He hurt him, and then what did he feel?

What is sympathy? Regret, shame and remorse. Now, what is the next sequence here?

All right. And who was the person who tried to hurt little brother?

That’s right. Now, who is the villain of the piece?

And that is how they get these dopey combinations of sublimations and tokenisms and yapisms and so forth; you vary this thing around and you can see how the sublimation is on the left- hand side or the right- hand picture of the second dynamic, and you can do all sorts of weird things with it. Because it will manifest itself, if you don ‘t know the central computation, in many ways.

Here is another one: This girl feels very sympathetic toward animals and hates men. What has happened?

Yes. At what period before she started liking animals?

Well, yes.

She is very sympathetic to animals.

And hates men. What has happened? You’re on the right track.

Men in her life? Go on, give me the computation. Come on. Don’t let me upset you. What has happened?

Right.

The hell with what she identified. What has she done?

Bill: She felt sympathy for the animal.

Because she doesn’t identify. She will only feel sympathy toward one kind of animal for each incident. Now what has happened?

No, she hates men. Now, repeat what happened there: She loves animals, she hates men. She just thinks animals are too darling and that people are cruel to them. All right, what has happened in the case? Just repeat it.

Yes.

Now, wait a minute: She tried to protect it . . .

That’s right. And failed.

You see, there is a specific drama that goes on getting played over and over and over.

It’s possible. It could be that. She will give you the computation. As the auditor, you will know this computation.

All right, here is another computation: A girl is very sympathetic toward Jesus and she hates truck drivers.

Precisely. How has the church got it rigged? Why is the church successful as far as Jesus is concerned? Jed: It’s a reverse system because they’ve got

Come on. What’s the initial . . .

Yeah. We’re born with the offense against him. So what do we have to do for Jesus?

We have to defend him against everything, don’t we? Isn’t that right? (agreement from group) Particularly men and infidels! Isn’t that a great computation?

There is where you will find all the grief, regret, blame and so forth on the line. But where you run into it on the eighth dynamic, remember that that computation is on almost every Christian case.

It is on nearly every Christian case.

Now, if you are processing somebody who doesn’t have this particular type of religion— let’s take Buddhism— it is based on the same equation.

It is not a question of whether or not there is a God, whether or not there is Jesus, what happened and so forth; it is a question of how this is being utilized. You can see that it is being utilized and you can see that the utilization of it is to some degree aberrative, and in many cases demonstrates itself as a complete roaring insanity.

You go down to the spinbins, and this is the one that you will find uppermost in most of the cases you process.

I don’t know about that, because my research on this happened in California— in Los Angeles, as a matter of fact. And they are supposed to be very freethinking about the whole deal.

I have checked on through, and that religion which most believes that Jesus is sinned against and has to be defended at all costs by the individual, and which offers the least in the form of a Supreme Being to help defend Jesus, is the religion which will cause the most spins. You understand, this is not a critique of religion: this is a demonstration of a modus operandi.

Well, Quakers don’t go around defending Jesus. Very few Catholics spin.

No, the one that offers the least assistance from God. For instance, the Catholic Church— boy, does God help you out in the Catholic Church! They defend Jesus, but God helps you out. God is right there and so forth.

You take Christian Science, it doesn’t offer you just exactly this thing. God isn’t necessarily giving you a helping hand. And furthermore, they have caused the vanishment of the material universe, so they have a bad deal. There is nothing wrong with these. By the way, there are tremendous numbers of truths in any of these religions, because they are a combination of a great deal of study and thought in the spiritual and other fields.

But I am calling this to your attention because if you go on with this process and you go processing people, not sixty days will elapse before you will run into a case that is spinning madly on the equation I just gave you: "We have offended against Christ." And when the little girl realizes that she has sinned and it is proven to her she has sinned, she has then been given a target toward which she has sinned. Afterwards she has to be defensive; she will stay defensive

up to the time she is seventeen, eighteen, nineteen or twenty, perhaps. The real universe will fall in on her somehow or another. Then she will do a second one.

I want to bring this up: She will come off the sympathy line and just get mad and apathetic and all confused about the whole thing. A person who keeps failing in their effort to protect the "sympathee" will eventually just get mad across the boards. They just back off from the whole deal. This is where you get the computation hidden. But this does not even begin to really hide the computation against this regret- blame formula.

