,
red revolution." Why? Revolt against what? And do you know ruler after
ruler in time immemorial has observed this phenomena and has never quite
accounted for it. "He did everything he could for them."

One great industrialist whose name I'm sure that you have heard
ofHershey, the maker of chocolates - in his old age spent a moment on
the top of his factory (which he had very beautifully built for all of
his people) surrounded, if you please, on all sides by howling crowds
who had poured out of their special Hershey - built homes to shoot at
him with live ammunition. They hated him. Why?

They never had any right in the game whatsoever. They had no rights in
the game. They had no power of choice in the game. Economic duress
forced them to work in the factory. They never had anything like a staff
meeting. They never had anything to say about anything. The next thing
you know, why, Hershey in his great benignity would knock down their
houses and build another row. Very nice houses, but nobody had asked to
move anybody from any other company house to another company house. You
get the idea? And those people went into red revolt, and they couldn't
have had it better.

So if you just drop out this business of "couldn't have had it better,"
if you just drop out the idea of what is comfort and what is punishment
and what is affluence - if you just drop these out of the computation,
we at once see what's happening. We at once see what's happening.

If we have a nation pulling together to pull itself up by its
bootstraps, you might say, and if everybody has agreed that we ought to
do this, the most terrific stresses can be put upon that nation, or the
best prosperity you ever saw could be put upon it, without wrecking its
morale. Do you see that?

But the second we tell them to be better for their own sakes because
we're going to make them so, or reversely, if we brutalize them without
anything being understood by them at all (unobservable game; they're
just being brutalized, it's not their game) - either of these two things
will cause a revolution because there is no game in progress in which
the individual can participate. And he'll make a game every time. You
follow me? He'll make a game every time.

So we have one great security about a thetan which tremendously affects
your auditing of thetans. One thing we really know: whatever his other
reactions are, he will make a game out of anything. No matter what state
we find him in, he's going to make a game out of it. And if he is given
no power of choice over the game which he really elects to play, no
power of choice over it at all, he will then create another side game.
Therefore, the idea of nationalization versus non-nationalization would
never be a point. Back of those things we would have lingering, "Is it
on our say-so or is it on somebody else's say-so?" Do you see that?

Therefore, actually, no democracy has anything really to fear from these
"superautocracies" of one kind or another. They really have nothing to
fear. In the long run, the autocracy's people will create a game of
their own choice. Now that is what establishes the creation of a game.

How far down do we have to go to find that we are doing it on our own
choice? And that's the game. How far back do we have to fall, how many
penalty ridges do we have to drop through, to at length find something
we can do of our own choice? Or how far forward do we have to attack,
and how much do we have to destroy, in order to assert our power of
choice and our capability in exercising it? And those two reactions can
always be counted on and are found in every preclear you audit.

Let's audit this way now: "All right, sit down. No, shut up. Now, I know
exactly what's wrong with you. Shut up. You - you're addicted to
mother-in-laws. That's the whole thing that's the matter. I know you
don't have a mother - shut up. All right. Now, I want you to run (and
you better had) - l want you to run things that are right about
mother-in-laws because I'm going to sit here and make you like
mother-in-laws."

What's going to happen? One of two things, established somewhat by his
games capability. He is going to fall back in processing to a point that
he considers his own game. Got it? See just how far back he's going to
fall? Now, he's going to find a point that's his own game and it doesn't
include you. And now let's go the other way - let's go the other way
forward or he's going to attack you to make a game out of this auditing
session wherein you are the opponent. One of those two things will
occur.

Now, the apparency to us is that he goes into apathy on the one hand, or
goes into violent rage on the other hand, and we have ways to handle
this. But what could you predict then?

Now, here's a great oddity. I have an auditing trick that occasionally
upsets preclears, particularly preclears that are very propitiative and
they just couldn't consider anything ever offending them in their entire
lives, you know? You know preclears, they're very ... And - particularly
this preclear reacts wonderfullythey all react on this somehow or
another - but this propitiative preclear reacts wonderfully. We start
running something, I've been very gentle, I've observed the Auditor's
Code, I've done everything possible, I'm seeing they're comfortable and
everything's going along fine. And we open the session very quietly and
we bridge every command and we're just doing nicely and so forth.

And then the preclear starts to run a little bit out of havingness or
something of the sort, or something like this happens, and starts to
dope off. Such a preclear does, rather easily. He's just upset rather
easily on his consciousness - his awareness balance is poor. And he all
of a sudden starts to dope off. And I ask him, "What have I done wrong?"

This fellow just comes out of it. "What have you done wrong? You mean to
say there's somebody in the world that could do?" This is the mechanism:
"You mean to say there's somebody in the world that could do something
wrong except myself'? You mean you have really wronged me? Let me see,
this is a new and interesting idea." And he comes right up out of it.
Continues to run the session very smoothly.

A little bit later gets agitated. Runs out of havingness again, you
know. The mechanisms are all there, but he gets quite agitated and gets
nervous and shifts his feet and so forth. And you know what you've done,
but you're just not going to take any time to remedy his havingness.

You say, "What have I done wrong now?"

He'll generally find something a couple of minutes ago that he can say
you did wrong. But he comes right out of it. Something occurs as you do
this.

Well, what have you done? You've destroyed any idea he had that you and
he were opposing teams. You've just overtly destroyed this idea with
him. He went down into havingness. He felt he was being reached by you a
little bit too tightly. He was trying to dodge a little bit. He thought
you were chewing up his masses. His consideration was that you were
about to eat him up whole cloth in some way or another and he started to
dope or get agitated - and he does this mechanically by running out of
havingness, which means something is getting his havingness - the next
thing he's going to do is assume it's you.

So you all of a sudden say, "What have I done wrong?" which is, "There
isn't this kind of a game going on here." You're saying, "We are
interested in putting you into a condition where you are capable of
playing any kind of game." We're saying, "We are fixing you up so that
you are an acceptable teammate." We're saying, "There's a lot of enemies
out in life, and you and I are conniving to just fix their clocks but
good." And he comes right up out of it. He feels much - alert and
stronger.

An odd mechanism, isn't it? But there are thousands of such mechanisms
involved in playing games - just thousands.

Life as a whole is a very hard thing to observe. It has enormous numbers
of facets in all directions. There is all kinds of peculiar reactions.
Why is it that this being is actually willing to make and guide a
caterpillar body and get et up every time it turns around? What fun is
there in being eaten every now and then? Occasionally, by accident,
being in the wrong place to be run over by a tractor. Just what fun is
there in that kind of livingness? Well, I don't know - not ever having
been a caterpillar. But I can tell you rather decidedly that there must
be some game connected with it. There must be some game connected with
it one way or the other, or he wouldn't be there.

And if we had an intimate discussion with a caterpillar, we would say,
"What are you doing?"

And he would say, "Well, I'm spinning a web and getting along all
right."

"Well I know, but don't you expect you'll be et up?"

"Huh! I have ways to lick that. I have ways to take care of that. Boy,
will I give the next guy that eats me indigestion!" All right.

So we get to the level of game which is observably a game to the
individual: It's where he has a response to the game play against him.
And somewhere a person has a response level, and that is his game level
that he considers a game. But the funny part of it is, as you raise him
up the Tone Scale he now has a wider response level. In other words, he
has the idea that somebody attacks him, he can attack them. Somewhere he
has this. And as we go up from there, why, there's more of him can
attack more of them bigger. And he can withstand more powerful and
treacherous attacks. He can respond on a game level. There is something
he can attack, something he can whip. And we put him up higher and
higher and higher, and he always is attaining what we call reality. And
reality is: What can he protect, and what can he attack? And those two
items form his reality.

An individual, then, who can only attack himself, and can only be
attacked by himself, must be playing a terrifically low-order game. But
it's real. It's a real game to him. That is the game that could be
improved. The funny part of it is, he won't let go of that game until he
finds a higher game where he can get a response; where he himself is
capable of a response to attacks which come in to him.

For instance, we find two little kids - they're eight years old -
they're fast friends, they fight all the time. They're inseparable, we
just never see them but what they're together. And they fight, fight,
fight, fight; we're pulling them off of each other all the time. We part
them. One moves away, goes to the other side of the town, both of them
become utterly disconsolate. Two little boys will always fight, one way
or the other, and they fight with those that they have a good response
to.

Now these two, oddly enough, will turn outward and fight others who
attack them. And we have a fairly good picture of brothers and sisters
andtwo sisters and so forth. Let somebody attack them as a duo and they
become a team. There's another game in progress. But with that game
lacking, they attack and counterattack each other, quite naturally.
Therefore, a game is in progress.

It's quite interesting to behold that an individual who has gone down to
the point of game where he can only respond to himself, where he can
only attack himself, still does so. That's what's fabulous - he still
does so. He can attack himself, he does. But if he does, he will figure
out a way for himself to attack himself. You got the idea? Because
that's his level of game, he's got it going both ways. And if he has it
going both ways, it's actually a game level and therefore responds to
all the rules of game. All the rules of game then apply.

Now, why do we use games anyhow? Why do we use this mechanism? Because
it's the most observable mechanism of life as a whole which we can
regard in a microcosm. Datum of gradient magnitude.

Things are comprehensible when understood by a datum of comparable
magnitude. We can understand God because we know about the Devil. We
understand God all by himself, and people say, "There is only one God,
and then the Devil." They have to say, "and then the Devil," because
nobody would ever grasp the idea of one God unless there were other gods
by which to evaluate it.