How does it come off? As hate.

As the emotion of hate.

Not necessarily. I have seen a lot of people pound with hate. I’ve seen some preclears practically grit their teeth into splinters over it as they go through. It gets pretty violent.

Scanning it. Don’t get them to articulate every phrase in it, because the phrases aren’t important. You have the mechanical basis which is underlying all of this.

Do you know what you’re doing? You are forcing a person into a secondary with that phrase.

Now, there is no doubt that this phenomena exists. This one we are not arguing about. But remember what I started out to tell you: you want to get this preclear up the tone scale past the counter- effort band. The fastest way to do it that I know of at this moment is just to speed him up and get him over the top of the band quick. And if you validate language as aberrative en route, you will slow his climb.

Well, you can get any type off the line. I am giving you what is the central computation on cases. You must remember that a person is hanging up also on this maybe. Just this process will normally knock out the maybes without you addressing them.

If you can do a fast job of auditing, theoretically you should be able to take a preclear from home for a few hours— theoretically, if you are really sharp and you are working with no waste of time and he is to some degree accessible— and work him with these various curves, and he would go back home a very fortified man. The environmental restimulation of his home or his work would be ineffective. Theoretically, you could do this.

If you get a case that is pretty tippy, you should bust them through this stuff in a pretty good hurry.

What I am giving you now is actually the basic, the commonest common denominator of which I know, practically, in working cases.

Let me go over these factors just once more. You find out the individual is sympathetic toward some portion of the dynamics and antagonistic toward another portion of the dynamics. You could find this out in two minutes of play if you wanted to just sit down and think the case through. So there is a sympathy line and there is an antagonist line.

Now, you could run into this baffler: He has picked out an antagonist from another sympathy line. He has two computations. You ask him what he is sympathetic toward in life and he gives you what he is sympathetic toward in combination A. Then you ask what he is antagonistic against and he tells you what he is antagonistic against in computation B. But B has its own B sympathy line, and A has an A antagonist. You can run into this, particularly in schizophrenics.

So there is the sympathetic target and the antagonistic target. You know immediately that the individual at some time in his life offended against the thing toward which he is sympathetic. And you know that this could have wavered: his sympathy can go back to further antagonism and that can go back to further sympathy. The curve doesn’t have to be just one swing; it could be "I hate you— poor thing. I hate you— poor thing," because he dramatizes the original curve. But there is actually only one first incident. He dramatizes this curve and so he just keeps in laying on the same emotional curve toward this subject. He could be alternately hating it and sympathizing with it.

You will run into a case, for instance, that has puzzled a lot of people in the past, where the person is saying, "I love my brother, but I hate him!" You say to him, "What did you do to him?"

"Well, I took his car," and he gives you a lot of late- time stuff. You run it back down the line on that curve and you will find the original thing. He hit his brother over the head with a flatiron or something and his brother felt very cold afterwards. He all of a sudden realized he had offended against this dynamic and he felt sympathy for his brother.

Four hours later his brother got up, figured out he had been hit over the head with a flatiron and went and got a baseball bat and banged your preclear over the head! Then the preclear could wear the somatic of being hit over the head with a baseball bat by his brother as the cause and reason for his hatred of his brother. Do you understand? This shows that he has been offended against, so he wears the badge of that offense. So it is just this cyclic proposition. It goes both ways. It can get awfully complex. So when you are looking down the barrel into a case, for heaven’s sake don’t be confused, because this is what is at the bottom of it: an overt and sympathy; later on there is defense of this thing being sympathized with against a new antagonist. He has to defend this against the new antagonist or be the antagonist. So he has to hate.

One could say the only reason one hates is an effort to reject being something one does not care to be.

What I have just mentioned there— being hit over the head with the baseball bat? That can be the service facsimile.

He has some reason to explain why he at will can offend against this antagonist now. He has the reason. That is really a service facsimile, if you want to get down to rock bottom about it.

That is not really the whole story on it.

[to Stan] How do your eyes feel? They change any?

Well, now, take a look. How about your eyes right now?

Do they feel changed? That’s all I’m looking for. Worse, or better?

Are they particularly bothersome right now?

Can you see dust now?