You would have a difficult time grasping the idea of the livingness of
another person if you yourself were not alive. You do have a difficult
time grasping the deadness of a rock if you are not a rock. You say,
"Well, that's a pretty dead rock." In earlier times, rocks were supposed
to have talked and walked and everything else - it was trying to
understand rocks. Well, maybe people could mock up rocks that talked and
walked, we won't worry about that. But certainly, one rock all by itself
sitting in the world would become a mystery - become a complete mystery.
Everybody would go and look at it. They'd say, "Look at that uh, that -
what is it?"

People would say, "Its name is a rock."

"How do you - how do you pronounce it? Oh, it's a rock."

That's an effort to get a datum of comparable magnitude - a syllable
called rock that will compare with a solid object called rock. But
people will still go and look at it, because there isn't another datum.
This is a two-pole universe, because it's a game universe. All right.

So they go down to Mecca and they see this lodestone which used to float
in the air, and there was only one like it anywhere in the world and it
formed a great mystery - completely aside from the fact that it was
supposed to float in the air. Actually there's no evidence that the holy
stone down there ever floated in the air - no evidence. But there is
ample evidence that demonstrates that there wa's an Emanator back on the
track which was one stone hanging in the middle of the air which gave
out atomic radiation and knocked guys flat when they looked at it. Good
recruiting mechanism, too, for somebody else's team somewhere.

Now, we must, at once, then, observe this fact about this universe -
that this universe is only as good and as visible as it is co-owned.
That universe which you mock up all by yourself, knowing you mocked it
up all by yourself, gets very thin and goes pffff! Unless you introduce
this other mechanism: You mock it up saying, "It's Joe's, he created
it." And then you've got it. Now that's just one mechanism. Well, that's
by consideration too, you know. But that one mechanism can be worked
into an enormous number of mechanisms, because it's the dual mechanism.

You say, "The other team's got it." Or you say, "The other team are
trying to get this and it's mine." And you didn't have anything to do
with creating it at all, see. But boy, is it solid. It's the nicest,
solidest thing you ever saw in your life, this mass that you have there
of some kind or another. It's being misowned. It takes actually two
sides to observe a playing field. Now, don't tell me that happened by
accident.

Datum of gradient magnitude is a little bit different. We understand
this big thing because we understand this little thing which contains
all the parts of this big one, see? So when we say "games," we are
saying just that. There are goal posts - you could figure out a game
that had twenty opposing goal posts, while you only had one goal post.
But there are goal posts, there are teams, and you're trying to get to
the other fellow's goal post and he's trying to get to your goal post,
and you are opposing him and he is opposing you. There is a playing
field and there's usually something to play with - such as a ball,
something like this. That's an elementary game.

Now, there are many other kinds of games, but they don't exceed the laws
of games. They require opposition, they require a bit of randomity, and
they require some mass connected with it. Do you see? It just requires
certain elements. Oddly enough, the elements are freedom, problems and
havingness - with a consequence below each one of penalties - and mood
of game.

Freedom can be a penalty: "You, Jones, will now leave the field."

A problem can be a penalty. Football men sometimes sit up all night
worrying about the enemy tactics. They finally get to a point of where
it is actually a penalty. They figure-figure and worry-worry and
worry-worry-worry, and it starts them worrying about life at large and
themselves in peculiar. Now, here we have a problem as a penalty:
"You've got to solve this problem. If you don't, that's the end of you.
Now you sit out there on the sidelines, Jones, until you finally get the
signals straight."

And havingness: "Jones, turn in your suit. Do not set foot in that
locker room again." You get the idea?

Now, penalties, then, fit under each one of these things of freedom,
problems and havingness. Now, we look at life at large and we take
freedom, problems and havingness and we stack them up on each dynamic,
and we find then how each dynamic can become a game. Freedom, problems
and havingness together can be a game, sort of mixed up on the "only
one" basis. The individual's fighting himself and he's fighting
something else, and we're not quite sure what he's fighting but he's
sure fighting something and it's sure fighting him. And there he sits
with an horrible expression on his face when we say, "Go over that
again."

Now, freedom, problems and havingness add up this way: Havingness on the
first dynamic would be the body, its mass. Problems would be the mind,
including the reactive bank, the somatic mind, and the ridges and
bric-a-brac and anchor points and stuff and junk, you know? It isn't
quite observable and it isn't quite mass, but there it is; and it
certainly co-mixes into a considerable problem. And then under freedom,
we have here, "thetan." We actually have these three parts being kept up
in the individual at any given moment. These are the three parts of a
game.

The mind, if we consider a mind the thinkingness action of a thetan upon
a body, assisted by various mechanical energy responses - if that is a
mind, and we could define it just that way - we would find that it was
capable of problems. It thought. It could pose problems to itself and
solve problems.

Thetan all by himself can go out there eighty-nine feet back of his head
and know all about it. No game. Total knowingness equals no game. Total
notknowingness equals no game. An absolute lose would be "Never play the
game again." An absolute win would be "This man is the champ. No
opponents."

Champion tennis player trots down to the court - he wants a little bit
of exercise, you know. He's all slicked up, and got the jersey on in
which he won the national finals of something, you know. And he goes
down there, and an old battered racket, and he's going to just fix
everything up fine.

He says, "Well boys, how about batting a few across the net?"

No game. Nobody to play tennis with. He's too good. Somebody humors him
finally, bats some balls at him, watches them come back with the
velocity of a high-explosive bullet. This fellow, after a while, he's
going to say, "Hm, now wait a minute here. I'm not getting any game.
There's nobody playing tennis with me at all. Well, I know what I'll
do," and I've actually seen a golfer do this, by the way, "I'll strap up
my arm because it's so bad off, and play golf with one hand." And he got
a game that way. His golf was never any good afterwards, either. But he
could play lots of golf, couldn't he? But having made the fatal
postulate "I shall limit the game," he then may continue to limit his
game. All right.

So we make a stable Theta Clear out of a preclear. We just sleek them up
- boy, are they smooth. And they go back to their group, and the group
says, "Boy, do you look good."

And the person says, "Yes, I certainly do feel good. I feel fine.
Haven't got a problem in the world."

And the group starts talking amongst itself, and one of them is saying,
"Oh, I'm having the most horrible time. You know what she said to me
last night? She said to me you (mumble) just one more time and I'll just
- boom!"

And the other one says, "Yes, I know how that is. I'm having an awful
lot of trouble with my husband, he's having a terrible time," and so
forth.

And they're talking back and forth. And this person sits there, gaahhhh,
saying, "I feel wonderful" - listens to this for a little while. And you
the auditor, a short time later, you pick up this preclear and this
preclear is duhhh. You say, "Be three feet back of your head," and they
say, "What head?"

You've educated them into what problems they can actually have. They can
have problems in performance. You've given them a new category of
problems, and they expertly can fix themselves up with these problems.
How? Very neat - neat but not gaudy, and very smooth.

What must have happened was that you audited them to a point of no game.
So we have as an actual technical term in Games Processing, a no-game
condition. And this occurs when one wins completely or when loses - when
one loses utterly. It's a no-game condition.

The fellow who still has to drive an automobile after his fifth accident
with automobiles - you know, trying to get away at the traffic lights
first, that was his game with an automobile, and he just - well, after
the fifth accident, he ... He's still driving an automobile. But what do
you know? It's a no-game condition, even though he continues to drive an
automobile.

Now, you see what fools us in life. He can tell us, "Once upon a time I
used to enjoy driving" - after a while he'll forget even this, you see -
" but I used to enjoy driving and now it's just drudgery. I don't know
what's happened." Trouble is, he's still playing the game that he lost.
He's lost this game so well that he knows he lost it, and he's still
playing it, so it is not a game.

And that is the only kind of livingness that is not a game: It's a game
that you're continuing to play after a totality of win or lose which
removes it from your reality of games, because you cannot any longer
really respond while doing it. You can be attacked without response, and
therefore it is not a game, and therefore it is not your idea of what to
do. And you haven't got any idea this is a good thing to do anymore. The
fellow knows he's just going to go to pieces if he keeps on driving this
automobile. He'll do anything he can think of to get out of driving the
automobile, but he has to go on driving the automobile. It's sheer
drudgery. The thought of taking a long trip is the most miserable thing
to him that possibly could happen. He's playing a game that he has lost.

And a race driver who has just cleaned up everything everywhere gets
into his pleasure car - he can beat all the drivers in the world, and
he's got to drive fifty miles up the line, and you'd think that somebody
was going to beat him the whole distance the way he grues about it. He
has been a champion. Maybe he's still champion, but he's no longer
driving races. And he's then no longer driving. Don't you see? So you
can go out the spout either way.

What your preclear objects to, then, is a no-game condition. And beware,
because the preclear, just as - just as soon as not, just as soon as
looking at you, will make a game out of auditing instead of using
auditing to find another game.

You as an auditor can audit this preclear with very little success, if
the game becomes auditing only, unless you break this and rehabilitate
his ability to play a game. Now, you are trying to put people back in
the game. You are not trying to free people. You are not trying to get
an opponent going. I'm sure you're not trying to make slaves. If we ever
wanted to make any slaves, god help the human race. We don't. You can't
play a game in that way.

There are enough native and natural, as you might say, natural-born
enemies to the human race to provide enough opponents for a long time to
come. We could sit here and discuss possible opponents for hours and
hours and hours, doing nothing but listing them. Nothing but listing
them. Man has more enemies than you could easily account for.

But in view of the fact that the individual man has no great response
value toward any one of these enemies - in other words, flu bugs attack
you, you certainly don't do much talking about and attacking flu bugs,
see? You get the idea? They can reach you, you can't reach them,
therefore that's a no-game condition. You've lost too often about the
subject of flu, colds. See? You know that can reach you, so it's not a
game, the combating of flu bugs. It then becomes an unsolvable problem
or some such category. Or "Somebody else is working on it. I can't do
anything about it," you see? You get the no-responsibility. It's then a
no-game. And the person sick with flu is in a no-game condition. Now,
why is he in a no-game condition? Because he has no response towards flu
bugs. Isn't this fascinating? Very fascinating.