I wanted to ask you something else. I wanted to go back to what was said in relation to the blind man— that it wasn’t the speed of process or the preclear, it was the slow speed of the auditor. This emphasizes the need of having to in some way turn out a little better auditors. And this, I believe, should be the start of a nucleus of better auditors to achieve the miracles you spoke about in the lecture.

Well, the only danger that an auditor can run into is if, before he tries to work a case, he doesn’t get this principle in mind. Suppose he is still very foggy on this principle, he doesn’t have a concept of what this principle is: it would be up to an instructor to just go over this with the auditor, and over it and over it with him again, and then work it on him. That would be part of the training.

You would say, "This is what it is. This is what it is." Or you could just take an auditor and suddenly work it, and it would appear magical to him. Then you would explain the mechanics of the thing. In other words, we have a technique here which was necessary in training auditors. The techniques themselves, in the past, have very often not seemed real to the auditor because his case was in such a condition that he could not experience them. That is true, isn’t it?

I was called in to see whether— everybody likes to take a crack at a case. And I just asked him, "Why do you send your wife for processing if you believe Dianetics is no good?" And he said,

"Oh, my wife is bad off." I said, "Why do you feel your wife is bad off ?" He said, "You know, my first wife died."

And I did leave him for a little while. Then I told him to contact the incident when his wife died. He started crying and crying. I got grief for about three quarters of an hour. He admitted it, and so did his previous auditor (who was sitting in), that he never cried!

Now, actually, his sending his wife (this was my computation) for therapy is blame upon himself of the death of the first wife, fear of the death of the second wife. And the grief was his. And his blame and sympathy involved in there around the blame of the death of the first wife, he applied to the second wife. He wanted to cure the second wife, but actually, who needed more therapy was him than the wife!

Sure.

Sure. That was a very astute diagnosis. Fortunately, we have a technique that will just ladle it out.

Now, we should know this about visios: No visio at all is the assignment of a tremendous amount of cause to another individual. A visio, itself, is generally blame of self. A dub- in is a picture of somebody telling a story; that somebody is occluded. A dub- in case has been surrounded by somebody who has done nothing but evaluate, and this person is occluded. And the next step after occlusion is pictures.

You see, if he can subject himself to this all the time, he is paying a penalty. And there is where you get self- punishment.

Well, the cheapskate! He wants to get out of this punishment easy, doesn’t he? All you would have to do is talk to him about his guilt in life and so forth and he would start paying you well. You realize this?

Now, the point is that you have gotten somebody who is trained into free association. It is an educational process, and he will just keep on doing this. The best way to handle it is to blow up all past psychoanalysis. And one of the best ways to do this is run sympathy on doctors.

Doris: I think we will try that.

You can blow that stuff out pretty well, pretty easily.

Sure. And then, of course, a chiropractor brings a person up into present time. Don’t forget that. He doesn’t necessarily have to stay in present time.

I know about this one. There is a lot to bringing a person up to present time.

As a matter of fact, you can take tactile as a communication line on the insane, and you can sometimes produce some very marked results with tactile. You can throw a falderal into it of massaging his nerve centers and relaxing them, but that is not really what it is; it is tactile. You can get his nerve centers relaxed and so forth, and you have a tendency to key something out. But tactile is what it is. It is communication.

You say you want to get this preclear into ARC. He has to be in present time, so how do you get him into ARC? Part of ARC is C. And what is C? C is communication, and it is any kind of communication. You can actually get a preclear attentive to you by putting him into communication by blowing a very large automobile horn at him for five or ten minutes. He gets in communication, all right! He will get in communication with his own bank too.

There is only one slight difficulty. The communication is so enforced— so thoroughly enforced— that he will go into a hypnotic trance. And that is your danger in tactile, that you put the person into a hypnotic trance.

Mary: With audio. A horn is audio and tactile is touch.

It is communication. Communication isn’t just audio. Communication is defined as those sense channels one uses to contact the physical universe.

That is just another channel of communication.

Both of them. Any enforced communication line will. That is all hypnotism is— just an enforced communication channel by which you can put things into his counter- efforts. That’s all. You just take his counter- efforts and you get them all scrambled up with what you said. Then you use his counter- efforts to knock him flat.