Everywhere we look, we see that the individual complains about one
thing: a no-game condition. Therefore, would it follow that if we
processed only the parts of games, will we have a preclear then that
wasn't protesting? Will we have a preclear that'd be happy? Will we have
a preclear that would remain stable where we put him? Is that what would
happen? And the answer is, yes.

One, he stops playing a game with auditing. In other words, he stops
fooling around. He stops saying, "Well, you've broken the Auditor's
Code." He knows he has you in a certain set of restrictions whereby you
can't claw him. He knows the rules. He knows he's got a certain level of
response here. He knows you're not supposed to overwhelm him. All of a
sudden he will become more and more expert on the rules. He'll get so he
knows the Auditor's Code better than you ever did. You just watch a
preclear doing that.

Now, a Scientologist being processed by a Scientologist happens to know
the rules of the game - all too well. And he is very capable himself of
making a game out of auditing. Instead of a rehabilitation of a no-game
condition, he takes the game where he finds it, which is right there in
the auditing chair. And he uses that as a game. Now the funny part of it
is, is auditing doesn't work as a game. The maker and unmaker of games -
Scientology - of course is not itself, amongst Scientologists,
susceptible of game condition. You get the idea?

You as auditors then find that you are doing something else than
Scientology when you start to use Scientology as a give and take: "Now I
am going to be preclear and you're auditor, that's fine. Now you reach
me - touchЋ! Oh no, that's a break - I mean, that technique is not
supposed to run like that. I heard it, I know - I read it in the book,
the book's over here. Look-look, says it right there: 'What kind of a
body couldn't you spit on?'"

"Well, there you are now, running down my havingness - I'm shot. I'll be
a wreck all night. TouchЋ, we got the auditor that time!"

The auditor finally says, "This guy is a Scientologist, he shouldn't
behave like this. I'm trying to put him back in the running so he'll do
a good job of it and so forth," and he starts to reach the preclear.
Game condition, see? "Let's see if we can bury that thetan just a little
deeper." That, of course, is the automatic response to putting auditing
on a game condition.

You audit people to knock out a no-game condition, you see, in order to
create an additional teammate against another team. If you do it that
way, it runs like a shot. You never saw a guy audit so well as, "Just as
soon as I get you swamped up a little bit, we've got to start in on an
assembly line of preclears. You know, here they all are. All right. Now
I want you to run out and remedy your havingness of preclears so that
you'll have an easy time."

Zing, zing, zing - runs easily, "Let's go audit the preclear," see?

It wasn't a game that was occurring, because we're working as a team in
the creation of a team for a game which is going on, do you see? Whereas
auditing is the one thing which would make a game possible once more,
and keeps a game going at the same time. So it's very, very interesting
what occurs.

Do you realize that the psychoanalyst trying to reach deep and pick up
that childhood incident is simply trying to reach the goal being
protected by the patient. Do you see that analogy? He wants to reach a
goal of some sort.

Well, you're not therefore trying to find something wrong with a
preclearyou want to raise his capabilities. And you don't have to find
any goal in the preclear to raise his capabilities, you just exercise
him through his capabilities and he comes up and all of a sudden he's
able, and that's that.

Now, do you see what little bug we've been facing, then? Now, does it
look like - can you look back at some of the cases you've had to do with
and see that there might be a little something in what I'm saying here,
hm? It's fascinating, but it seems that looking at this thing called
games, in all of its parts, that we are looking at the macrocosm of
life. And so looking, maybe we can learn a great deal more about life
than we knew before. And we can certainly do a lot better job of
auditing. The auditing that's been going on lately is fantastic. I mean,
we're auditing faster and more surely than we've ever audited before,
using the component parts of a game.

We find the reality of the human race is penalties. And they can be
audited on penalties. And then pretty soon, having been audited on
penalties, they come up into a game condition, and they become happy
then, even though it's just shoveling coal. Okay?

Audience: Yes.

Well, I hope you can use the material. Want you to look it over and see
what you make of it. Okay?

Audience: Okay.

Good night.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[auditor]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
I BRUNSWICK HOUSE
83 PALACE GARDENS TERRACE
LONDON W8

OPERATIONAL BULLETIN NO. 4 11 NOVEMBER 1955

ALL AUDITORS
ALL CONTINENTS

SIX LEVELS OF PROCESSING-ISSUE 5

NOTE: Issue 5 of SLP is not a final issue of this operating procedure
and is subject to change especially in the matter of command wording.
However, the processes here reproduced have been evolved into a workable
state and have been run with success with the commands given. Issue 5 of
SLP is released at this time because it is better than previous
material, not because it is the final form of SLP.

With SLP is introduced a method of auditing and a new auditing
atmosphere which articulates the attitude best calculated to maintain
continuing stable gain in a case. The auditing atmosphere is ARC, with
gain marked by continuing rises in ARC. With SLP a somatic or boil-off
means reduced ARC and is an indication of an auditing break in ARC. With
SLP comes the COMMUNICATION BRIDGE, restarting sessions, maintenance of
high R, and liberal use of processing outside an auditing room.

All assist-type processes are outside SLP except for the present time
problem. The emphasis of SLP is on bettering the pc's reality and power
of choice.

LEVEL ONE
RUDIMENTS

These must be established at the beginning of every session. They must
be reestablished each time the pc tends to go out of session.

The rudiments are:

a. Find the auditor.

b. Find the pc.

c. Find the session environment.

d. Establish that a session is in progress.

e. Accept every comm the pc originates.

f. Acknowledge every command execution by the pc.

g. Agree upon the process and the command form before using and do not
confuse it.

h. Use two-way comm liberally.

i. Follow the Auditor's Code.

Deal with the present time problem which may be present at the beginning
or arise during or reoccur during a session.

k. Use a communication bridge at every process or area change.

1. Establish goals by two-way comm and the command, "Assign an
intention
to (auditor indicating object)."

m. Run SOP 8-C as given in The Creation of Human Ability until pc is
certainly obeying auditing commands and is under control.

LEVEL TWO

LOCATIONAL AND NOT-KNOW PROCESSES

Run in populated places, ambulant.

a. Energy Sources:

Have pc spot acceptable energy sources. Do not permit him to spot
statics unless he is ready for it. Run until pc can empower terminals.

Command:

"Spot an acceptable energy source."

b. Spotting Objects:

Have pc spot objects in a place with ample space and objects.

Command:

"Spot an object."

c. Spotting People:

Have pc spot people in populated places.

Command:

"Spot a person."

d. Separateness from Objects:
Have pc spot objects he is separate from, then objects separate from
him.
Commands:

"Locate an object from which you are separate."

"Locate an object which is separate from you."

e. Separateness from People:

Have pc spot people he is separate from, then have him spot people
separate from him.

Commands:

"Locate a person from whom you are separate.

"Locate a person who is separate from you."

f. Waterloo Station:

Have pc spot people about whom he can not-know something and then have
him spot people he is willing to have not-know things about him.
(Auditor selects persons.)

Commands:

"Tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that person."

"Tell me something you wouldn't mind that person not-knowing about

YOU."

LEVEL THREE
DECISIONAL PROCESSING

Run in quiet places or auditing rooms.

a. Think a Placed Thought:

The object is to train the pc to think thoughts exterior to his head and
thetan bank to obviate the "cave-in phenomena of Axiom 51."

Command (auditor indicating object or position):

"Think a thought in (on) that

Alternate command:

"Do you see that (object)? Think a thought in (on) it. Did the thought
appear where it is?"

b. Choice Rehabilitation:

Using the ability acquired in Level Three (a), have the pc make choices
between two objects indicated by auditor.

Command:

"From (indicated point) make a choice between (indicated positions or
objects)."

c. Directed Decision Rehabilitation:

Using the ability acquired in (a) and (b), exercise the pc on decisions.

Command:

"Putting the decision on (in) that (indicated object) make a decision_
about it."

d. Permissive Decision Rehabilitation:

Using the abilities acquired in (a), (b) and (c), turn pc loose on
decisions. Decisions must be outside head and bank.

Command:

"Decide something."

LEVEL FOUR
OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION

Done in an auditing room with a book and a bottle. Commands:

"Do you see that book?"

"Walk over to it."

"Pick it up."

"Not-know something about its color."

"Not-know something about its temperature."

"Not-know something about its weight." "Put it in exactly he same
place."

I "Do you see that bottle? "Walk over to it."

"Pick it up."

"Not-know something about its color."

"Not-know something about its temperature."

"Not-know something about its weight."

"Put it in exactly the same place."

"Do you see that book?" (etc.)

LEVEL FIVE
REMEDY OF COMMUNICATION SCARCITY

The object of this step is to restore abundance on any and all
communication possibilities. Done in an auditing room.

a. Create Confusion:

Command:

"Mock up a confusion."

Alternate command:

"What confusion could you create?"

b. Creating Terminals:

The pc may have to be coached into mocking up unknown confused black
terminals and thus into good terminal mock-ups.

Commands:

"Mock up a communication terminal."

"Mock up another communication terminal."

c. What Wouldn't You Mind Communicating With:

Duplicate the auditing command exactly. Don't red-herring (go chasing
after facsimiles).

Command:

"What wouldn't you mind communicating with?"

d. Creating Family Terminals:

Have pc mock up until he has an abundance of any and all persons he has
ever used as anchor points.

Commands:

"Mock up your (father, wife, mother, husband)."

him (her) up again."

LEVEL SIX

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS AND SPOTTING SPOTS IN SPACE Route 1:

An exteriorized step done as given in The Creation of Human Ability.