Sure, he even goes into communication with you. But if you can keep it up— well, let me be very precise if you want to go into the technicalities of this: A constant, monotonous stroking or a constant, monotonous noise or a constant, monotonous anything on a sense channel fixates the attention units through that sense channel. What you want to accomplish is an unfixed present- time attention. So, if you use tactile, for instance, you would want to use it with randomity, not with a static. On tactile, don’t keep stroking the fellow’s back on and on and on. Stroke him in the back and hit him alongside of the head! Jolt him up. Shake him a little bit this way and then stroke him a couple of times and then work on the arms and then shake him some more and so forth. Just jar him around a little bit if he shows any tendency to

go out just because you touch him. But on the other hand, you can sometimes take a preclear and take hold of his hand and he immediately starts telling you all his troubles. This is tactile. Establish a communication line.

Whose fault was it? This thing keys, you know. The child has been told that this is why Mama is in the wheelchair. Oh, you hadn’t looked at it on that side.

There is an interesting reason why that series of facsimiles would be in there, completely aside from the discomfort. It isn’t quite true, but you can’t go far wrong if you just assume that your preclear could have been cut up, chopped up, fed into winding knives, hanged, drawn and quartered and everything else without any harm to himself, unless he elected to harm himself because of blame for the harm to the rest of the dynamics. That is a theoretical statement. If you tackle a case just with that in mind, you will find out that this sort of a thing causes an immediate resurgence on the tone scale. The second a person realizes this, he will go out the top.

A fourteen- month- old child? I am afraid you have to take into consideration some factors that we often try to figure out Dianetics without.

This is an interesting case. How on earth are you going to do anything for this case?

The case is not in communication. Come on.

But don’t stroke it monotonously— not the same stroke over and over and over again. Don’t try to be soothing; that is sympathy. And monotony is a static. You want this child to go into action, don’t you?

No, you don’t want that child to go to sleep at night. You want that child to get up on a point of the tone scale where it can handle its counter- efforts to some degree.

There is what’s wrong. The goal here was to get the child to sleep. That is the wrong goal. What you want to do is to get the child into action.

Now, mesmerism is very, very interesting. Any time you want to monkey around with something, monkey around with mesmerism. You will find out how closely all eight dynamics are associated. Believe me, they are really associated. You can take a person and you can

mesmerize him and pinch yourself without his knowing it and then find a welt on his body, just like that. People talk about the individuation of human beings— there isn’t any.

The most powerful thing you have is thought.

If you could contact the thought channel with no further complication on the case, you could blow it out. Theoretically, a person could get a powerful enough idea to jump himself up to the middle of the scale and stay there— theoretically. In fact, I have seen it happen, but it peeled off in six or seven months.

Who gave you that?

That is because they have resolved a series of about six or eight cases, one right after the other, by running out effort in birth. This is something like shooting seven sevens in a row.

That is why we brought out that Hand book for Preclears.

You generally can find them and you can run them. If you get a very, very low- toned case that can be gotten into any kind of communication, you can run any of this emotional stuff, but they generally won’t go up above an apathy type of emotion for a while. I’m a little bit shocked with this business about birth.

Let me tell you how this could come about: Everybody is scared of being stuck in birth. Okay, they find out that you can run birth with Effort Processing without running anything else on the case. "Whee!— let’s run birth!" This whole thing comes out of a very wrong idea. I can see how this would be. But that is a lot of malarkey.

That is seven sevens in a row. The eighth one is going to be something else. The tenth one is going to be something else. You could actually practice in Dianetics without ever touching birth or any particular facsimile in a case, beyond these blame- regret setups, and set people up so much better and so much faster than they have ever been set up before by a psychotherapy that you would make quite a splash.

Now, you take these miracle cases: they are very often pinned down very heavily into an effort facsimile, and you just have to run everything under the sun to get them off.

I wonder on these cases that they have run birth on. They have actually postulated the possibility of a recurrence of the disease or the illness or the deformity, because they haven’t got the computation on the case. But I know one of these cases will stay that way because they found the basic cause— a little girl’s sympathy toward another little girl. And the auditor ran that. It is what will work that counts.

[to Stan] Are you going to get that finished off?

Are you going to have that tape? Are you going to have a copy of this tape? Before you let anybody audit you, you have them listen to the copy of that tape. I don’t care if they say "So what?" or anything else. There would be no sense in chewing up your case, because you are maybe three or four hours from taking your glasses off for keeps.