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER



*************************************


PAB 69
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR'S BULLETIN
THE OLDEST CONTINUOUS PUBLICATION IN DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY

VIA HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
BRUNSWICK HOUSE, 83 PALACE GARDENS TERRACE, LONDON W8

6 JANUARY 1956

SIX LEVELS OF PROCESSING
ISSUE 7
(REVISED)

This issue of the Six Levels is dedicated to only one thing-the clearing
of any level of case.

A careful analysis of its every part of every step will discover it is a
process in itself.

SLP 7 does not include many processes found in earlier SOPs and SLPs.
They are omitted not because they are not good but because they are not
entirely direct. They will reappear in later issues of SLP, no doubt. In
this No. 7 we do not have something which will then become something
else. We have a unique process series which while it retains form,
enforces simplicity.

The reason for this issue and its stand-to-the-side-of the evolution of
processing in Scientology is that Issue 5, and even 6 with its emphasis
on creativeness, used without enough selectivity, lose us the
intelligence and personality gains prominent earlier in the fall of
1955. The processes are still therethey are not being concentrated upon,
lost a bit, in the multitude of choices of No. 5 and No. 6. Thus No. 7
is especially made for staff auditors.

In SLP 7 the goal or finite end of any process given is detailed. The
actual rationale is delineated and the entirety of the processing is
done in accordance with one positively asserted assumption as follows:

When the pc goes more anaten than he is when not being audited, he is in
the grip of a real or affected Code break and is out of session. Any
drop of alertness is a drop of ARC, first with the auditor, second with
the bank, always. Therefore a drop of consciousness denotes a break with
the auditor which must be repaired before the session continues.

Done without the above strict rule, I cannot guarantee any success from
No 7. It is too strong a process series, in other words, to omit any
precaution.

Two-way comm must be stressed at all times.

LEVEL ONE
THIS IS WHAT GETS THE CASE MOVING
PROBLEMS

CHRONIC SOMATICS

The body of your preclear is a quivering hunger for overt acts. On
consideration level these are problems. The auditor begins his auditing
with this first barrier. He must surmount it by:

1. Two-way comm to establish good ARC

2. Directly remedying havingness of problems or

3. Remedy of overt acts by Creative Processing

4. Alleviating a chronic somatic or problem by remedying their scarcity
or

5. Increasing ARC until all problems or somatics seem unnecessary.

7I (a) Find the auditor.

7I (b) Find the preclear.

7I (c) Find the auditing area (light locational processing).

7I (d) Establish that a session is in progress.

7I (e) Accept, discuss every comm preclear originates.

7I (f) Acknowledge every command execution by preclear.

7I (g) Agree on process and command before using it and do not confuse
it.

7I (h) Use two-way comm liberally.

7I (i) Follow the Auditor's Code.

7I (j) [changed] Remedy havingness of problems by selecting
communication
terminals or universes (not conditions) and use command "Invent a
specific
problem _____ could be to you."

Note 1-Can be run with best gain by discovering "weakest universe" by
two-way comm about weak people and things and then using this person so
discovered as the name in the "blank" above.

Note 2 - "Invent a specific problem _____ could be to you" has a reverse
command: "Invent a specific problem you could be to __________ ;"
however,
this is the overt act side and should be handled with care if used.

Note 3 - At SLP 71 (j) chronic somatics can be alleviated (and should
be) by "Invent a problem your leg (or stomach or liver) (never your
lameness, your ulcer, your illness, as these are conditions, not
terminals) could be to you." Using mock-ups of overt acts to body and
having pc, when he has created them, even black ones, get how each part
or fragment of the mock-up is entirely dedicated to destroying the pc's
body and so make mock-up vanish. To the body, separation can occur from
anything only when it has done enough overt acts to the body to cancel
all obligation, obligation being the first bargain or agreement possible
to a free being (pledged word).

Note 4 - It is distinctively understood that within this or the next
step the chronic somatic will be alleviated before the clearing is
continued.

Note 5 - A very few pcs have lost the ability to invent problems with
any reality these run on "Tell me some lies about the environment," and
then or problems as above.

7I (k) Run pc on ORDERS. Two methods: Opening Procedure 8-C and direct
command, latter preferred. "Tell me some orders you wouldn't mind
receiving." "Tell me something that would obey you."

Note 6 - These commands are phrased to be permissive to the pc,
commanding from pc to environment.

Note 7 - Orders are an "all-the-way route." The wall is an order
(postulate) complicated by the order to be solid and endure. The reality
of the preclear depends on his ability to receive orders. If he can't,
he can't see a wall.

Note 8 - Don't stick the pc on one subject or object in running orders.
If the bank turns up an engram, don't insist he get parts of it he can
receive orders from. Also do not insist he take orders from various
parts of environment.

Note 9 - In Level One don't solve any problems. Increase by various
means as above, the problems preclear can have.

7I (1) "What could change you?" "What would leave you unchanged?" (Run
alternately one question, then the other.)

LEVEL TWO

THIS IS WHAT CHANGES THE SCIENTOMETRIC TESTS

7II (a) WATERLOO STATION

In a populated area (park, RR station, etc.) have pc tell auditor
something he wouldn't mind not-knowing about persons or the persons
not-knowing about him which auditor spots for him.

Commands:

Auditor: "Do you see that (man, woman, described slightly)?"

Pc: "Yes."

Note 10 - Make allowances for your pc's ability to see people clearly.
Run if possible with glasses off if he still has them.

Auditor: "Tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that
person. "

Note 11 - The pc selects things he already can know to not-know. He does
not give things he does not know anyway. This stress is the willingness
to notknow things one already knows. Otherwise pc will become confused.

Note 12 - If two-way comm won't keep the pc alert he is on stuck flow.
(See Scientology 8-80.) Run "other side" as below:

When pc to spotted person has been run flat or to a dope-off, reverse
to:

Auditor: "Tell me something you wouldn't mind that person not-knowing
about you."

Note 13 - Run one side for hours, then the other side, in ordinary use.

Note 14 - Observe that in SLP 7 we omit all other spottings. These are
good, but Waterloo Station is the cream of Level Two SLP 5, and auditors
have been too involved in lower steps to run Waterloo Station. For god's
sakes don't neglect it. It's the most valuable process in Scientology.
It handles TIME!

Note 15 - The goal of Waterloo Station is not to make the pc make one
thing vanish. That phenomenon is just the start. Auditors have been
quitting when the pc made somebody's hat disappear. When the pc can make
the whole universe wink on and off at his consideration to know or
not-know it, you're getting somewhere-so don't stop at a hat.

Note 16 - Don't give the pc back what he has just not-known. If he
not-knew it, he not-knew it.

Note 17 - If an auditor is so hungry for overt acts that he has to
provoke the pc into them by breaks and poor compliance with procedure,
just ask the pc to hit the auditor a few times. It'll remedy it.

LEVEL THREE
THIS IS WHAT EXTERIORIZES THEM

DECISIONAL PROCESSING:

Run in quiet places.

Preparatory: "What contracts could you break?"

7III (a) Think a placed thought.

The object is to train the pc to think thoughts exterior to his head and
thetan bank to obviate the "cave-in phenomena of Axiom 51. "

Commands (auditor indicating object or position):

"Think a thought in (on) that _____."

Alternate command: "Do you see that (object)? Think a thought in (on)
it. Did the thought appear where it is?"

7III (b) Choice rehabilitation.

Using the ability acquired in Level Three (a), have the pc make choices
between two objects indicated by auditor.

Command: "From (indicated point) make a choice between (indicated
positions or objects)."

7III (c) Directed Decision Rehabilitation.

Using the ability acquired in (a) and (b), exercise the pc on decisions.

Command: "Make a decision about that (indicated object) in or on that
(indicated object)."

7III (d) Permissive Decision Rehabilitation:

Using the abilities acquired in (a), (b) and (c), turn pc loose on
decisions. Decisions must be outside head and bank.

Command: "Decide something."

LEVEL FOUR

THIS BUILDS BACK THEIR WILLINGNESS TO LIVE

OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION:

Done in an auditing room with a book and a bottle. Commands:

"Do you see that book?"

"Walk over to it."

"Pick it up."

"Not-know something about its color."

"Not-know something about its temperature."

"Not-know something about its weight."

"Put it in exactly the same place."

"Do you see that bottle?"

"Walk over to it."

"Pick it up."

"Not-know something about its color."

"Not-know something about its temperature."

"Not-know something about its weight."

"Put it in exactly the same place."

"Do you see that book?" (etc.)

LEVEL FIVE

THIS MAKES THEM ABLE TO PLAY GAMES

REMEDY OF COMMUNICATION SCARCITY:

The object of this step is to restore abundance on any and all
communication possibilities. Done in an auditing room.

7V (a) Create Confusion:

Commands: "Mock up a confusion."

Alternate command: "What confusion could you create?"

7V (b) Creating Terminals:

The pc may have to be coached into mocking up unknown confused black
terminals and thus into good terminal mock-ups.

Commands:

"Mock up a communication terminal."

"Mock up another communication terminal."

7V (c) What Wouldn't You Mind Communicating With:

Duplicate the auditing command exactly. Don't red-herring (go chasing
after facsimiles).

Command:

"What Wouldn't You Mind Communicating With?"

7V (d) Creating Family Terminals:

Have pc mock up until he has an abundance of any and all persons he has
ever used as anchor points.

Commands:

"Mock up your (father, wife, mother, husband)."

"Mock him (her) up again."

LEVEL SIX
THIS EXERCISES AND STABILIZES THEIR EXTERIORIZATION

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS AND SPOTTING SPOTS IN SPACE:

Route 1:
An exteriorized step done as given in The Creation of Human Ability.

L. RON HUBBARD

FOUNDER